The Value of Openness: The PatientsLikeMe Blog

Primary Lateral Sclerosis (PLS) and Progressive Muscular Atrophy (PMA) are two rare variants of the disease ALS. Normally, ALS affects the upper motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord, as well as the lower motor neurons that send signals from the spinal cord directly to muscles. PLS and PMA are different because PLS only affects the upper motor neurons, and PMA only affects the lower motor neurons. It’s an important distinction for patients to be told about because the prognosis is less severe in these conditions.  On average, survival in ALS is typically reported to be 2-5 years, whereas for patients with PMA it’s more like 5-10 years and for PLS it’s even longer (often several decades).

ALS itself is a rare condition, affecting some 30,000 people in the United States at any one time.  PLS and PMA each represent approximately 5% of the overall ALS community, so there’s approximately 1,500 patients with each condition in the U.S at any given time.  In April 2008, PatientsLikeMe added the ability for members of our ALS community to change their diagnosis to these rare conditions.  To date, we now have 182 patients with PLS and 270 with PMA. This is truly exciting because even the largest studies in the literature have only examined 40 or so PLS patients and a similar number of PMA patients. One of our most useful features on our site for people with ALS is the percentile curves, which we display as a backdrop on their profiles to put each individual’s rate of progression into context. However, as you can see in the figure below, when you compare the progression curves of ALS patients on our site with those of a typical PLS patient, the PLS patient progression deviates significantly from the ALS curves.

With so many PLS and PMA patients sharing such valuable information about their disease on PatientsLikeMe, we had enough information to generate a new set of percentile curves for each of those communities.  To do this, we used self-report ALSFRS-R (ALS functional rating score - revised) data from 104 PLS patients and 59 PMA patients that met our criteria for data quality. We have good data for the first 4-5 years of disease after onset, and after that point we rely on linear extrapolation to make the plots.  Here we see the value of openness in action.  When you see the potential value in contributing your data, it drives a virtuous cycle: the more data you enter, the more value you get, so you enter more data!

As any of our patients in these communities will tell you, being diagnosed with a rare disease can be a frustrating experience. Aside from dealing with the condition itself, there’s the lack of public awareness, a lack of research investigating your condition, and a sense that you are being “lumped in” with a similar disease because your community doesn’t have the critical mass to merit its own attention.  These new percentile curves for PLS and PMA patients demonstrate the value and power of openness.  By sharing their health data in an open fashion, patients are providing new insights that are changing how we think and act when it comes to these very rare conditions.

Note:  A potential limitation of these curves is that they represent the outcomes for patients that are members of PatientsLikeMe and may not be generalizable to the entire population; we are working hard to better understand and correct for the biases in our population and data. As the size and longevity of each community increases, we will be in a better position to address these issues.

There are rare diseases, and there are rare diseases. Here at PatientsLikeMe our first community was built for patients with ALS (estimated US Prevalence: 30,000), and in common with our other neurological communities there is a familiar list of challenges: low public awareness, little funding for research, and a lack of adequate treatments. However, over the past year or so I’ve really had my eyes opened to the differences between “rare” and what you might call “super-rare” conditions, such as Devic’s neuromyelitis optica. Nobody really knows how many people Devic’s affects as it is frequently confused with MS, but there are probably only a few thousand patients with this condition in the world. That’s why we’re incredibly proud that our Devic’s community currently has 136 registered patients sharing health data with one another; that’s more than 5 times larger than the largest study I’ve seen on the condition in the scientific literature (which included collaborators from around the world in seven specialist centers over the course of several years).

I was privileged to be invited to speak at the annual meeting of Eurordis (The European Organization for Rare Diseases) in Athens, Greece, to meet with some of the leading online health efforts in this space. Attendees included non-profit organizations, medical professionals, and patients themselves from all over Europe.  We all convened to discuss some of the most innovative tools available on the web for patients to find other patients like them, share their data, and improve their outcomes. PatientsLikeMe was featured as an ambitious and innovative effort to accelerate the pace of research in rare diseases but we also saw great initiatives that had come from the frontlines of rare diseases.  In fact, the point about ultra-rare diseases was driven home in the opening keynote by Yann Le Cam when we heard that there are some 5,500 rare diseases cataloged by Orphanet (including Devic’s) which are not in the ICD-10 taxonomy of diseases. Ultimately, at PatientsLikeMe, our goal is to build a community for every life-changing illness that exists, but what can patients with these conditions be looking for in the meantime?

The highlight of the meeting for me was seeing the incredible work being carried out at Duchenne Connect.org (The Netherlands) and Duchenne Connect.org (USA). Founders Elizabeth Vroom and Pat Furlong gave an overview of their experiences building patient-focused programs that allowed parents of children with Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy to support one another, accelerate the efforts of researchers, and bring greater attention and focus to patients affected by this rare disease. From the other side of the Atlantic, Mary Dunkle from NORD (National Organization for Rare Diseases) made a clear statement that online communities have the power to be far more than just bulletin boards and blogs for patients to use for emotional support. In her presentation, she stated: “We want to move beyond simply providing emotional support…to facilitate action that produces results”; we couldn’t agree more. Videos of the talks from these amazing patient advocates (along with many other talks from the meeting) can be viewed online here at the Eurordis website.

There were a number of challenges that were highlighted during the meeting. David Golub was the first to articulate that there are serious ethical issues implicit in for-profit companies (like us!) being involved in patient research that was traditionally the remit of academics and clinicians. He asked us to all consider what we can all do to “protect the public commons?”. Unsurprisingly for a European audience, there was much concern about language specialization.  Patient advocates insisted on better localization to allow broader access to non-English speakers, and for providers like us trying to find innovative ways to ensure excellent content that can be dynamic and accessible for all. My own view is that technology (like Google Translate) will outpace any system we could possibly resource with human translators.

Finally, there was the question put to us by event organizer Denis Costello from Eurordis; how can small non-profits in ultra-rare diseases partner with organizations like PatientsLikeMe?  It’s something we think about every day. Our Devic’s community came out of our MS Community; PSP and MSA came from Parkinson’s; and PLS and PMA came out of ALS. We are developing strategies to build communities for “clusters” of communities that will allow us help a broader swathe of patients with both prevalent and rare conditions. It was hugely encouraging to see the energy, ingenuity, and determination that you see when advocates are passionate about helping patients.

We do not live our lives alone. We live our lives in collaboration with others. We communicate our needs and our goals, and together we work to achieve them. This is exceptionally true for families and individuals dealing with illness. Whether you’re dealing with depression, or pain, or perhaps the fear and stigma of HIV, or the impairment that comes from MS, Parkinson’s or ALS, what helps us the most is when those around us reach out and share their support and advice.

You would think that your ability to share would be as much your right as speech, but is it? It’s not clear that is true in healthcare today, nor is it clear that such a right will be protected tomorrow. Privacy is also a right – a right to not share what you do not want shared. It’s a fair and just expectation that the doctors and clinicians you employ to support you in your illness will not share your information without your permission. Today, I fear that privacy has become much more than a right; it has become a goal. When that happens, people begin to find ways to make it difficult to share in the name of privacy.

More than once we have been asked by people in the medical system whether patients are allowed to share information with each other like they do on PatientsLikeMe. In fact, in some countries you can read their rules in a certain way and reasonably deduce that this type of sharing is not allowed. It is vitally important that we do not let this become a reality in the U.S.  There are some that would take away your right to share because they do not believe you are competent to weigh the risks and benefits of sharing, and make a sound decision. Imagine being forced to sign a document before you email a friend on PatientsLikeMe with a question about a symptom? This could be a possible consequence of ill intentioned privacy legislation.

We are working to ensure that sharing is preserved as a right. We know that you share with us, and each other, because you trust that we will do the right thing with that knowledge. At PatientsLikeMe, we are working hard to ensure we earn your trust every step of the way. To do this, we focus our energies on ways to help discover new things about each disease here and support the research system. We do this in the spirit of openness espoused in our Openness Philosophy. We work to be transparent about our business model and our decisions, and try to be accessible to you to answer your questions as you participate in our communities.

It remains our hope that you are wowed like we are about what is possible when we work together to make our healthcare system, and our lives, better. We have seen so much healing between all of you here on PatientsLikeMe, and it is because we are all sharing together – not alone.

PatientsLikeMe was recently asked to testify before the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Committee for Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS). The NCVHS Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality and Security is responsible for exploring these aforementioned issues as they relate to healthcare, and ran a 3-day hearing to spur informative dialogue about the future of e-healthcare. I was honored to represent PatientsLikeMe, and the thousands of patient members of our communities, as I testified on all of our behalf at that hearing.

As I said in the hearing, openness is what is and can help patients. It’s what matters. We believe in the concept called “The Network Patient” - an approach that puts patients first by giving you what you need to know when you need to know it, and empowering you to act on that information. As members of PatientsLikeMe, you have chosen to embrace openness and take control of your health. You volunteer your health information, your experiences, your life - all in an effort to improve your care, support others, and move research forward.

Here are a few excerpts from our prepared testimony statement that expand on privacy, openness and the future of our health system.

“From our experiences at PatientsLikeMe, we know patients are aware of the issues. They understand and weigh the risks and benefits, and are intelligently making rational choices about where they are comfortable sharing information and how their information will be used to help. If we infringe on this right to share or speak (in the interest of preventing discrimination), we are preventing the flow of information and, by our read, acting contrary to the values on which our country was founded.

Privacy is also more than a legal concept, it is also a philosophical concept. A modern focus on privacy as a goal, not as a right, has moved the line to the point that medicine is slowed, treatments are delayed, and patients die for failure to have what they need when they need it. We have substituted real harm for mostly theoretical harm. We would even argue that the philosophical focus on privacy is a bad thing. We believe that openness is much more powerful concept than privacy in medicine, and one that gives patients the power to take control of their health…

We have to begin to work on building a society that allows the variation in human health and the variation in human condition, one that allows people to be philosophically created equal. We need to work on building a society where information is not used to discriminate, but to assist and support and improve. Restricting the flow of information will not advance solving this problem.

This is not a simple transformation, but we believe it is inevitable. The major privacy issues are not only about health records, but the invisible trail of “breadcrumbs” we leave behind us day to day in life. Health is not a separate concept. It is an integrated concept and, in an integrated world, we have to decide how to build a society that can handle the reality that not all are healthy. We need to work together to get the most productivity and life from all of us.

We believe openness can lead the way to such a society.”

The full testimony is available here and posted to the NCVHS website (along with audio archive of the 5/20/09 hearing). A transcript will also be made available soon. These hearings, and of course our blog, are open to the public for comment on these issues. In the spirit of sharing, please share your thoughts with us here.

In today’s issue of the journal Science two papers describe the discovery of a new gene for ALS (you can read the abstracts here and here). Around 90% of ALS cases are sporadic, i.e. we don’t know what causes them, but for 5-10% of patients the disease runs in their family (known as familial ALS, FALS). Until today, there was only one major causative gene that we knew about, called SOD1, which accounted for 20% of familial cases. Today’s new discovery of the gene FUS (also known as ALS6) accounts for an additional 3-5% of familial cases and was the result of an international collaboration between scientists in Boston, London, and Sydney. This is very exciting for research because the more we know about what causes ALS, the better our chances of finding an effective treatment through better understanding of the pathways involved in motor neuron degeneration.

Here at PatientsLikeMe, we’ve recently upgraded our ALS platform to capture data on familial ALS patients’ known genetic mutations. The goal is to help familial ALS patients find another patient like them, and to enhance understanding of the phenotype of each mutation, e.g. if different types of mutation cause a faster or slower disease progression. Ultimately our aim is to try and establish whether there might be any treatments that have a differential effect on patients with different disease-causing mutations. There are examples of this already known in other diseases; for instance the presence of absence of the Philadelphia chromosome in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) predicts whether the patient will respond to the drug Gleevec. Although there is currently only a single effective treatment for ALS (Rilutek), there are a number of trials underway investigating the potential of drugs for patients with specific gene mutations.

The unique outcome data captured on the PatientsLikeMe platform also allows us to learn more about the nature of the disease for FALS patients with different genetic mutations. In the graph above you can see the average rate of progression for patients with three different FALS mutations; the common and aggressive A4V mutation (sadly average survival is ~18 months), the rarer recessive D90A mutation (much longer average survival of ~13 years), and a very rare and recently identified mutation of VAPB, referred to as ALS8. Collecting genetic data and combining it with high-quality patient-reported outcomes helps a patient to answer the question “Given my status, what is the best outcome I can expect to achieve, and how do I get there?”.

Note: If you have familial ALS and know your genetic mutation status please consider joining our ALS community and sharing your genetic information through your diagnosis history.

PatientsLikeMe members share health data on the site adding their own individual-level health experience to a repository of structured outcome data. The result? An unprecedented data set that informs medical conversation not only within the patient community but also with the larger scientific one.

Earlier this fall, the venue for this conversation was the annual meeting of the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA). Typically, AMIA is a forum for medical researchers to discuss clinical-facing informatics projects like electronic medical records, doctor decision-support systems, and standards. This year, the event agenda included its first-ever panel on patient collaboration, with PatientsLikeMe presenting on how our members use informatics systems to spearhead original research.I presented a paper co-authored with Michael Massagli chronicling the activity on the ALS site regarding the site-based evaluation of Lithium. Questions about the paper were enthusiastic and challenging as medical researchers contemplated the full implications of patients conducting research outside of the healthcare system. The most provocative comment came from Danny Sands of Cisco who introduced the possibility that while he saw the value of PatientsLikeMe, we may also be “polluting clinical trials” - when patients with rare diseases take experimental treatments before being enrolled in (his) randomized clinical trials. My response was that he and others in the clinical trial world may feel differently if someone he cared for was diagnosed with ALS – a disease where patients have limited time to explore treatment options. As medical researchers, we should be proud of our patients who are taking an active role in their health care; I know I am.

The truth is, whether practitioners discuss it or not, people have long experimented with novel, off-label, and alternative treatments (some with and some without their physicians). Barring the few cases that are published in academic journals, these individual efforts only resulted in a tiny group of people learning anything from their experience. By organizing these individual efforts, PatientsLikeMe allows the data to be pooled and recorded systematically for analysis.

Of course, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the most rigorous means to systematize experimentation, but they have their draw-backs. They are expensive to run, time consuming (they take years, our study took months), and may be subject to more confounds than their organizers would like to believe.

While coordinated patient-led research on PatientsLikeMe is new, and as such presents novel challenges in its methods and credibility, we have now glimpsed its promise, its potential. Lithium was a first effort to study one treatment in one condition; it is just the beginning. There are many other treatments being used listed on the site by our patients that are not – for a variety of reasons - being studied systematically anywhere else. For example: Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN), Stem Cell Transplants in ALS, 4-Aminopyridine (4-AP), Botox injections to manage excess saliva, etc. These demand our attention.

Regarding the Lithium experiment, one patient described the situation better than I ever could in this forum post: “This is an amazing process.  Instead of sitting on the sidelines searching for promising research we are for the first time ever (from what I can determine) taking a group of people with a particular disease and taking an active role in researching a treatment.”

PatientsLikeMe’s members are not only learning how to best care for themselves, they are contributing their otherwise anecdotal experience to a body of data. Motivated by their own desire for better outcomes, patients are reporting directly to the website and building a body of evidence not being collected anywhere else. Together, with our carefully designed tools to capture, display, discuss and analyze this data, we are creating a repository of patient reported outcomes that will add patient data to evidence-based medicine and advance our knowledge.  Isn’t that what it’s all about?