Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVES: Lack of clarity on the definition of "patient engagement" has been highlighted as a barrier to fully implementing patient engagement in research. This study identified themes within existing definitions related to patient engagement and proposes a consensus definition of "patient engagement in research." METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify definitions of patient engagement and related terms in published literature (2006-2018). Definitions were extracted and qualitatively analyzed to identify themes and characteristics. A multistakeholder approach, including academia, industry, and patient representation, was taken at all stages. A proposed definition is offered based on a synthesis of the findings. RESULTS: Of 1821 abstracts identified and screened for eligibility, 317 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 169 articles met inclusion criteria, from which 244 distinct definitions were extracted for analysis. The most frequently defined terms were: "patient-centered" (30.5%), "patient engagement" (15.5%), and "patient participation" (13.4%). The majority of definitions were specific to the healthcare delivery setting (70.5%); 11.9% were specific to research. Among the definitions of "patient engagement," the most common themes were "active process," "patient involvement," and "patient as participant." In the research setting, the top themes were "patient as partner," "patient involvement," and "active process"; these did not appear in the top 3 themes of nonresearch definitions. CONCLUSION: Distinct themes are associated with the term "patient engagement" and with engagement in the "research" setting. Based on an analysis of existing literature and review by patient, industry, and academic stakeholders, we propose a scalable consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

Impact of multimorbidity subgroups on the health care use of early pediatric cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Although pediatric cancer survivors in the United States are at an increased risk of developing chronic conditions, to the authors' knowledge there is limited information regarding the types and combinations of conditions they experience in the years immediately after the completion of cancer therapy. METHODS: An observational cohort study of early pediatric cancer survivors (children who were ≥2 years from the end of therapy and aged ≤18 years) was conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan (r) Commercial Claims and Encounters database (2009-2014). Latent class analysis was used to identify comorbidity groups among the subset with ≥2 conditions. Group-level health care use was compared with survivors without chronic conditions using multivariate regression. RESULTS: A total of 3687 early survivors were identified, of whom approximately 41.2% had no chronic conditions, 22.5% had 1 chronic condition, and 36.3% had ≥2 chronic conditions. Among those with ≥2 chronic conditions, 5 groups emerged: 1) general pediatric morbidity (35.4%); 2) central nervous system (CNS) (22.4%); 3) mental health conditions (22.2%); 4) endocrine (26.2%); and 5) CNS with endocrine (3.8%). The CNS group experienced the highest expenditures, at $17,964 more per year (95% CI, $1446-$34,482) compared with survivors without chronic conditions. The CNS group also had the highest odds of an emergency department visit (adjusted odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.15-2.56). The endocrine group had the highest odds of hospitalization (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.24-4.22). CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity is common among pediatric cancer survivors. The current study identified 5 distinct comorbidity subgroups, all of which experienced high, yet differential, rates of health care use. The results of the current study highlight the complex health care needs of early survivors and provide evidence for the design of targeted survivorship services and interventions.

Multimorbidity and healthcare utilization among early survivors of pediatric cancer.

Early survivors of pediatric cancer are at increased risk of experiencing chronic conditions; however, little is known about the morbidity burden in this population. In this observational cohort study of commercially insured pediatric cancer survivors in the United States (2009-2014), we find that 22.5% of survivors had one chronic condition, and 36.3% had multiple. Compared with survivors without chronic conditions, the presence of multiple conditions significantly increased the odds of an emergency department visit by 70% (odds ratios [OR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.1) and of a hospitalization almost four-fold (OR, 3.8; 95% CI], 2.5-5.5). Findings are important for informing pediatric survivorship care plans in the years following completion of therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with enalapril but at a substantially higher cost. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of SAC/VAL versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between SAC/VAL and enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon. Markov states included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (II-IV) and death. Treatment discontinuation, HF-related hospitalizations, and NYHA class progression were modeled as transition states based on data from the PARADIGM trial. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, SAC/VAL cost more than enalapril ($81,943 vs $67,287) and was more effective (2.647 QALYs vs 2.546 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $143,891/QALY gained. At a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, SAC/VAL was cost-effective up to a cost of $298/month. Results were most sensitive to SAC/VAL cost, SAC/VAL mortality benefit, and NYHA progression probability. SAC/VAL had a 10% and 52% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SAC/VAL is associated with clinical benefit and may be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care over realistic treatment durations from the payer perspective. Results of this analysis can inform discussions on the value and position of SAC/VAL in the current market.