Danish Physicians' Views on the Appropriateness of the Involvement of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Regulatory Decision Making: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Regulators, the pharmaceutical industry, and patient organizations expect an increased inclusion of patients' risk preferences in medical regulatory decisions, for example, with regard to market approval. Merging of input from patients with, for example, multiple sclerosis, with expertise from health professionals in regulatory decisions has already occurred. The complex task of involving larger and more heterogeneous patient populations (e.g. with diabetes mellitus, asthma), however, remains. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand physicians' experiences with factors influencing patients with diabetes mellitus perceived risks of their medicines and to explore how physicians, based on these experiences, perceive patients with diabetes to be suited for involvement in regulatory decisions. This study will provide knowledge that can improve the inclusion of heterogeneous patient groups in regulatory decisions. METHODS: We conducted five semi-structured interviews with physicians with different types of experiences with patients' risk perceptions (for example, being in contact with individual patients vs. being involved in developing guidelines at the population level) and one focus group interview with eight general practitioners in Sjælland, Denmark. We applied a thematic analysis to explore physicians' experiences of the risk perceptions of patients with type 2 diabetes and their perceptions of patients' fitness for involvement in regulatory decisions. RESULTS: The risk perceptions and preferences of patients with diabetes were perceived to be rather diverse. Four drivers behind this diversity were described: past experiences, personality, prognosis ability, and knowledge. The legitimacy of patient preferences was not questioned, but the diversity of risk perceptions made the respondents question the existence of a uniform 'patient voice' useful for regulatory decision making. CONCLUSION: The respondents acknowledged the relevance and legitimacy of the patient perspective, but it was a concern that patient risk perceptions, at present, are too diverse to be included in regulatory decisions. Whether patients make regulatory decisions as perceived by physicians needs to be confirmed by future studies.

Risk Perceptions in Diabetic Patients Who Have Experienced Adverse Events: Implications for Patient Involvement in Regulatory Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, patients are expected to influence decisions previously reserved for regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare professionals. Individual patients have previously represented their patient population when rare, serious adverse events (AEs) were weighed as part of a benefit-risk assessment. However, the degree of heterogeneity of the patient population is critical for how accurately they can be represented by individuals. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore patients' risk perception of rare, serious adverse effects of medicines with regard to blood glucose-lowering antidiabetics used by the individual patient. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 patients with diabetes with self-perceived serious, but not necessarily rare, AEs (e.g. stroke or valve or bypass surgery). The interviews explored the patients' history of disease, perceptions of the terms rare and serious, and overall levels of risk aversion. A thematic analysis of the interviews, including a consensus discussion, was carried out. RESULTS: Interestingly, respondents rarely made a clear distinction between medicines-induced AEs and complications related to disease progression. Concerns regarding AEs were apparently diverse but were systematically related to the personal experiences of the respondents. Respondents routinely ignored information about possible rare, serious AEs, unless it could be related to personal experience. In the absence of experience, concerns were focused on common and less serious AEs, thus disregarding rare and more serious events. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that experience of AEs, related to either medicines or disease, constitutes an important factor of patient risk perception. We therefore propose that serious adverse experiences should be added to the traditional panel of socioeconomic factors that are accounted for when patients are invited to give input on regulatory decisions.