Can the Development of Orphan Drugs Include Wider Patient Engagement? A Citizens' Jury to Explore a Promissory Notion.
Saved in:
| Title: | Can the Development of Orphan Drugs Include Wider Patient Engagement? A Citizens' Jury to Explore a Promissory Notion. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Frost J; Health and Community Sciences, South Cloisters, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK., Mandizha J; Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, G18, Bowmoor House, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (Wonford), Exeter, UK., van den Dungen C; ABFFP Association Belge Francophone contre La Fibrose Pulmoniare, Avenue Cantelaube, Rebecq, Belgium., Asare L; Patient and Public Involvement, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK., Pope C; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK. |
| Corporate Authors: | Widening Engagement Patient Advisory Group; Health and Community Sciences, South Cloisters, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. |
| Source: | Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy [Health Expect] 2025 Dec; Vol. 28 (6), pp. e70524. |
| Publication Type: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Journal Info: | Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 9815926 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1369-7625 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 13696513 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Health Expect Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Original Publication: Oxford, UK : Wiley, c1998- |
| MeSH Terms: | Patient Participation*/methods , Orphan Drug Production* , Rare Diseases*/drug therapy , Drug Development*, Humans ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Anthropology, Cultural ; Community Participation |
| Abstract: | Background: Drug development practices for rare diseases promote a promissory notion that the drug pipeline will succeed (with the next new drug/drug trial) and an imaginary of widening patient engagement (often desired but yet to be enacted). Contemporary industry practices of patient engagement are shaped by this promissory, and engagement often includes limited patient perspectives, typically relying on patients from established Patient Organisations or identified by Contract Research Organisations. Objective: We sought to explore whether more deliberative methods might enable wider, more diverse patient engagement for orphan drug trials. Design: Citizen's Jury co-designed with patient advisors. Setting and Participants: Results of an earlier ethnography of a biotech company's patient engagement practices, along with findings from clinical trials for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, clinical practice and patient testimony, were presented to the Citizens' Jury made up of patients and carers. Results: Jurors discussed and offered a 'verdict' on trial materials and processes that would optimise the engagement of more diverse patients for drug trials for rare diseases, suggesting that more could be done at an organisational level to ensure that potential trial participants were able to 'engage'. They asserted that the industry could do more to understand the unmet needs and wishes of a wider group of patients and should seek input from more diverse groups. Discussion: The Citizens' Jury called for practices to enable wider engagement-for both drug trials and drug trial design-and more transparency about the risks associated with engagement, for individual patients and currently marginalised groups. Conclusions: Current drug development practices reify expert patient perspectives and often ignore the views of the wider group of patients who may participate in trials and/or use new medicines developed. More deliberative methods of engagement have the potential to democratise drug development and ensure that new medicines and trials meet the needs of a broader patient demographic. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory group (PAG) comprising six people with IPF gave input into all aspects of the research design and conduct, including co-design of the Citizens' Jury. Two patients from international patient organisations served as a steering group (SG). Members of both groups provided their interpretations of the study findings and gave insight into their experiences in clinical design and participation. (© 2025 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.) |
| References: | E. H. M. Moors and J. Faber, “Orphan Drugs: Unmet Societal Need for Non‐Profitable Privately Supplied New Products,” Research Policy 36, no. 3 (April 2007): 336–354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.12.006. H. W. Yoo, “Development of Orphan Drugs for Rare Diseases,” Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics 67, no. 7 (2024): 315–327, https://doi.org/10.3345/cep.2023.00535. E. Tambuyzer, B. Vandendriessche, C. P. Austin, et al., “Therapies for Rare Diseases: Therapeutic Modalities, Progress and Challenges Ahead,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 19 (2020): 93–111, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-019-0049-9. A. Hedgecoe, The Politics of Personalised Medicine: Pharmacogenetics in the Clinic (Cambridge University Press, 2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489136. EU. 2022. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, accessed November 18, 2024, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02001L0020-20220101. Food and Drug Administration. 2022. Patient Engagement in the Design and Conduct of Medical Device Clinical Studies: Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders, accessed November 18, 2024, https://www.fda.gov/media/130917/download. M. D. Witham, E. Anderson, C. Carroll, et al., “INCLUDE Writing Group. Developing a Roadmap to Improve Trial Delivery for Under‐Served Groups: Results From a UK Multi‐Stakeholder Process,” Trials 21, no. 1 (2020): 694, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04613-7. S. Jasanoff and S. H. Kim, Dreamscapes of Modernity. Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (University of Chicago Press, 2015). I. Galasso and S. Geiger, “Preventing ‘Exit’, Eliciting ‘Voice’: Patient, Participant, and Public Involvement as ‘Invited Activism’ in Precision Medicine and Genomic Initiatives,” in Healthcare Activism: Markets, Morals and the Collective Good, ed. S. Geiger (Oxford University Press, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865223.001.0001. I. Galasso and S. Geiger, “Genetic Research and the Collective Good: Participants as Leaders to Reconcile Individual and Public Interests,” Journal of Medical Ethics (2023), https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108867. D. Estlund, “Epistemic Proceduralism and Democratic Authority,” in Does Truth Matter?, ed. R. Geenens and R. Tinnevelt, Vol. 51 (Springer, 2009), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8849-0. C. Huyard, “Who Rules Rare Disease Associations? A Framework to Understand Their Action,” Sociology of Health & Illness 31, no. 7 (2009): 979–993, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01177.x. J. C. Watson, “Patient Expertise and Medical Authority: Epistemic Implications for the Provider–Patient Relationship,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 49, no. 1 (2024): 58–71, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad045. NICE. 2016. Nintedanib for Treating Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, accessed November 18, 2024, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta379. NICE. 2018. Pirfenidone for Treating Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, accessed November 18, 2024, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta504. C. Whitty and B. Loveless, eds., Chief Medical Officer Annual Report, 2021. Health in Coastal Communities, accessed November 24, 2024, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1004527/cmo-annual_report-2021-health-in-coastal-communities.pdf. M. Marshall, C. Pagel, C. French, et al., “Moving Improvement Research Closer to Practice: The Researcher‐in‐Residence Model,” BMJ Quality & Safety 23, no. 10 (October 2014): 801–805, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002779. C. Vindrola‐Padros, L. Eyre, H. Baxter, et al., “Addressing the Challenges of Knowledge Co‐Production in Quality Improvement: Learning From the Implementation of the Researcher‐in‐Residence Model,” BMJ Quality & Safety 28, no. 1 (January 2019): 67–73, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007127. J. Frost, A. Hall, E. Taylor, S. Lines, J. Mandizha, and C. Pope, “How Do Patients and Other Members of the Public Engage With the Orphan Drug Development? A Narrative Qualitative Synthesis,” Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 18 (2023): 84, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-023-02682-w. J. Frost, J. Mandizha, S. Jones, et al.Widening Engagement Patient Advisory GroupWidening Patient Engagement for Rare Disease Drug Trials: The Perspectives of Patients With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis on Participating in Clinical Drug Trials and Drug Trial Design,” Health Expectations 28 (2025): 2, https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70260. C. Bramhill, D. Langan, H. Mulryan, J. Eustace‐Cook, A. M. Russell, and A. M. Brady, “A Scoping Review of the Unmet Needs of Patients Diagnosed With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF),” PLoS One 19, no. 2 (2024): e0297832, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297832. R. F. Mendonça, S. A. Ercan, and H. Asenbaum, “More Than Words: A Multidimensional Approach to Deliberative Democracy,” Political Studies 70, no. 1 (2022): 153–172, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720950561. A. Bächtiger, J. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M. Warren, “Deliberative Democracy: An Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. A. Bächtiger, J. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M. Warren (Oxford University Press, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.001.0001. D. Vitale, “Between Deliberative and Participatory Democracy: A Contribution on Habermas,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 32, no. 6 (2006): 739–766, https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453706064022. J. Parkinson, “Ch. 3. Health Politics and Deliberative Techniques.” Parkinson. Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1093/019929111X.001.0001. M. D. Rawlins, “Pharmacopolitics and Deliberative Democracy,” Clinical Medicine 5, no. 5 (2005): 471–475, https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.5-5-471. R. Dean, J. Boswell, and G. Smith, “Designing Democratic Innovations as Deliberative Systems: The Ambitious Case of NHS Citizen,” Political Studies 68, no. 3 (2020): 689–709, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719866002. Nuffield Centre of Bioethics. 2024. Citizens' Jury: Exploring Public Views on Assisted Dying in England. Interim Report—Key Recommendations and Vote Results, accessed November 18, 2024, https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/assisted-dying-project. Centre for New Democratic Processes. 2024, accessed November 18, 2024, https://www.cndp.us/about-us/how-we-work/. J. Street, K. Duszynski, S. Krawczyk, and A. Braunack‐Mayer, “The Use of Citizens' Juries in Health Policy Decision‐Making: A Systematic Review,” Social Science & Medicine (1982) 109 (2014): 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005. M. Miles, A. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (Sage, 2014). J. Geissler, B. Ryll, S. L. di Priolo, and M. Uhlenhopp, “Improving Patient Involvement in Medicines Research and Development: A Practical Roadmap,” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science 51, no. 5 (2017): 612–619, https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017706405. D. Menon and T. Stafinski, “Engaging the Public in Priority‐Setting for Health Technology Assessment: Findings From a Citizens' Jury,” Health Expectations 11 (2008): 282–293, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x. K. Gillies, J. Brehaut, T. Coffey, et al., “How Can Behavioural Science Help Us Design Better Trials?,” Trials 22 (2021): 882, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05853-x. S. A. Kraft, M. K. Cho, K. Gillespie, et al., “Beyond Consent: Building Trusting Relationships With Diverse Populations in Precision Medicine Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 18, no. 4 (April 2018): 3–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1431322. J. S. Biggs and A. Marchesi, “Information for Consent: Too Long and Too Hard to Read,” Research Ethics 11, no. 3 (2015): 133–141, https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016115583381. F. Shiely, E. Murphy, K. Gilles, et al., “Trial Participants' Self‐Reported Understanding of Randomisation Phrases in Participation Information Leaflets Can be High, but Acceptability of Some Descriptions Is Low, Especially Those Linked to Gambling and Luck,” Trials 25 (2024): 391. D. T. Michaeli, T. Michaeli, S. Albers, T. Boch, and J. C. Michaeli, “Special FDA Designations for Drug Development: Orphan, Fast Track, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review, and Breakthrough Therapy,” European Journal of Health Economics 25 (2024): 979–997, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01639-x. P. Macnaghten, M. B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne, “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?,” Science Communication 27, no. 2 (2005): 268–291, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281531. A. Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (Routledge, 2002). A. Fiske, B. Prainsack, and A. Buyx, “Meeting the Needs of Underserved Populations: Setting the Agenda for More Inclusive Citizen Science of Medicine,” Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (2019): 617–622, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105253. T. Stafinski, J. Street, A. Young, and D. Menon, “Moving Beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens' Jury Exploring the Public's Values Around Funding Decisions for Ultra‐Orphan Drugs,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20 (2023): 633, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010633. J. J. Swigris, A. L. Stewart, M. K. Gould, and S. R. Wilson, “Patients' Perspectives on How Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Affects the Quality of Their Lives,” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 3 (2005): 61, https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-61. W. Zhang, “Hybrid Deliberation: Citizen Dialogues in a Post‐Pandemic Era,” preprint, arXiv, 2023, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.11412. C. Davis and J. Abraham, Unhealthy Pharmaceutical Regulation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137349477. V. Montori. 2017. Why We Revolt: A Patient Revolution for Careful and Kind Care. The Patient Revolution, Minnesota. V. Rabeharisoa, T. Moreira, and M. Akrich, “Evidence‐Based Activism: Patients', Users' and Activists' Groups in Knowledge Society,” BioSocieties 9 (2014a): 111–128, https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2014.2. D. Della Porter and N. Doerr, “Deliberation in Protests and Social Movements,” in The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. A. Bächtiger, J. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M. Warren (Oxford University Press, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.001.0001. S. Chambers, “Deliberative Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science 6 (2003): 307–326, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538. |
| Grant Information: | This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (Grant Ref: MR/W003732/1). |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: deliberative democracy; drug development; imaginaries; patient engagement; promissory, orphan drugs |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20251205 Date Completed: 20251205 Latest Revision: 20251207 |
| Update Code: | 20251207 |
| PubMed Central ID: | PMC12679173 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/hex.70524 |
| PMID: | 41347535 |
| Database: | MEDLINE |
Full Text 
Full Text Finder 
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | Background: Drug development practices for rare diseases promote a promissory notion that the drug pipeline will succeed (with the next new drug/drug trial) and an imaginary of widening patient engagement (often desired but yet to be enacted). Contemporary industry practices of patient engagement are shaped by this promissory, and engagement often includes limited patient perspectives, typically relying on patients from established Patient Organisations or identified by Contract Research Organisations.<br />Objective: We sought to explore whether more deliberative methods might enable wider, more diverse patient engagement for orphan drug trials.<br />Design: Citizen's Jury co-designed with patient advisors.<br />Setting and Participants: Results of an earlier ethnography of a biotech company's patient engagement practices, along with findings from clinical trials for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, clinical practice and patient testimony, were presented to the Citizens' Jury made up of patients and carers.<br />Results: Jurors discussed and offered a 'verdict' on trial materials and processes that would optimise the engagement of more diverse patients for drug trials for rare diseases, suggesting that more could be done at an organisational level to ensure that potential trial participants were able to 'engage'. They asserted that the industry could do more to understand the unmet needs and wishes of a wider group of patients and should seek input from more diverse groups.<br />Discussion: The Citizens' Jury called for practices to enable wider engagement-for both drug trials and drug trial design-and more transparency about the risks associated with engagement, for individual patients and currently marginalised groups.<br />Conclusions: Current drug development practices reify expert patient perspectives and often ignore the views of the wider group of patients who may participate in trials and/or use new medicines developed. More deliberative methods of engagement have the potential to democratise drug development and ensure that new medicines and trials meet the needs of a broader patient demographic.<br />Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory group (PAG) comprising six people with IPF gave input into all aspects of the research design and conduct, including co-design of the Citizens' Jury. Two patients from international patient organisations served as a steering group (SG). Members of both groups provided their interpretations of the study findings and gave insight into their experiences in clinical design and participation.<br /> (© 2025 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1369-7625 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/hex.70524 |