Enhancing involvement of people with multiple sclerosis in clinical trial design

Background: Although often overlooked, patient and public involvement (PPI) is vital when considering the design and delivery of complex and adaptive clinical trial designs for chronic health conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: We conducted a rapid review to assess current status of PPI in the design and conduct of clinical trials in MS over the last 5 years. We provide a case study describing PPI in the development of a platform clinical trial in progressive MS. Results: We identified only eight unique clinical trials that described PPI as part of articles or protocols; nearly, all were linked with funders who encourage or mandate PPI in health research. The OCTOPUS trial was co-designed with people affected by MS. They were central to every aspect from forming part of a governance group shaping the direction and strategy, to the working groups for treatment selection, trial design and delivery. They led the PPI strategy which enabled a more accessible, acceptable and inclusive design. Conclusion: Active, meaningful PPI in clinical trial design increases the quality and relevance of studies and the likelihood of impact for the patient community. We offer recommendations for enhancing PPI in future MS clinical trials.

[1]  M. Sormani,et al.  Enhancing diversity of clinical trial populations in multiple sclerosis , 2023, Multiple sclerosis.

[2]  A. Levin,et al.  Patient-centred clinical trial design , 2022, Nature Reviews Nephrology.

[3]  Jennifer M. Nicholas,et al.  Designing Multi-arm Multistage Adaptive Trials for Neuroprotection in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis , 2022, Neurology.

[4]  M. Nylenna,et al.  Training physicians in providing complex information to patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial , 2022, BMJ Open.

[5]  M. di Luca,et al.  The MULTI-ACT model: the path forward for participatory and anticipatory governance in health research and care , 2022, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[6]  C. McCulloch,et al.  Safety and efficacy of amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-blind trial , 2020, The Lancet Neurology.

[7]  G. Giovannoni,et al.  Systematic approach to selecting licensed drugs for repurposing in the treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis , 2020, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[8]  J. Stein,et al.  ASPIRE trial: study protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial of aspirin for overheating during exercise in multiple sclerosis , 2020, BMJ Open.

[9]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  REFRESH protocol: a non-inferiority randomised clinical trial comparing internet and teleconference to in-person ‘Managing Fatigue’ interventions on the impact of fatigue among persons with multiple sclerosis , 2020, BMJ Open.

[10]  Jeffrey A. Cohen,et al.  Determining the effectiveness of early intensive versus escalation approaches for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: The DELIVER-MS study protocol. , 2020, Contemporary clinical trials.

[11]  Christopher P. Dwyer,et al.  An examination of the effects of a patient-designed-and-informed participant information sheet in comparison with a standard, researcher-designed information sheet on recruitment, retention and understanding: Protocol for a study-within-a-trial , 2020, HRB open research.

[12]  D. Ehde,et al.  A randomized pragmatic trial of telephone-delivered cognitive behavioral-therapy, modafinil, and combination therapy of both for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: The design of the "COMBO-MS" trial. , 2019, Contemporary clinical trials.

[13]  R. Motl,et al.  Rationale and design of the STEP for MS Trial: Comparative effectiveness of Supervised versus Telerehabilitation Exercise Programs for Multiple Sclerosis. , 2019, Contemporary clinical trials.

[14]  Sian Rees,et al.  Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[15]  L. Petermann,et al.  Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research , 2018, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[16]  D. G. Altman,et al.  GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research , 2017, Research Involvement and Engagement.

[17]  J. DiMasi,et al.  Assessing the Financial Value of Patient Engagement , 2017, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[18]  William J. Cragg,et al.  Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies , 2016, Trials.

[19]  Lori Frank,et al.  The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. , 2014, JAMA.

[20]  David Moher,et al.  Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[21]  J. Watts.  Health and care , 2009, Ageing with Smartphones in Ireland.

[22]  C. Bentley.  The MS Society , 2008 .

[23]  Aisha T. Langford,et al.  Patient-Centered , 2007, The Diabetes educator.

[24]  G. Watts,et al.  Journals , 1881, The Lancet.

[25]  D. Ehde,et al.  Improving the quality of depression and pain care in multiple sclerosis using collaborative care: The MS-care trial protocol. , 2018, Contemporary clinical trials.

[26]  E. Waubant,et al.  Treatment of fatigue with methylphenidate, modafinil and amantadine in multiple sclerosis (TRIUMPHANT-MS): Study design for a pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial. , 2018, Contemporary clinical trials.

[27]  Ellen J. MacKenzie,et al.  Developing, testing, and sustaining rehabilitation interventions via participatory action research. , 2013, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.