Skip to main content

Partnering With Patients in the Development and Lifecycle of Medicines: A Call for Action


The purpose of medicines is to improve patients’ lives. Stakeholders involved in the development and lifecycle management of medicines agree that more effective patient involvement is needed to ensure that patient needs and priorities are identified and met. Despite the increasing number and scope of patient involvement initiatives, there is no accepted master framework for systematic patient involvement in industry-led medicines research and development, regulatory review, or market access decisions. Patient engagement is very productive in some indications, but inconsistent and fragmentary on a broader level. This often results in inefficient drug development, increasing evidence requirements, lack of patient-centered outcomes that address unmet medical needs and facilitate adherence, and consequently, lack of required therapeutic options and high costs to society and involved parties. Improved patient involvement can drive the development of innovative medicines that deliver more relevant and impactful patient outcomes and make medicine development faster, more efficient, and more productive. It can lead to better prioritization of early research; improved resource allocation; improved trial protocol designs that better reflect patient needs; and, by addressing potential barriers to patient participation, enhanced recruitment and retention. It may also improve trial conduct and lead to more focused, economically viable clinical trials. At launch and beyond, systematic patient involvement can also improve the ongoing benefit-risk assessment, ensure that public funds prioritize medicines of value to patients, and further the development of the medicine. Progress toward a universal framework for patient involvement requires a joint, precompetitive, and international approach by all stakeholders, working in true partnership to consolidate outputs from existing initiatives, identify gaps, and develop a comprehensive framework. It is essential that all stakeholders participate to drive adoption and implementation of the framework and to ensure that patients and their needs are embedded at the heart of medicines development and lifecycle management.


  1. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Biopharmaceutical research industry profile. Published July 2013. Accessed September 2014.

  2. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. Pricing of medicines. Published 2014. Accessed December 2014.

  3. Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:203–214.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:206–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Ioannidis JP. Improving the drug development process: more not less randomized trials. JAMA. 2014;311:355–356.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Petit-Zeman S. Why patients and clinicians should set priorities for cardiac researchers. Br J Card Nurs. 2012;7:95–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stewart R, Oliver S. A Systematic Map of Studies of Patients’ and Clinicians’ Research Priorities. Oxford, UK: James Lind Alliance; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mann H, Djulbegovic B. Comparator bias: why comparisons must address genuine uncertainties. In: JLL Bulletin 2012: Commentaries on the History of Treatment Evaluation. Accessed September 2014.

  10. Franson TR, Peay H. Benefit-risk assessments in rare disorders: the case for therapeutic development in Duchenne muscular dystrophy as the prototype for new approaches. Accessed September 2014.

  11. Barber R, Beresford P, Boote J, Cooper C, Faulkner A. Evaluating the impact of public involvement on research: a prospective case study. Int J Consum Stud. 2011;35:609–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Staley K. Exploring Impact: Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research. Eastleigh, UK: INVOLVE; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  13. van Thiel G, Stolk P. Priority medicines for Europe and the world. A public health approach to innovation. Update 2013. Update on 2004 background paper, BP 8.5 patient and citizen involvement.…/BP8_5Stakeholder.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

  14. Department of Health and Human Services. Quick guide to health literacy fact sheet. Health literacy basics. Accessed December 2014.

  15. Institute of Medicine. Roundtable on health literacy. Accessed December 2014.

  16. Hale TM, Pathipati AS, Zan S, Jethwani K. Representation of health conditions on Facebook: content analysis and evaluation of user engagement. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greene JA, Choudhry NK, Kilabuk E, et al. Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with Facebook. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:287–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rozenblum R, Bates DW. Patient-centred healthcare, social media and the Internet: the perfect storm? BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:183–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation. Accessed September 2014.

  20. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312:1513–1514.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Manganiello M, Anderson M. Back to basics: HIV/AIDS advocacy as a model for catalyzing change. Accessed September 2014.

  22. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Annual report 2012. Accessed September 2014.

  23. Thornton H. Patient and public involvement in clinical trials. BMJ. 2008;336:903–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. FasterCures. Accessed September 2014.

  25. Prescription Drug User Fee Act, 21 USC, 1992.

  26. Food and Drug Administration activities for patient participation in medical product discussions; establishment of a docket; request for comments. Fed Regist. 2014;79(213):65410–65411.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Food and Drug Administration. Enhancing benefit-risk assessment in regulatory decision-making. Accessed December 2014.

  28. Bere N. Overview of EMA’s interaction with patients and consumers organisations (2013). Accessed September 2014.

  29. European Medicines Agency. Annual report on European Medicines Agency’s interaction with patients, consumers, healthcare professionals and their organisations (2013). Published 2015.

  30. European Medicines Agency. Incorporating patients’ views during evaluation of benefit-risk by the EMA Scientific Committees. Accessed December 2014.

  31. European Medicines Agency. Patients to discuss benefit-risk evaluation of medicines with the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (press release, September 26, 2014). Accessed December 2014.

  32. Health Technology Assessment International. Accessed December 2014.

  33. Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act 2012. Accessed September 2014.

  34. Public Law 112–144 (July 9, 2012). Accessed December 2014.

  35. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials. Published 2005. Accessed December 2014.

  36. Food and Drug Administration. Collection, analysis, and availability of demographic subgroup data for FDA-approved medical products (August 2013). Published 2013. Accessed December 2014.

  37. Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (December 12, 2006). Accessed December 2014.

  38. European Medicines Agency. Pharmacovigilance legislation. Published 2012. Accessed September 2014.

  39. Eurobarometer Qualitative Study. Patient involvement—aggregate report 2012.…/eurobaro_patient_involvement_2012_en.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

  40. Health policy brief: patient engagement. Health Affairs. Published February 14, 2013. Accessed December 2014.

  41. Longtin Y, Sax H, Leape LL, Sheridan SE, Donaldson L, Pittet D. Patient participation: current knowledge and applicability to patient safety. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. European Patients’ Forum manifesto for the 2014 European elections. Patient involvement = healthier Europe. Background briefing no. 4.…/EPFManifesto_backgroundpaper4_NOV13.pdf. Published November 2013. Accessed October 2014.

  43. National Health Council comments on Strategy for American Innovation request for information. Published September 23, 2014. Accessed October 2014.

  44. National Working Group on Evidence-Based Health Care. The role of the patient/consumer in establishing a dynamic clinical research continuum: models of patient/consumer inclusion. Published August 2008.

  45. Hirsch BR, Schulman KA. The economics of new drugs: can we afford to make progress in a common disease? Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2013. doi:

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anton Hoos MD.

Additional information

Anton Hoos is currently an employee of Amgen

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoos, A., Anderson, J., Boutin, M. et al. Partnering With Patients in the Development and Lifecycle of Medicines: A Call for Action. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 929–939 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • patient involvement
  • medicines development