Evaluating the "return on patient engagement initiatives" in medicines research and development: A literature review.

BACKGROUND: Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision-making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. SEARCH STRATEGY AND INCLUSION CRITERIA: We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut-off of publications after July 2018. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.

Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how.

The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.

Use of hydrogen peroxide-based tooth whitening products and its relationship to oral cancer.

UNLABELLED: Tooth whitening products containing hydrogen peroxide or carbamide peroxide were evaluated in this review for potential oral cancer risk from their use. Hydrogen peroxide is genotoxic in vitro, but not in vivo. Hydrogen peroxide was not considered to pose a genotoxic risk to humans. The animal toxicology data relevant to the assessment of the carcinogenicity of hydrogen peroxide do not indicate that it has significant carcinogenic activity at any site, including the oral cavity. Hydrogen peroxide was found to enhance the carcinogenic effects of potent DNA reactive carcinogens in experimental animals. However, these experimental conditions are artificial as they are related to high exposures and are of no relevance to potential human exposures to low quantities of hydrogen peroxide from the use of tooth whitening products. Clinical data on hydrogen peroxide-containing tooth whitening products show no evidence for the development of preneoplastic or neoplastic oral lesions. Exposures to hydrogen peroxide received by the oral cavity are exceedingly low, of short duration (30-60 minutes), and could not plausibly enhance any carcinogenic risk associated with exposure of the oral cavity to chemicals in cigarette smoke or to alcohol, both known risk factors for the development of oral cancer. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Based on a comprehensive review of the available literature and research, the use of tooth whitening products containing hydrogen peroxide or carbamide peroxide does not appear to pose an increased risk of oral cancer in the general population, including those persons who are alcohol abusers and/or heavy cigarette smokers.

Analysis of reproductive toxicity and classification of glufosinate-ammonium.

CONCLUSION REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM: Science Partners' Evaluation Group (Evaluation Group) has conducted an independent analysis of the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium (GA) relative to its potential to cause reproductive toxicity in humans. Further, the Evaluation Group has evaluated the implementation of Annex 6 of Commission Directive 2001/59/EC (28th ATP of Council Directive 67/548/EEC) and Council Directive 91/414/EEC, with respect to classification of chemicals posing potential reproductive hazards. After consideration of all information available to us relevant to the potential of glufosinate-ammonium (GA) to cause reproductive toxicity, the Science Partners Evaluation Group concludes that no classification of GA is justified. The following form the basis of this conclusion. There are no human data to suggest that GA causes reproductive toxicity in women or in their conceptus. The issue concerning possible reproductive hazard to humans is raised solely on the basis of positive animal test results that show GA to cause preimplantation or implantation losses in rats. SPECIFICALLY: a. Daily treatment with GA had no detectable effect on the earliest stages of the reproductive sequence including gametogenesis, ovulation, mating and conception; b. Treatment with GA interfered with rat gestation before and at the stage when the conceptus implants into the uterus. This effect occurred at doses of 360 ppm in the feed (corresponding to daily doses of 27.8 mg/kg bw) and above; and c. After implantation, no further effect of GA on prenatal and post-natal development was recognized. Previous concerns that GA might be toxic to embryonic stages after implantation were not supported by the data. Abortions and stillbirth seen were associated with, and regarded as secondary to, maternal toxicity. There was no evidence suggesting the induction of malformations in the offspring. The mechanism underlying this adverse effect in experimental laboratory animals is identified-inhibition of glutamine synthetase. Glutamine is essential to the viability of the embryo. The embryo is dependent on a maternal source of the amino acid. For embryo lethality to occur, a significant reduction of maternal glutamine is required. Such reduction in maternal glutamine depends on a significant inhibition of glutamine synthetase by GA. This can only occur when the mother is exposed to very high levels of GA. SPECIFICALLY: a. The reproductive toxicity of GA is confined to very short, early stages of reproduction, during which the conceptus is dependent on maternal glutamine; and b. In order for the effect to occur, significant reduction in maternal blood glutamine level is required, which in turn depends on a significant inhibition of glutamine synthetase, induced by high levels of GA in the maternal system. There is no evidence for accumulation of GA in the mammalian organism beyond a factor of two and no evidence for its metabolic toxification. To raise a concern in humans, women would have to be exposed to GA during the very limited time frame of preimplantation or implantation and the exposure would have to be to the exceedingly high levels necessary to alter the maternal metabolism and, correspondingly, result in glutamine levels in maternal tissue and blood plasma being drastically reduced. There is no basis to suggest that such exposures would occur under conditions of normal handling and use. SPECIFICALLY: a. Under conditions of normal handling and use, operators would never be exposed to GA levels that could potentially inhibit glutamine synthetase to the extent that this inhibition could impair preimplantation or implantation. b. All acceptable exposure measurements and predictive calculations confirm this conclusion, and in fact demonstrate that reasonably foreseeable exposure of workers would be to levels significantly below the AOEL. c. The evidence is also clear that there is no reproductive toxicity hazard to workers upon reentry tosprayed fields, bystanders, consumers or toddlers. The safety margin compared to the NOAEL in animal studies is sufficiently large to assure protection of the health of workers using GA as well as bystanders, consumers, and toddlers. Pursuant to Annex 6 of Commission Directive 2001/59/EC (28th ATP of Council Directive 67/548/EEC), to justify a classification of category 2 there must be sufficient evidence to produce a strong presumption that human exposure to the substance may result in impaired fertility in humans. It is the conclusion of the Science Partners Evaluation Group that there is no reasonable evidence to suggest a strong presumption of impairment. To the contrary, there is clear evidence demonstrating a strong presumption that exposure to GA would not cause the adverse effect demonstrated in rats. Pursuant to Annex 6 of Commission Directive 2001/59/EC (28th ATP of Council Directive 67/548/EEC), to justify a classification of category 3, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a strong suspicion of impaired fertility in humans. There is no basis to conclude that the animal data demonstrating impaired preimplantation or implantation has any relevance to humans in that the effect found in rats only occurs at levels which would never be experienced by workers under conditions of normal handling and use or by bystanders, consumers, or toddlers.

A review of the safety of DHA45-oil.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are natural constituents of the human diet; however, dietary intakes of these fatty acids are below recommended values. The main dietary source of DHA is fatty fish, with lesser amounts provided by shellfish, marine mammals, and organ meats. The addition to traditional food products of refined oils produced by marine microalgae represents potential sources of supplemental dietary DHA. DHA45-oil is manufactured through a multi-step fermentation and refining process using a non-toxigenic and non-pathogenic marine protist. Comprising approximately 45% DHA, and lesser concentrations of palmitic acid and docosapentaenoic acid, DHA45-oil is intended for use in foods as a dietary source of DHA. The safety of DHA45-oil was evaluated in various genotoxicity and acute, subchronic, and reproductive toxicity studies. DHA45-oil produced negative results in genotoxicity assays and demonstrated a low acute oral toxicity in mice and rats. Dietary administration of DHA45-oil to rats in subchronic and one-generation reproductive studies produced results consistent with those observed in oral studies using high concentrations of omega-3 PUFAs from fish or other microalgal-derived oils. The results of these studies, as well as those of various published metabolic, toxicological, and clinical studies with DHA-containing oils, support the safety of DHA45-oil as a potential dietary source of DHA.

An evaluation of the possible carcinogenicity of bisphenol A to humans.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a monomer component of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. These resins are used in numerous consumer products, including food-contact plastics. There has been considerable scientific debate about the relevance to humans of reported estrogenic actions of BPA. Much less attention has been focused on the carcinogenic potential of BPA. The carcinogenic potential of BPA was assessed through a review of metabolic data, genetic toxicity studies, long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity studies, and estimates of consumer exposure. Following a weight-of-evidence approach as recommended by IARC and U.S. EPA, it was concluded that BPA is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The bases for this conclusion included: (a) the results of an NTP study which provided no substantive evidence to indicate that BPA is carcinogenic to rodents; (b) the lack of activity of BPA, at noncytotoxic concentrations, in standard in vitro genetic toxicity tests; (c) the lack of genotoxic activity of BPA in a GLP-compliant in vivo mouse micronucleus assay; and (d) the results of metabolism studies showing BPA is rapidly glucuronidated without evidence of formation of potentially reactive intermediates, except possibly at high doses that could saturate detoxication pathways. In addition, exposure assessment reveals that current use of BPA would result in only a trivial human exposure.

Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) in food safety assessment.

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) is a principle which refers to the possibility of establishing a human exposure threshold value for all chemicals, below which there is no appreciable risk to human health. The concept that exposure thresholds can be identified for individual chemicals in the diet is already widely embodied in practice of many regulatory bodies in setting acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for chemicals whose toxicological profile is known. However, the TTC concept goes further than this in proposing that a de minimis value can be identified for many chemicals, including those of unknown toxicity, taking the chemical structure into consideration. This concept forms the scientific basis of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) '1995 Threshold of Regulation' for indirect food additives. The TTC principle has also been adopted by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in its evaluations of flavouring substances. The establishment of a more widely accepted TTC would benefit consumers, industry and regulators. In precluding extensive toxicity testing and safety evaluations when human intakes are below such a threshold, TTC would focus limited resources of time, cost, animal use and expertise on the testing and evaluation of substances with greater potential to pose risks to human health and contribute to a reduction in the use of animals. An International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)-Europe expert group has examined this TTC principle, which was based on general toxicity endpoints (including carcinogenicity), for its applicability in food safety evaluation. In addition, the group examined specific endpoints, such as neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity and developmental toxicity. The results of the expert group's considerations including the development of a guideline to apply the principle are discussed.