Do you hear us? Elevating the voice of patients from Asia Pacific (AP) and Middle East (ME) in pharmaceutical research.
e18519 Background: Incorporating patient (pt) perspectives in the development of new therapies (from trial design to regulatory & reimbursement decisions) and providing pts with plain language summaries (PLS) of clinical trial results is increasingly important to minimise knowledge and experience disparities. One model to facilitate this in pharmaceutical research is via Patient Expert Panels (PEPs). Aim: To assess the feasibility & impact of PEPs consisting of members from AP&ME on the development of 1. PLS of data presented at ESMO and ASH 2020 for selected Novartis-sponsored clinical trials 2. Disease education material for sickle cell disease (SCD). Methods: Thematic analysis of meeting minutes from PEPs conducted between Sep – Dec 2020 was performed. Data relating to meeting duration were extracted. The responses from an 8-item survey of PEP members were analysed descriptively for 6 items, thematically for 2. Results: Five virtual PEPs were conducted, with a median duration of 60 mins [range 60-120]. In total, 9 PLS were reviewed (8 breast cancer, 1 CML) & 1 SCD education booklet. Five common themes emerged regarding the input & impact of the PEP [Table]. 88% panelists responded they “Definitely will” participate in future PEPs, thereby confirming their feasibility, with the following quote being representative of the panelists’ experience & impact “I appreciated how our input as patients was valued and highly taken into consideration. It felt like our time and feedback was important to everyone.” Conclusions: PEP constituted of pts from countries in AP&ME are feasible and lead to impactful improvements in the development of PLS and disease education information. Given pt advocates in these countries are volunteers from organisations with limited resources, have diverse backgrounds in terms of culture, language & disease awareness, their input is more representative of a broader pt population. As a result, the final versions of the reviewed documents were more inclusive & accessible. [Table: see text]