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.

Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) is a not-for-profit independent multinational coalition of patients, patient stakeholders, and the pharmaceutical industry with interests across diverse disease areas and conditions. PFMD aims to facilitate an integrated approach to medicines development with all stakeholders involved early in the development process. A key strength of the coalition that differentiates it from other groups that involve patients or patient groups is that PFMD has patient organizations as founding members, ensuring that the patient perspective is the starting point when identifying priorities and developing solutions to meet patients’ needs. In addition, PFMD has from inception been formed as an equal collaboration among patient groups, patients, and pharmaceutical industry and has adopted a unique trans-Atlantic setup and scope that reflects its global intent. This parity extends to its governance model, which ensures at least equal or greater share of voice for patient group members. PFMD is actively inviting additional members and aims to expand the collaboration to include stakeholders from other sectors. The establishment of PFMD is particularly timely as patient engagement (PE) has become a priority for many health stakeholders and has led to a surge of mostly disconnected activities to deliver this. Given the current plethora of PE initiatives, an essential first step has been to determine, based on a comprehensive mapping, those strategic areas of most need requiring a focused initial effort from the perspective of all stakeholders. PFMD has identified four priority areas that will need to be addressed to facilitate implementation of PE. These are (1) culture and process change, (2) development of a global meta-framework for PE, (3) information exchange, and (4) training. This article discusses these priority themes and ongoing or planned PFMD activities within each.

Background:  Allergic rhinitis (AR) represents a major challenge in primary care. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) group proposed a new classification for AR and developed evidence‐based guidelines for the management of this disease. We conducted this study to further characterize the classes of AR described by ARIA, and to evaluate whether the management of AR in general practice is in accordance with the ARIA guidelines. Methods:  During the pollen season of 2003, 95 Belgian general practitioners (GPs) enrolled 804 patients who presented with symptoms of AR. For each patient, a questionnaire comprising the clinical presentation and management was completed. Results:  In 64% of the patients, AR was classified as intermittent and in 36% as persistent. Persistent rhinitis caused more discomfort than intermittent rhinitis. Only 50% of the patients had ever undergone allergy testing. Among them, 51% were allergic to both seasonal and perennial allergens. Eighty‐two per cent of the persistent rhinitics were allergic to at least one seasonal allergen and 72% of the intermittent rhinitics to at least one perennial allergen. When compared strictly with the ARIA recommendations, 49% of the patients with mild and/or intermittent AR were overtreated, whereas about 30% of those with moderate/severe persistent rhinitis were undertreated. Conclusion:  This study confirms that the previous classification of AR into ‘seasonal’ and ‘perennial’ is not satisfactory and that intermittent and persistent AR are not equivalent to seasonal and perennial AR respectively. Furthermore, persistent rhinitis has been shown to be a distinct disease entity. Further efforts are required to disseminate and implement evidence‐based diagnostic and treatment guidelines for AR in primary care practice.

Radiographic spinal changes in patients with AS are seen more often in men and those with hip involvement. BASFI status indicates the influence of radiographic changes and hip involvement, but does not reflect the presence of peripheral arthritis and does not differ between men and women.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe the epidemiology of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in rheumatology practice at the beginning of the anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor) era, and to evaluate the initiation of anti-TNF therapy in a clinical setting where prescription is regulated by the authority's imposed reimbursement criteria. Methods: Between February 2004 and February 2005, all Belgian rheumatologists in academic and nonacademic outpatient settings were invited to register all AS patients who visited their practice. A random sample of these patients was further examined by an in-depth clinical profile. In a follow-up investigation, we recorded whether patients initiated anti-TNF therapy and compared this to their eligibility at baseline evaluation. Results: 89 rheumatologists participated and registered 2141 patients; 1023 patients were clinically evaluated. These 847 fulfilled the New York modified criteria for definite AS and 176 for probable AS. The profile of AS in rheumatology practice is characterised by longstanding and active disease with a high frequency of extra-articular manifestations and metrological and functional impairment. At a median of 2 months after the clinical evaluation, anti-TNF therapy was initiated in 263 of 603 (44%) evaluable patients with definite AS and in 22 of 138 (16%) evaluable patients with probable AS (total 38%). More than 85% of the patients who started anti-TNF therapy had an increased Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index despite previous NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) use. Conclusions: Of a representative cohort of 1023 Belgian AS patients seen in daily rheumatology practice, about 40% commenced anti-TNF therapy. Decision factors to start anti-TNF therapy may include disease activity and severity.