Abstract
Background
While patient groups, regulators, and sponsors are increasingly considering engaging with patients in the design and conduct of clinical development programs, sponsors are often reluctant to go beyond pilot programs because of uncertainty in the return on investment. We developed an approach to estimate the financial value of patient engagement.
Methods
Expected net present value (ENPV) is a common technique that integrates the key business drivers of cost, time, revenue, and risk into a summary metric for project strategy and portfolio decisions. We assessed the impact of patient engagement on ENPV for a typical oncology development program entering phase 2 or phase 3.
Results
For a pre-phase 2 project, the cumulative impact of a patient engagement activity that avoids one protocol amendment and improves enrollment, adherence, and retention is an increase in net present value (NPV) of $62MM ($65MM for pre-phase 3) and an increase in ENPV of $35MM ($75MM for pre-phase 3). Compared with an investment of $100,000 in patient engagement, the NPV and ENPV increases can exceed 500-fold the investment. This ENPV increase is the equivalent of accelerating a pre-phase 2 product launch by 2½ years (1½ years for pre-phase 3).
Conclusions
Risk-adjusted financial models can assess the impact of patient engagement. A combination of empirical data and subjective parameter estimates shows that engagement activities with the potential to avoid protocol amendments and/or improve enrollment, adherence, and retention may add considerable financial value. This approach can help sponsors assess patient engagement investment decisions.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson M, McCleary KK. On the path to a science of patient input. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8.
Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. CTTI recommendations: effective engagement with patient groups around clinical trials. https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/files/pgctrecs.pdf. Accessed November 29, 2016.
Getz KA. Establishing return-on-investment expectations for patient-centric initiatives. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2015;49:745–749.
Hunter NL, O’Callaghan KM, Califf RM. Engaging patients across the spectrum of medical product development: view from the US Food and Drug Administration. JAMA. 2015:1–3.
Medical Device Innovation Consortium. Patient centered benefit-risk assessment (PCBR). http://mdic.org/pcbr/. Accessed February 2, 2016.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. What we mean by engagement. Engagement rubric. http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/what-we-mean-engagement. Accessed September 6, 2016.
US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Patient preference information—submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in device labeling; guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. October 23, 2016. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHPatientEngagement/ucm462830.htm. Accessed November 28, 2016.
US Food and Drug Administration. The voice of the patient: a series of reports from FDA’s Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative. http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm368342.htm. Accessed January 14, 2016.
US Food and Drug Administration. Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). Reauthorization performance goals and procedures fiscal years 2018 through 2022. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM511438.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2016.
US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). 2016–2017 Strategic Priorities. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHVisionandMission/default.htm. Accessed November 28, 2016.
Staley K, Minogue V. User involvement leads to more ethically sound research. Clin Ethics. 2006;1:95–100.
Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research I. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312:1513–1514.
Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14.
Smith MY, Hammad TA, Metcalf M, et al. Patient engagement at a tipping point—the need for cultural change across patient, sponsor, and regulator stakeholders: insights from the DIA Conference, “Patient Engagement in Benefit Risk Assessment Throughout the Life Cycle of Medical Products.” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50:546–553.
Hoos A, Anderson J, Boutin M, et al. Partnering with patients in the development and lifecycle of medicines: a call for action. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2015;49:929–939.
National Institute for Health Research. INVOLVE website. Exploring the impact of public involvement on the quality of research. http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/exploring-the-impact-of-public-involvement-on-the-quality-of-research/. Accessed November 28, 2016.
National Health Council. National Health Council/Genetic Alliance. Dialogue: Advancing meaningful patient engagement in research, development, and review of drugs. September 2015. http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/meaningful-patient-engagement. Accessed August 16, 2016.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17.
AVOCA. Patients as partners. 2016 Summit. http://theavocagroup.com/news_events/photos-2016-summit-usa/. Accessed August 11, 2016.
Lowe MM, Blaser DA, Cone L, et al. Increasing patient involvement in drug development. Value Health. 2016;19:869–878.
Getz KA. ROI for patient-centric drug development. Appl Clin Trials. 2015;24.
FasterCures. Expanding the science of patient input: pain points and potential. http://www.fastercures.org/reports/view/58. Accessed September 6, 2016.
Ashkenazy R, Schneider RF. A patient centricity team tool to enable patient-focused drug development. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50:577–580.
Getz K, Kaitin K. Why does the industry need a change? In: Schuler P, Buckley B, eds. Re-engineering Clinical Trials: Best Practices for Streamlining Drug Development. New York: Elsevier; 2015.
Dewulf L. Patient engagement by pharma—why and how? A framework for compliant patient engagement. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2015;49:9–16.
Robbins DA, Curro FA, Fox CH. Defining patient-centricity: Opportunities, challenges, and implications for clinical care and research. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47:349–355.
Boutin M, Dewulf L, Hoos A, et al. Culture and process change as a priority for patient engagement in medicines development. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016.
Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4:133–145.
Accenture Life Sciences. The patient is IN: pharma’s growing opportunity in patient services. White paper. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjfmZb5rPvOAhWG7iYKHWwPCg4QFggqMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.accenture.com%2Fus-en%2F_acnmedia%2FAccenture%2Fnext-gen-2%2Fpatient-services-survey-pharma%2Fpdf%2FAccenture-patient-services-2016-survey-results-web.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHd6locUZ5FrS4m6cXx-GOJhVlR_g&sig2=2zNoeq4bxpv3OAq1coj21A&bvm=bv.131783435,%20d.eWE&cad=rja. Accessed September 6, 2016.
Kellogg D, Charnes JM. Real-options valuation for a biotechnology company. Financ Anal J. 2000;56:76–84.
Hartmann M, Hassan A. Application of real options analysis for pharmaceutical R&D project valuation—empirical results from a survey. Res Policy. 2006;35:343–354.
Smith JE, McCardle KF. Options in the real world: lessons learned in evaluating oil and gas investments. Oper Res. 1999;47:1–15.
Brealey RA, Myers SC, Allen F. Principles of Corporate Finance. 12th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. 2016.
Matheson JE, Menke MM, Derby SL. Strategic decisions group. Managing R&D portfolios for improved profitability and productivity. J Sci Policy Res Manage. 1989;4:400–412.
Remer DS, Nieto AP. A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques, part 1: Net present value and rate of return methods. Int J Prod Econ. 1995;42:79–96.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Analytical Framework for Examining the Value of Antibacterial Products. 3.1 Expected Net Present Value (ENPV) framework for evaluating private returns. 2014. https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/analytical-framework-examining-value-antibacterial-products/31-expected-net-present-value-enpv-framework-evaluating-private-returns. Accessed August 11, 2016.
Flaig JJ. Improving project selection using expected net present value analysis. Quality Engineering. 2005;17:535–538.
Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management for new products. Hamilton, Ont: Michael de Groote School of Business. 1997.
DIA. DIA insights: patient engagement. http://www.diaglobal.org/Resources/How-We-Think/Patient-Engagement?utm_medium=pr&utm_source=pr&utm_content=General_Release_PE_Study_&utm_campaign=patientengagement&utm_type=aq. Accessed April 25, 2017.
Smith SK, Selig W, Harker M, et al. Patient engagement practices in clinical research among patient groups, industry, and academia in the United States: a survey. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0140232.
DiMasi JA, Reichert JM, Feldman L, Malins A. Clinical approval success rates for investigational cancer drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;94:329–335.
DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33.
Stergiopoulos S, Tenaerts P, Getz K, et al. Cost drivers of hospital acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) phase three clinical trials poster presentation, IDWeek 2015. https://idsa.confex.com/idsa/2015/webprogram/Paper52187.html. Accessed August 11, 2016.
Mathieu MP. PAREXEL Biopharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook 2014/2015, p 219.
DiMasi JA. Regulation and economics of drug development. Paper presented at: American Diabetes Association 75th Scientific Sessions; Boston, MA, June 5, 2015. http://professional.diabetes.org/search/site/Regulation%20and%20Economics%20of%20Drug%20Development?retain-filters=1. Accessed May 4, 2017.
DiBiaso V. Optimizing patient and site input to accelerate clinical trial milestones. Paper presented at: 2015 DIA Annual meeting.
DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Vernon J. R&D costs and returns by therapeutic category. Drug Inf J. 2004;38:211–223.
Grabowski H, Vernon J, DiMasi JA. Returns on research and development for 1990s new drug introductions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(suppl 3):11–29.
Fischer M, Leeflang PSH, Verhoef PC. Drivers of peak sales for pharmaceutical brands. Quant Mark Econ. 2010;8:429–460.
Getz K, Peters S, Wilkinson M, Awatin J. Online searches of peak sales forecasts published in company reports, press releases and investor meetings. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University School of Medicine. Conducted August 2016.
Grabowski H, Long G, Mortimer R. Recent trends in brand-name and generic drug competition. J Med Econ. 2014;17:207–214.
Berndt ER, Nass D, Kleinrock M, Aitken M. Decline in economic returns from new drugs raises questions about sustaining innovations. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34:245–52.
EyeforPharma. Patient centricity vs. profitability—why commercial innovation is key. White paper. http://1.eyeforpharma.com/LP=13447. Accessed September 6, 2016.
Getz KA, Zuckerman R, Cropp AB, Hindle AL, Krauss R, Kaitin KI. Measuring the incidence, causes, and repercussions of protocol amendments. Drug Inf J. 2011;45:265–275.
Getz KA, Stergiopoulos S, Short M, et al. The impact of protocol amendments on clinical trial performance and cost. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50:436–441.
Lamberti MJ, Mathias A, Myles JE, Howe D, Getz K. Evaluating the impact of patient recruitment and retention practices. Drug Inf J. 2012;46:573–580.
National Academy of Sciences. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. 2010. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12955/the-prevention-and-treatment-of-missing-data-in-clinical-trials. Accessed November 29, 2016.
US Food and Drug Administration. Qualifying for pediatric exclusivity under section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: frequently asked questions on pediatric exclusivity (505A), the pediatric “rule,” and their interaction. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm077915.htm. Accessed November 29, 2016.
Staley K. “Is it worth doing?” Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engage. 2015;1:1–10.
Petit-Zeman S, Locock L. Health care: Bring on the evidence. Nature. 2013;501:160–161.
Staniszewska S, Adebajo A, Barber R, Beresford P, Brady L, Brett J. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud. 2011;35.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Levitan, B., Getz, K., Eisenstein, E.L. et al. Assessing the Financial Value of Patient Engagement: A Quantitative Approach from CTTI’s Patient Groups and Clinical Trials Project. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 220–229 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017716715
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017716715