Paul Wicks

Sharing Health Data for Better Outcomes on PatientsLikeMe

Background PatientsLikeMe is an online quantitative personal research platform for patients with life-changing illnesses to share their experience using patient-reported outcomes, find other patients like them matched on demographic and clinical characteristics, and learn from the aggregated data reports of others to improve their outcomes. The goal of the website is to help patients answer the question: “Given my status, what is the best outcome I can hope to achieve, and how do I get there?” Objective Using a cross-sectional online survey, we sought to describe the potential benefits of PatientsLikeMe in terms of treatment decisions, symptom management, clinical management, and outcomes. Methods Almost 7,000 members from six PatientsLikeMe communities (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], Multiple Sclerosis [MS], Parkinson’s Disease, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], fibromyalgia, and mood disorders) were sent a survey invitation using an internal survey tool (PatientsLikeMe Lens). Results Complete responses were received from 1323 participants (19% of invited members). Between-group demographics varied according to disease community. Users perceived the greatest benefit in learning about a symptom they had experienced; 72% (952 of 1323) rated the site “moderately” or “very helpful.” Patients also found the site helpful for understanding the side effects of their treatments (n = 757, 57%). Nearly half of patients (n = 559, 42%) agreed that the site had helped them find another patient who had helped them understand what it was like to take a specific treatment for their condition. More patients found the site helpful with decisions to start a medication (n = 496, 37%) than to change a medication (n = 359, 27%), change a dosage (n = 336, 25%), or stop a medication (n = 290, 22%). Almost all participants (n = 1,249, 94%) were diagnosed when they joined the site. Most (n = 824, 62%) experienced no change in their confidence in that diagnosis or had an increased level of confidence (n = 456, 34%). Use of the site was associated with increasing levels of comfort in sharing personal health information among those who had initially been uncomfortable. Overall, 12% of patients (n = 151 of 1320) changed their physician as a result of using the site; this figure was doubled in patients with fibromyalgia (21%, n = 33 of 150). Patients reported community-specific benefits: 41% of HIV patients (n = 72 of 177) agreed they had reduced risky behaviors and 22% of mood disorders patients (n = 31 of 141) agreed they needed less inpatient care as a result of using the site. Analysis of the Web access logs showed that participants who used more features of the site (eg, posted in the online forum) perceived greater benefit. Conclusions We have established that members of the community reported a range of benefits, and that these may be related to the extent of site use. Third party validation and longitudinal evaluation is an important next step in continuing to evaluate the potential of online data-sharing platforms.

Accelerated clinical discovery using self-reported patient data collected online and a patient-matching algorithm

Patients with serious diseases may experiment with drugs that have not received regulatory approval. Online patient communities structured around quantitative outcome data have the potential to provide an observational environment to monitor such drug usage and its consequences. Here we describe an analysis of data reported on the website PatientsLikeMe by patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) who experimented with lithium carbonate treatment. To reduce potential bias owing to lack of randomization, we developed an algorithm to match 149 treated patients to multiple controls (447 total) based on the progression of their disease course. At 12 months after treatment, we found no effect of lithium on disease progression. Although observational studies using unblinded data are not a substitute for double-blind randomized control trials, this study reached the same conclusion as subsequent randomized trials, suggesting that data reported by patients over the internet may be useful for accelerating clinical discovery and evaluating the effectiveness of drugs already in use.

The power of social networking in medicine

AcknowleDgemenTS We would like to acknowledge the valuable comments of Z. Lynch, B. Booth, K. Perampaladas and H. Masum in shaping the overall study design and G. Williams for study data. This study was supported by New Enterprise Associates. J.C. is funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through the Grand Challenges in Global Health initiative. We also graciously thank all the venture capital firms for participating in our qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Patient-reported outcomes as a source of evidence in off-label prescribing: analysis of data from PatientsLikeMe.

Background Evaluating a new use for an existing drug can be expensive and time consuming. Providers and patients must all too often rely upon their own individual-level experience to inform clinical practice, which generates only anecdotal and unstructured data. While academic-led clinical trials are occasionally conducted to test off-label uses of drugs with expired patents, this is relatively rare. In this work, we explored how a patient-centered online research platform could supplement traditional trials to create a richer understanding of medical products postmarket by efficiently aggregating structured patient-reported data. PatientsLikeMe is a tool for patients, researchers, and caregivers (currently 82,000 members across 11 condition-based communities) that helps users make treatment decisions, manage symptoms, and improve outcomes. Members enter demographic information, longitudinal treatment, symptoms, outcome data, and treatment evaluations. These are reflected back as longitudinal health profiles and aggregated reports. Over the last 3 years, patients have entered treatment histories and evaluations on thousands of medical products. These data may aid in evaluating the effectiveness and safety of some treatments more efficiently and over a longer period of time course than is feasible through traditional trials. Objective The objective of our study was to examine the illustrative cases of amitriptyline and modafinil – drugs commonly used off-label. Methods We analyzed patient-reported treatment histories and drug evaluations for each drug, examining prevalence, treatment purpose, and evaluations of effectiveness, side effects, and burden. Results There were 1948 treatment histories for modafinil and 1394 treatment reports for amitriptyline reported across five PatientsLikeMe communities (multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, mood conditions, fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). In these reports, the majority of members reported taking the drug for off-label uses. Only 34 of the 1755 (1%) reporting purpose used modafinil for an approved purpose (narcolepsy or sleep apnea). Only 104 out of 1197 members (9%) reported taking amitriptyline for its approved indication, depression. Members taking amitriptyline for off-label purposes rated the drug as more effective than those who were taking it for its approved indication. While dry mouth is a commonly reported side effect of amitriptyline for most patients, 88 of 220 (40%) of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis on the drug reported taking advantage of this side effect to treat their symptom of excess saliva. Conclusions Patient-reported outcomes, like those entered within PatientsLikeMe, offer a unique real-time approach to understand utilization and performance of treatments across many conditions. These patient-reported data can provide a new source of evidence about secondary uses and potentially identify targets for treatments to be studied systematically in traditional efficacy trials.

Concordance between site of onset and limb dominance in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Background Focality of onset of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is not understood. Attempts to implicate physical exercise in the aetiology of ALS have provided inconsistent results. If physical use of a limb were important in defining the site of onset, then handedness might be expected to influence the side of upper limb-onset disease and footedness likewise in lower limb-onset ALS. Methods ALS patients registered with an internet-based support site were invited to complete an online questionnaire concerning site of onset of symptoms and their dominant hand and foot. A binomial test of proportions was used to investigate the null hypothesis that handedness and footedness do not influence side of onset in upper and lower limb-onset ALS, respectively. Results 343 ALS patients with limb-onset disease were studied. For upper limb-onset patients, there was concordance for side of onset and handedness (64%; p<0.0006). For lower limb-onset patients, concordance for side of onset and footedness was absent. The frequency of left handedness was commensurate with that found in the general population. Interpretation These results are potentially consistent with the hypothesis that exercise influences pathogenesis in ALS since routine physical demands on the upper limb are heavily influenced by limb dominance, whereas in the lower limbs the commonest function is standing or locomotion, which uses both legs equally. However, there may also be an inherent cortical vulnerability underlying upper limb-onset laterality, possibly influenced by changes in neuronal connectivity and cortical excitability in relation to handedness and reflected by the “split hand” phenomenon consistently observed in ALS.

Perceived benefits of sharing health data between people with epilepsy on an online platform

An epilepsy community was developed on PatientsLikeMe.com to share data between patients to improve their outcomes by finding other patients like them. In a 14-day response period, 221 patients with epilepsy (mean age: 40 years, SD: 12, range: 17-72, 66% female) completed a survey about benefits they perceived. Prior to using the site, a third of respondents (30%) did not know anyone else with epilepsy with whom they could talk; of these, 63% now had at least one other patient with whom they could connect. Perceived benefits included: finding another patient experiencing the same symptoms (59%), gaining a better understanding of seizures (58%), and learning more about symptoms or treatments (55%). Number of benefits was associated with number of relationships with other patients, F(4,216)=8.173, P<0.001). Patients with epilepsy reported an array of perceived benefits similar to those reported by populations with other diseases. Controlled sharing of health data may have the potential to improve disease self-management of people with epilepsy.

Time to deliver patient centred care

We must harness the energy, insight and expertise of patients, carers, and the communities that support them to help drive change

Innovations in e-health

The theme of ISOQOL’s 19th Annual Conference in Budapest, Hungary, was The Journey of Quality of Life Research: A Path Towards Personalized Medicine. Innovations in e-health was one of four plenary panels. E-health is changing the landscape of clinical practice and health care, but the best way to leverage the many promised benefits of emerging e-health technologies is still not clear. The Innovations in e-health panel presented emerging changes in technologies and applications that will facilitate clinical decision making, improve quality and efficiency of care, engage individuals in clinical decision making, and empower them to adopt healthy behaviors. The purpose of this paper was to present emerging trends in e-health and considerations for successful adoption of new technologies, and an overview of each of the presentations in the e-health plenary. The presentations included a personal perspective on the use of technology for self-monitoring in Parkinson’s disease, an overview of online social networks and emerging technologies, and the collection of patient-reported outcomes through web-based systems in clinical practice. The common thread across all the talks was the application of e-health tools to empower individuals with chronic disease to be actively engaged in the management of their health. Considerations regarding data ownership and privacy, universal access to e-health, interactivity between different types of e-health technologies, and tailoring applications to individual needs were explored.

SOD1 and cognitive dysfunction in familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

BackgroundSporadic Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (sALS) is associated with frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) or milder deficits of cognitive (predominantly executive) dysfunction (ALSCi) in some patients. Some forms of familial ALS (FALS) have a family history of FTD, ALS-FTD, or both, but there have been few reports of ALS-FTD in FALS patients with mutations of the gene superoxide dismutase-1 (SOD1 FALS). The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that ALSCi may be found in non-SOD1 FALS, but that SOD1 FALS patients would show little or no evidence of cognitive change.MethodsA neuropsychological test battery was administered to 41 SALS patients, 35 control participants, 7 FALS patients with a SOD1 mutation (SOD1 FALS) and 10 FALS patients without a SOD1 mutation (non-SOD1 FALS).ResultsRelative to control participants, non-SOD1 FALS patients had impaired performance on written verbal fluency and confrontation naming, and reported higher levels of executive behavioural problems. These deficits were absent in SOD1 FALS patients. SALS patients performed poorer than controls only on the Graded Naming Test. All ALS groups had higher levels of behavioural apathy and emotional lability than were found in control participants. Cognitive domains of memory, receptive language, and visuospatial perception were spared. Groups were matched for age, gender, premorbid full-scale IQ, anxiety and depression.DiscussionIndividuals with SOD1 gene mutations are less likely to have significant cognitive changes compared to non-SOD1 FALS patients. Cognitive abnormalities in ALS are heterogeneous and may reflect underlying genetic variations rather than a simple spectrum of extra-motor involvement.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Safety Event Reporting: PROSPER Consortium Guidance

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Safety Event Reporting (PROSPER) Consortium was convened to improve safety reporting by better incorporating the perspective of the patient. PROSPER comprises industry, regulatory authority, academic, private sector and patient representatives who are interested in the area of patient-reported outcomes of adverse events (PRO-AEs). It has developed guidance on PRO-AE data, including the benefits of wider use and approaches for data capture and analysis. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) encompass the full range of self-reporting, rather than only patient reports collected by clinicians using validated instruments. In recent years, PROs have become increasingly important across the spectrum of healthcare and life sciences. Patient-centred models of care are integrating shared decision making and PROs at the point of care; comparative effectiveness research seeks to include patients as participatory stakeholders; and industry is expanding its involvement with patients and patient groups as part of the drug development process and safety monitoring. Additionally, recent pharmacovigilance legislation from regulatory authorities in the EU and the USA calls for the inclusion of patient-reported information in benefit–risk assessment of pharmaceutical products. For patients, technological advancements have made it easier to be an active participant in one’s healthcare. Simplified internet search capabilities, electronic and personal health records, digital mobile devices, and PRO-enabled patient online communities are just a few examples of tools that allow patients to gain increased knowledge about conditions, symptoms, treatment options and side effects. Despite these changes and increased attention on the perceived value of PROs, their full potential has yet to be realised in pharmacovigilance. Current safety reporting and risk assessment processes remain heavily dependent on healthcare professionals, though there are known limitations such as under-reporting and discordant perspectives between patient reports and clinician perceptions of adverse outcomes. PROSPER seeks to support the wider use of PRO-AEs. The scope of this guidance document, which was completed between July 2011 and March 2013, considered a host of domains related to PRO-AEs, including definitions and suitable taxonomies, the range of datasets that could be used, data collection mechanisms, and suitable analytical methodologies. PROSPER offers an innovative framework to differentiate patient populations. This framework considers populations that are prespecified (such as those in clinical trials, prospective observational studies and some registries) and non-prespecified populations (such as those in claims databases, PRO-enabled online patient networks, and social websites in general). While the main focus of this guidance is on post-approval PRO-AEs from both prespecified and non-prespecified population groups, PROSPER has also considered pre-approval, prespecified populations. The ultimate aim of this guidance is to ensure that the patient ‘voice’ and perspective feed appropriately into collection of safety data. The guidance also covers a minimum core dataset for use by industry or regulators to structure PRO-AEs (accessible in the online appendix) and how data, once collected, might be evaluated to better inform on the safe and effective use of medicinal products. Structured collection of such patient data can be considered both a means to an end (improving patient safety) as well as an end in itself (expressing the patient viewpoint). The members of the PROSPER Consortium therefore direct this PRO-AE guidance to multiple stakeholders in drug safety, including industry, regulators, prescribers and patients. The use of this document across the entirety of the drug development life cycle will help to better define the benefit–risk profile of new and existing medicines. Because of the clinical relevance of ‘real-world’ data, PROs have the potential to contribute important new knowledge about the benefits and risks of medicinal products, communicated through the voice of the patient.