Phage therapy is increasingly put forward as a “new” potential tool in the fight against antibiotic resistant infections. During the “Centennial Celebration of Bacteriophage Research” conference in Tbilisi, Georgia on 26–29 June 2017, an international group of phage researchers committed to elaborate an expert opinion on three contentious phage therapy related issues that are hampering clinical progress in the field of phage therapy. This paper explores and discusses bacterial phage resistance, phage training and the presence of prophages in bacterial production strains while reviewing relevant research findings and experiences. Our purpose is to inform phage therapy stakeholders such as policy makers, officials of the competent authorities for medicines, phage researchers and phage producers, and members of the pharmaceutical industry. This brief also points out potential avenues for future phage therapy research and development as it specifically addresses those overarching questions that currently call for attention whenever phages go into purification processes for application.

Late and misdiagnoses of rare disease patients are common and often result in medical, physical and mental burden for the patient, and financial and emotional burden for the patient’s family. Low rare disease awareness among physicians is believed to be one of the reasons for these late and misdiagnoses of rare disease patients. The aim of this study was to investigate how information and education could be tailored to the needs and preferences of physicians in Belgium to increase their rare disease awareness and support them in diagnosing patients with a rare disorder. Nine exploratory interviews with Belgian rare disease experts were performed in December 2016 to help the development of a questionnaire on information needs of physicians and their consulted information sources in rare disease awareness and diagnosis. This online questionnaire was then completed by Belgian physicians (n = 295), including general practitioners (GPs), pediatricians and other specialists (i.e. neurologists, pediatric neurologists, endocrinologists and pediatric endocrinologists) during January and February 2017. Rare disease knowledge and awareness were the lowest among GPs and the highest among specialists. Interviewed experts indicated that physicians’ academic and continuous medical education should be focused more on “red flags” to increase rare disease attentiveness in daily clinical practice. GPs scored their academic education on rare diseases as insufficient but pediatricians and other specialists scored it significantly better (p < 0.001). Even though GPs declared to only need information on rare diseases when having a rare disease patient in their practice, specialists indicated to need more rare disease information in general. Most physicians confirmed that they had specific information needs regarding rare diseases. Unlike specialists, the majority of GPs were unaware of information sources such as Orphanet. In order to effectively support physicians in Belgium to diagnose rare diseases early, the academic medical education on rare diseases should be revised. Teaching methods should be focused more on casuistry and “red flags”. An Orphanet-like digital platform about rare disease symptoms, diagnostic tests and reference centers might be ideal to support correct and timely diagnosis.

Background: Informed consent is one of the key elements in biomedical research. The introduction of electronic informed consent can be a way to overcome many challenges related to paper-based informed consent; however, its novel opportunities remain largely unfulfilled due to several barriers. Objective: We aimed to provide an overview of the ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups in order to assist responsible implementation of electronic informed consent in biomedical research. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search using Web of Science (Core collection), PubMed, EMBASE, ACM Digital Library, and PsycARTICLES. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used for reporting this work. We included empirical full-text studies focusing on the concept of electronic informed consent in biomedical research covering the ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface domains. Studies written in English and published from January 2010 onward were selected. We explored perspectives of different stakeholder groups, in particular researchers, research participants, health authorities, and ethics committees. We critically appraised literature included in the systematic review using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort and cross-sectional studies, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for mixed methods studies, and Jadad tool for randomized controlled trials. Results: A total of 40 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous in the type of study design, population, intervention, research context, and the tools used. Most of the studies’ populations were research participants (ie, patients and healthy volunteers). The majority of studies addressed barriers to achieving adequate understanding when using electronic informed consent. Concerns shared by multiple stakeholder groups were related to the security and legal validity of an electronic informed consent platform and usability for specific groups of research participants. Conclusions: Electronic informed consent has the potential to improve the informed consent process in biomedical research compared to the current paper-based consent. The ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface perspectives outlined in this review might serve to enhance the future implementation of electronic informed consent. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020158979; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=158979

Background Despite the benefits offered by biosimilars in terms of cost savings and improved patient access to biological therapies, and an established regulatory pathway in Europe, biosimilar adoption is challenged by a lack of knowledge and understanding among stakeholders such as healthcare professionals and patients about biosimilars, impacting their trust and willingness to use them. In addition, stakeholders are faced with questions about clinical implementation aspects such as switching. Objective This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar understanding and adoption among stakeholders based on insights of healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe. Method The study consists of a structured literature review gathering original research data on stakeholder knowledge about biosimilars, followed by semi-structured interviews across five stakeholder groups including physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe. Results Although improvement in knowledge was observed over time, generally low to moderate levels of awareness, knowledge and trust towards biosimilars among healthcare professionals and patients are identified in literature (N studies = 106). Based on the provided insights from interviews with European experts (N = 44), a number of challenges regarding biosimilar stakeholder understanding are identified, including a lack of practical information about biosimilars and their use, a lack of understanding about biosimilar concepts and a lack of knowledge about biologicals in general. Misinformation by originator industry is also believed to have impacted stakeholder trust. In terms of possible solutions and actions to improve stakeholder understanding, broad support exists to (1) organize initiatives focussed on explaining the rationale behind biosimilar concepts and the approval pathway, (2) invest in education about biologicals in general, (3) develop clear and one-voice regulatory guidance about biosimilar interchangeability and switching across Europe, (4) disseminate real-world clinical biosimilar (switch) data, (5) share biosimilar experiences by key opinion leaders and among peers, (6) provide practical biosimilar product information, (7) provide guidance about biosimilar use, (8) actively counterbalance misinformation and organize information initiatives by neutral entities, (9) organize multi-stakeholder informational and educational efforts, aligning information between involved stakeholder groups and (10) design initiatives in a way that ensures active information uptake. Furthermore, interviewees argue that governments should be proactive in these regards. Conclusions This study argues in favour of a structural, multi-stakeholder framework at both European and national level to improve stakeholder biosimilar understanding and acceptance. It proposes a number of actionable recommendations that can inform policy making and guide stakeholders, which can contribute to realizing healthcare system benefits offered by biosimilar competition.

Background: The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). Results: From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients’ valuations of treatment outcomes, patients’ benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. Conclusions: Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

Background Despite the benefits biosimilars offer in terms of cost savings and patient access, healthcare professionals and patients have been reluctant to use them. Next to insufficient understanding of and trust in biosimilars, healthcare professionals and patients have questions about switching and the nocebo effect when using biosimilars in clinical practice. In addition, clear motivation to use biosimilars may be lacking among these stakeholders. Objective This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar use on both a clinical and a practical level based on insights from healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patients (or their representatives), and regulators across Europe. Methods We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with experts from five stakeholder groups across Europe: physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, regulators, and patients/representatives. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and transcripts analysed according to the thematic framework method. Results Based on the insights and considerations of the experts interviewed, we identified a number of recommendations to improve the use of biosimilars in clinical practice. Regarding switch implementation, the experts voiced support for the following actions: (1) disseminate evidence from and experience with (multiple) switching; (2) provide clear, one-voice regulatory guidance about the interchangeability of biosimilars and their reference product; (3) apply a multi-stakeholder implementation and communication protocol to guide switching in clinical practice; (4) apply a pragmatic approach when taking switch decisions; and (5) avoid mandated switching, allowing stakeholder communication and alignment. When discussing approaches to increase the willingness of stakeholders to use biosimilars, we concluded that actions should be centred on (1) communicating the benefits provided by biosimilars and the introduction of market competition, (2) increasing awareness among stakeholders about medicine prices and their societal responsibility to use medicines in a cost-effective manner, (3) transparent reporting about the allocation of savings, (4) sharing biosimilar usage data among hospitals and prescribers to allow peer-to-peer benchmarking, and (5) applying a balanced combination of tangible and non-tangible incentives that can be tailored to offset the time and effort expended by stakeholders when switching to a biosimilar. Conclusions This study proposes a number of strategic, practical, and overarching recommendations to support healthcare professionals and inform decision makers to improve the clinical use of biosimilars and the willingness of stakeholders to use them. The proposed solutions to fully realise the potential of biosimilars for healthcare systems and patients include developing practical switch guidance, being transparent about the gains from biosimilar use (and how savings are allocated), and developing a combination of non-tangible and tangible incentives for involved stakeholders.