Patient organization involvement and the challenge of securing access to treatments for rare diseases:Report of a policy engagement workshop

Plain English summary Patients with rare diseases often help to develop new treatments for their conditions. But once developed, those treatments are sometimes priced too high for many patients to access them. We became aware that this is a problem in the course of a social science research project that examines the place of rare diseases in health policy. We therefore organized a two-day workshop to try and understand why this problem occurs and what might be done about it. The people who participated in our workshop were: representatives of rare disease patient organizations, experts in matters of drug regulation and assessment of new health technologies, consultants involved with companies producing treatments for rare diseases, and social scientists researching related issues. The main conclusions to emerge from the discussions were as follows: Problems of access to treatments for rare diseases are not just due to high prices; procedures for regulating, assessing and delivering new treatments also need to be better organized. Patients and patient organizations have much to contribute to this process. However, their resources are often very limited. Consequently, more needs to be done to help them use those resources as effectively as possible. In particular, regulators and healthcare providers need to ensure that their procedures are clear and efficiently managed, so as not to waste patient organizations’ time and money. Clearer guidance is needed on what patient organizations can do to provide evidence of the effectiveness of new drugs. Insights gained in tackling rare diseases might also be applicable to common disorders. Finally, the consequences of Brexit for UK policies on rare diseases urgently need to be assessed. Abstract Since the enactment of orphan drug legislation in the USA, Europe and several other countries, an increasing number of treatments for rare diseases have been developed and many of them been approved for marketing. However, such treatments tend to be priced very high, and access to effective treatments remains a major challenge for patients with rare diseases – despite active involvement of patients and their support organizations in various stages of basic and applied research and commercial development. In order to allow patients to benefit from treatments proved effective for their diseases, we need to better understand why this challenge persists, and what steps might be taken to address it. To that end, we organized a policy-engagement workshop, bringing together individuals and organizations with direct experience of trying to secure access to a treatment for a rare disease along with individuals with relevant expertise in regulatory and commissioning processes for new medicines. With additional input from social scientists who offered different perspectives on the value of patient involvement, the workshop aimed to initiate a dialogue among the participants about how to address the challenge in a sustainable manner. Discussions at the workshop stressed that active involvement of patients is as valuable in the regulatory and commissioning processes as in the research and development of new medicines. However, it also highlighted certain risks and costs associated with such involvement. These include the costs of adjusting to abrupt changes in regulatory and commissioning processes, and the risk of being perceived as too close to commercial interests. To optimize use of scarce resources and ensure continuing active involvement, such risks and costs need to be better managed. Participants also noted that, owing to advances in genomic technologies, common diseases are also becoming divided into rare sub-categories, which are equally eligible for orphan drug designation. Consequently, involvement of wider patient communities beyond rare disease communities will be critical for continuing discussions about patients’ involvement in regulatory and commissioning processes, and to consider how patients and their support organizations can best work with other stakeholders – including companies, regulators and policymakers – to ensure access to effective medicines

PedHunter 2.0 and its usage to characterize the founder structure of the Old Order Amish of Lancaster County

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Because they are a closed founder population, the Old Order Amish (OOA) of Lancaster County have been the subject of many medical genetics studies. We constructed four versions of Anabaptist Genealogy Database (AGDB) using three sources of genealogies and multiple updates. In addition, we developed PedHunter, a suite of query software that can solve pedigree-related problems automatically and systematically.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We report on how we have used new features in PedHunter to quantify the number and expected genetic contribution of founders to the OOA. The queries and utility of PedHunter programs are illustrated by examples using AGDB in this paper. For example, we calculated the number of founders expected to be contributing genetic material to the present-day living OOA and estimated the mean relative founder representation for each founder. New features in PedHunter also include pedigree trimming and pedigree renumbering, which should prove useful for studying large pedigrees.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>With PedHunter version 2.0 querying AGDB version 4.0, we identified 34,160 presumed living OOA individuals and connected them into a 14-generation pedigree descending from 554 founders (332 females and 222 males) after trimming. From the analysis of cumulative mean relative founder representation, 128 founders (78 females and 50 males) accounted for over 95% of the mean relative founder contribution among living OOA descendants.</p> <p>Discussion/Conclusions</p> <p>The OOA are a closed founder population in which a modest number of founders account for the genetic variation present in the current OOA population. Improvements to the PedHunter software will be useful in future studies of both the OOA and other populations with large and computerized genealogies.</p

Living with Gitelman disease: an insight into patients' daily experiences

Background. Gitelman disease presents with musculos-keletal complaints and fatigue. Surprisingly, there is no clear-cut correlation between biochemical abnormalities and symptoms. Methods. Starting from the hypothesis that the way patients comprehend their illness within their sociocultur-al frameworks reflects on their way of adapting to it, this study investigated how adult patients experience the disease in everyday life. We conducted a qualitative analysis based on interviews with 12 patients. Interviews were audio recorded, fully transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method described by Strauss and Corbin. Results. A typology of the experiences emerged from the data and was tested on each transcript with an explicit search for disconfirming cases. Patients fell into four main groups: (i) those considering Gitelman disease a disabling illness, (ii) those considering it a normalized illness, (iii) those considering it a different normality and (iv) those considering it an episodic disability. Each pattern of experience was characterized by particular (i) ways of interpreting symptoms (ii) ways of managing Gitelman disease in everyday life, (iii) general lifestyles and (iv) risks for the patient’s psychosocial life. Conclusions. These findings suggest that health care providers should take advantage of considering patients’ own perception of the disease in order to adjust the care and advice provided

From ‘politics of numbers’ to ‘politics of singularisation’:Patients’ activism and engagement in research on rare diseases in France and Portugal

This article investigates how the engagement of patients/' organisations (POs) in research relates to the dynamics of their activism in the area of rare diseases. It traces back how certain concerned families and groups elaborated rareness as an issue of equity and social justice, gave shape to what we call a /`politics of numbers/' for stating the fact of rare diseases as a major public health problem, and promoted patients/' critical involvement in biomedical and therapeutic research as a solution for mainstreaming rare diseases in regular health systems. It then studies three Portuguese and three French POs, which point to the limits of the epidemiological notion of rareness for capturing the compounded and intersecting nature of the bio-psycho-social make-up of their conditions. It finally shows how these critics progressively lead to the emergence of an alternative politics, which we call a /`politics of singularisation/'. At the core of this politics stands a collective and ongoing profiling of conditions and patients, whose similarities and differences relates to the ubiquity of biological pathways and diseases categories. Our contention is that this /`politics of singularisation/' not only pictures a politics of illnesses which questions the rationale for nosological classifications, but also, and consequently, affects the making of social links by suggesting the simultaneous identification of individual patients and constitution of collectives to which they partake while asserting their specificities