A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement

The number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.; With a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.; Results suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments

'It's a nightmare': informed consent in paediatric genome-wide sequencing. A qualitative expert interview study from Germany and Switzerland.

The use of genome-wide sequencing (GWS) in paediatrics has added complexity to informed consent (IC) and pretest counselling because of the vast number and interpretation of potential findings, and their implications. However, empirical data from continental Europe on these issues remains limited. This study therefore aimed to explore the experiences and views of medical geneticists working with children in Germany and Switzerland regarding the challenges of obtaining valid IC in paediatric GWS. Qualitative interviews with 20 medical geneticists were analysed employing reflexive thematic analysis. In the interviews, many medical geneticists questioned the validity of parents' IC due to the enormous amount of relevant information given and the variety and complexity of the possible test outcomes. Key barriers identified included familial implications, administrative challenges and struggles with non-directiveness. Medical geneticists' suggestions for improvement included increasing the number of genetics professionals and better information material, which is crucial as GWS becomes a diagnostic standard in the early care pathways of children. An adjustment of aspirations from still existing ideal of traditional fully IC to appropriate IC seems to be needed. Such a more realistic and ethically sound adaptation of the requirements for IC can lead to better 'informedness' and improve the validity of the consent. This might also help reduce the moral distress for the medical geneticists involved

Bürgerwissenschaftliche Forschungsansätze in Medizin und Gesundheitsforschung: ausgewählte Begriffe mit Fokus auf den Beteiligungsgrad

In den Bürgerwissenschaften, auch bekannt unter dem englischen Begriff Citizen Science, existiert eine Vielzahl an Forschungsansätzen und Methoden. Während diese in vielen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen gut etabliert sind, finden sich augenscheinlich relativ wenige davon in der medizinischen und Gesundheitsforschung. Allerdings zeigt ein Blick in die Praxis, dass bürgerwissenschaftliche Ansätze in der Medizin und Gesundheitsforschung durchaus praktiziert werden, jedoch häufig unter anderen Namen. Der Artikel bietet aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive einen (selektiven) Überblick über Begriffe, reflektiert diese und die dahinterstehenden Methoden und diskutiert sie vergleichend. Im Fokus steht dabei der Grad der Beteiligung der Bürger*innen bzw. Patient*innen an wissenschaftlicher Forschung.In citizen science, a variety of research approaches and methods exist. While these are well established in many scientific disciplines, there are apparently relatively few of them in medical and health research. However, a glance at practice shows that citizen science approaches are indeed practiced in medical and health research, but often under different names. The paper therefore provides a (selective) overview of these terms, reflects on them and the methods behind them, and discusses them comparatively from an interdisciplinary perspective. The focus is on the degree of active participation of citizens and patients in research

Democratic research: Setting up a research commons for a qualitative, comparative, longitudinal interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic

The sudden and dramatic advent of the COVID-19 pandemic led to urgent demands for timely, relevant, yet rigorous research. This paper discusses the origin, design, and execution of the SolPan research commons, a large-scale, international, comparative, qualitative research project that sought to respond to the need for knowledge among researchers and policymakers in times of crisis. The form of organization as a research commons is characterized by an underlying solidaristic attitude of its members and its intrinsic organizational features in which research data and knowledge in the study is shared and jointly owned. As such, the project is peer-governed, rooted in (idealist) social values of academia, and aims at providing tools and benefits for its members. In this paper, we discuss challenges and solutions for qualitative studies that seek to operate as research commons

Procreation machines: Ectogenesis as reproductive enhancement, proper medicine or a step towards posthumanism?

Full ectogenesis as the complete externalization of human reproduction by bypassing the bodily processes of gestation and childbirth can be considered the culmination of genetic and reproductive technologies. Despite its still being a hypothetical scenario, it has been discussed for decades as the ultimate means to liberate women from their reproductive tasks in society and hence finally end fundamental gender injustices generally. In the debate about the application of artificial wombs to achieve gender equality, one aspect is barely mentioned but is of crucial relevance from a medical‐ethical perspective: whether and how could full ectogenesis be justified as a proper use of medicine? After characterizing the technology as a special form of human enhancement and as an extension of medical practice that goes beyond the traditional field of medicine, this paper critically assesses the theoretical possibilities of legitimizing this extension. We identify two ways of justification: either one argues that ectogenesis fulfils a proper goal of medicine (a justification we call pathologization), or one argues that the application of ectogenesis achieves a non‐medical goal (which we call medicalization). Because it is important from a medical‐ethical point of view to avoid an inappropriate instrumentalization or misuse of medicine and thus an undue medicalization of non‐medical problems, a set of necessary conditions has to be met. It is doubtful whether full ectogenesis for non‐medical purposes could fulfil these conditions. Rather, its comprehensive usage could be seen as a revolutionary modification of what it means to be human

A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement

Background: The number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective. Results: With a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status. Conclusion: Results suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments. Keywords: Allocation of resources; Ethics; Orphan diseases; Orphan drugs; Publicly funded healthcare systems; Rare diseases; Reimbursement; Systematic review of reasons

Face mask uptake in the absence of mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study with Swiss residents

In the COVID-19 pandemic, Switzerland introduced broad nationwide face mask mandates only by October 2020, later than other Western European countries. This study aims to assess the underlying values and considerations of individuals to wear face masks in the absence of face mask mandates in the COVID-19 pandemic in German-speaking Switzerland.; As part of the "Solidarity in times of a pandemic" (SolPan) research commons, we interviewed 31 participants living in the German-speaking part of Switzerland in April 2020 and 25 of them again in October 2020. Qualitative inductive thematic analysis was applied for data analysis and interpretation. Public health ethics principles guided the interpretation and organization of findings.; Five themes were identified: Trust and governmental policy; perceived benefits of mask-wearing; perceived risks of mask-wearing; social exclusion and prejudice; and decision-making in the absence of mandates. In light of increasing infection rates in October 2020, many participants started to consider the benefits higher than the risks and were willing to accept face mask mandates in that context, despite earlier reservations.; The absence of face mask mandates underline individual autonomy but may also suppress personal responsibility due to social influence. Face masks are only temporarily acceptable in liberal Western societies and face mask mandates should be enforced only when epidemiologically necessary

Long-Term Survival After Venous Thromboembolism: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Little is known about long-term survival after the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In a prospective cohort study, we aimed to assess the long-term mortality and key predictor variables relating to disease severity, treatment intensity, and comorbidities. Materials and Methods: Between 1988 and 2018, 6,243 consecutive patients with VTE from a University outpatient unit were prospectively included and followed until December 2019; clinical characteristics, measures of disease severity, and treatment details were recorded. Dates of death were retrieved from the Swiss Central Compensation Office. Results: Overall, 254 deaths occurred over an observation period of 57,212 patient-years. Compared to the Swiss population, the standardized mortality ratio was 1.30 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.47; overall mortality rate: 4.44 per 1,000 patient-years). The following predictors were associated with increased mortality: Unprovoked VTE (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.06; 95% CI: 3.29, 7.77), transient triggering risk factors (HR: 3.46; 95% CI: 2.18, 5.48), previous VTE (HR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.60, 2.62), pulmonary embolism (HR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.89), permanent anticoagulant treatment (HR: 3.14; 95% CI: 2.40, 4.12), prolonged anticoagulant treatment (7-24 months; HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.16, 2.48), and cardiovascular comorbidities. Unprovoked VTE, previous VTE, permanent and prolonged anticoagulation remain independent risk factors after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities. Conclusion: Survival after VTE was significantly reduced compared to the Swiss general population, especially in patients with more severe disease, cardiovascular comorbidities, and longer anticoagulant treatment

The second pandemic: Examining structural inequality through reverberations of COVID-19 in Europe

While everyone has been impacted directly or indirectly by the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures to contain it, not everyone has been impacted in the same way and certainly not to the same degree. Media coverage in early 2020 emphasized the "unprecedented" nature of the pandemic, and some even predicted that the virus could be a global "equalizer." Ensuing debates over how the pandemic should be handled have often hinged on oppositions between protecting health and healthcare systems versus saving livelihoods and the economy, a dichotomy that we argue is false. Drawing on 482 interviews conducted in Germany, Italy, Ireland, Austria, German-speaking Switzerland and the UK over two points in a 6-month period as part of the 'Solidarity in times of Pandemics Research Consortium' (SolPan), we illustrate the ways that oppositions posed between saving lives or saving livelihoods fail to capture the entangled, long-standing nature of structural inequalities that have been revealed through the pandemic. Health- and wealth-related inequalities intersect to produce the "second pandemic," a term used by a research participant to explain the other forms of devastation that run in parallel with virus. Our findings thus complicate such dichotomies through a qualitative understanding of the pandemic as a lived experience. The pandemic emerges as a critical juncture which, in exacerbating these existing structural inequalities, also poses an opportunity to work to better resolve them