Our ability to evaluate outcomes which genuinely reflect patients’ unmet needs, hopes and concerns is of pivotal importance. However, much current clinical research and practice falls short of this objective by selecting outcome measures which do not capture patient value to the fullest. In this Opinion, we discuss Patient-Centered Outcomes Measures (PCOMs), which have the potential to systematically incorporate patient perspectives to measure those outcomes that matter most to patients. We argue for greater multi-stakeholder collaboration to develop PCOMs, with rare disease patients and families at the center. Beyond advancing the science of patient input, PCOMs are powerful tools to translate care or observed treatment benefit into an ‘interpretable’ measure of patient benefit, and thereby help demonstrate clinical effectiveness. We propose mixed methods psychometric research as the best route to deliver fit-for-purpose PCOMs in rare diseases, as this methodology brings together qualitative and quantitative research methods in tandem with the explicit aim to efficiently utilise data from small samples. And, whether one opts to develop a brand-new PCOM or to select or adapt an existing outcome measure for use in a rare disease, the anchors remain the same: patients, their daily experience of the rare disease, their preferences, core concepts and values. Ultimately, existing value frameworks, registries, and outcomes-based contracts largely fall short of consistently measuring the full range of outcomes that matter to patients. We argue that greater use of PCOMs in rare diseases would enable a fast track to Patient-Centered Care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-017-0718-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives Developing disease modifying therapies for Parkinson’s disease (PD) calls for outcome measurement strategies focused on characterizing early stage disease progression. We explored the psychometric evidence for using the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part II (patient motor experience of daily living) and part III (clinician motor examination) in this context. Methods MDS-UPDRS-II and -III data were collected at screening, month 12, and month 24 from 384 early stage PD patients (diagnosis ≤ 2 years; Hoehn and Yahr stage 1/2) in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) study. Psychometric analysis, based on Rasch measurement theory (RMT), was performed on both the original MDS UPDRS-II and -III scales and exploratory content-driven scale structures. Results RMT analyses showed neither scale was well targeted to early PD. A marked floor effect appeared for most items and a clear item gap was consistently observed in very mild severity of motor signs and levels of motor impact. The original MDS-UPDRS-II and -III scales also displayed disordered thresholds (9/13 and 20/33 items, respectively), indicating response scales not functioning as expected, and misfit (5/13 and 12/33 items, respectively), flagging areas for potential improvement. Conclusions The MDS-UPDRS-II and -III have psychometric limitations which limits the precision of measurement of motor symptoms and impact in early PD. This can lead to insensitivity in detecting differences and clinical change. Importantly, the diagnostic psychometric evidence provided by the RMT analysis provides a clear starting point for how to improve the quantification of clinically relevant concepts to characterize the course of early PD. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00415-019-09348-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundNational payers across Europe have been increasingly looking into innovative reimbursement approaches – called managed entry agreements (MEAs) – to balance the need to provide rapid access to potentially beneficial orphan medicinal products (OMPs) with the requirements to circumscribe uncertainty, obtain best value for money or to ensure affordability. This study aimed to identify, describe and classify MEAs applied to OMPs by national payers and to analyse their practice in Europe.MethodsTo identify and describe MEAs, national health technology assessments and reimbursement decisions on OMPs across seven European countries were reviewed and their main characteristics extracted. To fill data gaps and validate the accuracy of the extraction, collaboration was sought from national payers. To classify MEAs, a bespoke taxonomy was implemented. Identified MEAs were analysed and compared by focusing on five key themes, namely by describing the MEAs in relation to: drug targets and therapeutic classes, geographical spread, type of MEA applied, declared rationale for setting-up of MEAs, and evolution over time.Results42 MEAs for 26 OMPs, implemented between 2006 and 2012 and representing a variety of MEA designs, were identified. Italy was the country with the highest number of schemes (n=15), followed by the Netherlands (n=10), England and Wales (n=8), Sweden (n=5) and Belgium (n=4). No MEA was identified for France and Germany due to data unavailability. Antineoplastic agents were the primary targets of MEAs. 55% of the identified MEAs were performance-based risk-sharing arrangements; the other 45% were financial-based. Nine of these 26 OMPs were subject to MEAs in two or three different countries, resulting in 24 MEAs. 60% of identified MEAs focused on conditions whose prevalence is less than 1 per 10,000.ConclusionsThis study confirmed that a variety of MEAs were increasingly used by European payers to manage aspects of uncertainty associated with the introduction of OMPs in the healthcare system, and which may be of a clinical, utilisation, or budgetary nature. It remains unclear whether differences in the use of MEAs reflect differences in how ‘uncertainty’ and ‘value’ are perceived across healthcare systems.

Identifying and highlighting diverse, but interrelated, key challenges in RD research and HTA is an essential first step toward developing implementable and sustainable solutions. A collaborative multistakeholder effort is required to enable faster and less costly development of safe, efficacious, and appropriate new RD therapies that offer value for money.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients’ symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item’s importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.