Challenges in Building and Maintaining Rare Disease Patient Registries: Results of a Questionnaire Survey in Japan at 2012

Respondent selection

A list of potential survey participants was developed from a structured search of published sources through Google and the MHLW Grants System [MHLW Grants System], a database of research projects granted by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan after 1997. When this survey was conducted, system users could search only the titles and abstracts of research reports submitted to the MHLW. Database searches using Japanese equivalent terms of “patient registry” were applied to the MHLW Grants System and Google. For all search results from the MHLW Grants System, we read abstracts of research reports to confirm the description that a patient registry(s) was constructed in the study. This process took place during August–October 2012.

From this search procedure, 31 potential patient registries in Japan were identified (26 from the MHLW Grants System and 5 from Google). Because only insufficient information can be captured from the title and abstract of research reports recorded in the MHLW Grants System, in most cases we were unable to ascertain the subject diseases of the potential patient registries. Therefore, the candidate list from the MHLW Grants System might include patient registries targeting non-rare diseases.

Questionnaire management

A postal questionnaire with a request letter and a self-addressed envelope was sent to all of these potential patient registries in November 2012. Several days after the questionnaire sent, a phone call was made to ensure the arrival of the questionnaire. One month after the questionnaire was sent out, a reminder was sent to each addressee. To shed light on issues and challenges in building and sustaining rare disease patient registries in Japan, the following categories of questions were included: general characteristics of registries, registration method of patients, operating organization of registries, the budget for building, and sustaining registries.

Respondent characteristics

Of the 31 subjects surveyed, 13 returned their questionnaires. Of those respondents, 11 completed the questionnaires. Two reported that registries had not been constructed. Of the 11 patient registries, 6 were for rare diseases, and 5 were for common diseases. Among the six respondent patient registries for rare diseases, three registries were established in 2009. Also, one registry was established in each of 2007, 2010, and 2011. Half of the six registries’ respondents reported that they have been cooperating with foreign registries or international networks.

The objectives of the registries are presented in Table 1. Epidemiological surveys were included in the objectives of all registries. The objectives related to diagnosis and treatment of the target diseases were considered by more than half of the registries. One objective related to drug development, “clinical trial of drug or medical device,” was considered by more than half of the registries, although “post-marketing surveillance of drug or medical device” and “market survey of drug or medical device” were considered by only one registry. The objectives related to a patient’s daily life, “evaluation of the quality of medical care,” “evaluation of economics of medical care,” and “survey of the living condition of patients,” were considered by only one or no registry. Registries 1 and 6 narrowed the objectives, although registries 3, 4, and 5 covered a wide ranges of objectives.

Registration method of patients

For three out of six respondent registries, medical doctors register in the registry under a patient’s consent. For the other three registries, patients or their representatives register directly. Registration is available only by postal mail in four respondent registries, only through the internet in one registry, and by both ways in one registry.

Operating organization of registries

Offices of the patient registries were located in medical or research institutions for four registries, in a patients’ association in for one registry, and in a private company for one registry. The numbers of total staff in registry offices were 1, 4, 8, and 10 for four registries, and 6 for two registries. The numbers of full-time staff were 0 for three registries, and 1, 2, or 4 for each other registry.

Budget for building and sustaining registries

The total budgets for establishing and maintaining each patient registry are presented in Table 2. For both establishment costs and maintenance cost of the preceding year, 3 of 6 respondent registries spent between 1 million and 5 million JPY (almost 10,000 and 50,000 EUR), 2 registries spent between 5 million and 10 million JPY (almost 50,000 and 100,000 EUR), and 1 registry spent between 10 million and 50 million JPY (almost 100,000 and 5,000,000 EUR). In the EPIRARE survey, the number of registries with yearly budget up to 100,000 EUR was 74 (36.8% of total of 201 respondents) and that with higher than 100,000 EUR was 36 (17.9%) [EPIRARE Survey]. JPY stands for Japanese Yen and EUR stands for Euro. Maintenance costs were of the prior year. The yearly average exchange rate in 2012 between JPY and EUR was 1 EUR to 102.13 JPY, calculated as the average between the Yearly Average Telegraphic Transfer Selling rate (TTS) and the Yearly Average Telegraphic Transfer Buying rate (TTB) obtained from the final official quotation by the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (BTMU) [MURC].

The Top 3 funding and expense items for establishing each patient registry are presented in Table 3a and Table 4a. Four of the six registries listed the public research grant from Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) as the top funding items in establishment of the patient registry. This result reflects that many medical studies are funded by this grant, and also that the MHLW Grants System and Google were used to search patient registries in this study. The other two registries listed financial assistance from the administering organization at the top 1. One registry listed donations; another registry listed research and funding by the university as the top 2. For expense items in establishment of the patient registry, the labor costs and information technology (IT) system construction costs were included in the top 2 in most registries. All registries listed one of these two items at the top 1. All except for one registry listed the remainder of them in the top 2. Many registries listed equipment and supplies expenses among the top 3, but no registry listed office expenses and energy (light, fuel and water) expenses within the top 3.

The top 3 funding and expense items for maintaining each patient registry were presented in Table 3b and Table 4b. The research grant from MHLW was also the major funding item in maintaining the patient registries as well as in establishing them. However, because this grant funding expires typically in several years, it can not be regarded as a permanent funding source. Therefore, major funding items for maintaining patient registries after years can differ according to patient registries. Most patient registries included labor costs and IT system maintenance costs among the top 2 expenses for maintaining patient registries. One patient registry did not include labor costs. Two patient registries did not include IT system maintenance costs among the top 3 expenses.

When the patient registries started, none of their founders planned to maintain the registries for only a short term (several years). One patient registry was scheduled to review the operational plan every two years. One patient registry was planned for a certain period of time (20 years). The remaining four were planned or sought to maintain for an unlimited period (Table 5). Of five registries that were planned to operate for a long time, three answered that they had no prospect of securing a budget in the future (Table 6).

Ideas and difficulties in building and sustaining patient registries

Finally, the questionnaire asked respondents to answer, by free description, questions related to 1) ingenuity and attention, 2) difficulty and anxiety, and 3) other free comments for building and maintaining each patient registry.

For ingenuity and attention, efforts of three kinds were raised from the respondents. The first type of answer was to endeavor to reduce burdens on registrants (medical doctors and patients) to register through keeping the number of follow-up surveys to once a year, including a reply envelope with survey form, or offering a toll-free phone number of the registration office. The second type was to achieve understanding of the importance of registration through organizing lecture meetings throughout the country, sending feedback and disclosing information to registrants and registry users such as researchers at public institutions or private companies, or carefully gathering feedback from them. The last type was to improve the number of registrations and persistence rates of registration through cooperation with patient groups and medical doctors throughout the country, or continually showing the passion of the head researcher of the registry by regularly sending letters or e-mails.

Regarding difficulty and anxiety, answers of five kinds were received. The first were related to securing a continuous budget. When the patient registry budget depends heavily on public grants from government ministries, the research group that manages the registry must apply for the grant every several years. It is therefore difficult for patient registries to establish stable and sustainable operation. The second were related to managing the burdens of the registration bureau. Continuing patient registry is currently dependent on the ambition and responsibility of the head researcher of the registry because of a lack of sufficient government support. Breaks in public research grants occurring every several years request a change of the head and members of the research group, which makes it difficult to continue the patient registry. The third is about inspiring the cooperation of medical doctors at small hospitals or clinics. For some rare diseases, patients visit neighboring hospitals unless facing serious matters, but most doctors in such small-scale hospitals have insufficient time and capacity to fill in registration forms for the patient. The fourth is related to use of the data in the registry.

Data in patient registries are expected to be used for the research and development of new drugs at private companies. That is a major aim of patient registries. However, it has not yet occurred for most patient registries. The last is about taking the balance between the amount of information and the number of registrants. More numbers and variety of items in the registration form give more information related to the disease and patients with the disease, although it gives lower enrollment numbers and renewal rates in registration because of increasing burden of filling in the registration form.

Regarding other free comments, some opinions were offered to indicate the future directions of patient registries. 1) Versatile web-based registration systems, on which many research groups can construct their patient registry, are necessary to reduce the burdens of constructing and maintaining patient registries. 2) There should be ways and means to use dormant patient registries that have been closed by budget shortages. 3) Target diseases, research into which the public resources are injected, should be emphasized. Many of them remain more or less unknown. 4) A trend shifting from a doctor-centered patient registry to a patient-centered one is expected to change the current undesirable circumstances related to the patient registry. 5) It would be better to try to introduce a new support scheme to achieve budgets for maintaining patient registries from pharmaceutical industry groups.

Objectives of patient registries

Most respondents selected choices related to getting an overview and insight into diseases as objectives of the patient registries, although few selected ones related to ascertaining the real conditions of patients with diseases in their daily life, to assess the quality of medical care, or to research markets for drugs. This trend is the same as that in the case of Europe. In the EPIRARE survey [EPIRARE 2013], 70.8% of the respondent patient registries chose “epidemiological research” as the aim of the registry, although 33.3% chose “treatment monitoring” and 19.2% chose “social planning”.

Drugs and medical devices can improve the life experiences of patients. To achieve that improvement continuously, promotion of industry–government–academia cooperation would play an important role. The MHLW in Japan proposed “Clinical Innovation Network (CIN)” in 2015 as a new scheme for collaboration among six National Centers (NCs) for Advances and Specialized Medical Care affiliated with the MHLW and pharmaceutical companies. In this scheme, the NCs are presumed to construct patient registries as infrastructure to promote drug development [MHLW 2015]. The CIN would serve as a test of the patient registry for drug development.

Structure and costs for operation

Half of the respondent patient registries chose “1,000,000–5,000,000 JPY” as the total expense for building and maintaining patient registries. The second most common answer was “5,000,000–10,000,000 JPY”. Expense items were budgets for labor, IT systems, and office supplies in descending order. In the EPIRARE survey, the most common answer to the question “Average yearly budget over three years” was “<50,000 EUR” (23.8% of respondents chose it). The third most common answer was “51,000–100,000 EUR” (13.4%). Fifty thousand EUR was about 51 million JPY in 2012, trends in yearly budgets were similar between Europe and Japan, except that the second most common answer was “No funds” (22.3%) in the EPIRARE survey.

Half of the respondent patient registries employ one or more full-time staff members. All employ part-time staff members. Although contents of work probably vary greatly according to each registry, some or most of them can be commonalized. If it were achieved, then patient registries could share staff members, which will engender reduction of the total cost.

Of the six respondents, two answered that their patient registries use web-based registration forms. One of them uses both the web-based and paper-based forms. Although the web-based registration form has several beneficial features, some registrants (patients or medical doctors) do not use the internet, some medical doctors are unable to connect the internet from their offices because of security policy, and the web-based registration form is expensive. It is necessary to reduce the cost of web-based forms to increase the adoption of web-based forms by, for example, sharing web-based systems among many patient registries.

Future directions of rare disease patient registries

From free descriptions, important needs were extracted: obtaining funds, reducing operational burdens, gaining cooperation from participants (patients and medical doctors), promoting utilization of stored data, and so forth. These were similar to those reported from the EPIRARE survey, which elucidated frequent needs as financial support, strengthened motivation of data providers, data quality assessment, improvement of communication, and visibility of the results obtained. Here, we propose three cooperative efforts to address these issues.

First, a possible effort to reduce burdens related to constructing and maintaining patient registries is building a common platform that offers universal facilities such as IT infrastructure and secretariat functions. Many tasks are not specific to each patient registry. They might be outsourced or shared with many other registries. Such efforts would have a strong effect on expenses for constructing and maintaining patient registries because the IT infrastructure and labor cost are major expense items.

Second, patient registries should mutually collaborate in engaging in educational activities to increase awareness of the importance of patient registries. Public attitudes about participation in biobanks have a correlation with awareness of existence and the purpose of biobanks [Gaskell & Gottweis 2011]. Attitudes related to patient registries can show the same trend. Improved public awareness of patient registries is expected to increase the number of participants and the ratio of participants who engage continuously in patient registries and also increase the users of data stored in patient registries.

In Japan, a new law for medical care for patients with rare and intractable diseases was implemented on January 1, 2015. Based on this law, Japan’s MHLW has developed the rare and intractable diseases registry database to collect medical information of patients in Japan with rare diseases that are specified in this law. This registry is expected to improve the current circumstances. Data in this registry would be used for various purposes, although some researchers will continue to try to develop their own patient registries for purposes that are not accomplished with the MHLW’s registry and for diseases that are not included in the MHLW’s registry.

Third, a new scheme is expected to be introduced to secure a sufficient budget from collaboration between academia and industry to maintain patient registries. Data stored in patient registries is not necessarily useful and attractive for pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies because objectives to organize patient registries vary. However, founders of patient registries should devote more attention to supporting the development of new drugs and medical devices because they will have the potential to change a patient’s life drastically. Patient registries should consider collecting data that will attract researchers in academia but also those in industry at the planning phase in terms of increasing the use of data stored in registries and in terms of expanding the range of the sources of supporting funds.

As described previously, CIN was started in 2015 as a new collaboration framework between academia and industry to encourage drug discovery and development. It is drawing attention as a new framework for the use of patient registries.