Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for new medicines in rare disease patients and caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Rare disease patients and caregivers face uncommon, serious, debilitating conditions often characterised by poor prognosis and limited treatment options. This study aimed to explore what they consider of value when choosing between hypothetical therapeutic options and to quantify both their benefit-risk preferences and the influence of disease context. METHODS: A mixed-methods survey with patients and caregivers was conducted in the United Kingdom across a range of rare diseases. Discrete-choice experiments that compared hypothetical treatment profiles of benefits and risks were used to measure respondent preferences across a set of seven attributes related to health outcomes, safety, and process of care. Bespoke questions on current disease management and the joint use of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire and of two Likert scales capturing self- and proxy-assessed disease-induced threat to life and impairment were implemented to describe disease context. Additionally, qualitative insights on the definitions of value and risk were collected from respondents. RESULTS: Final study sample included 721 patients and 152 informal caregivers, across 52 rare diseases. When choosing between hypothetical novel treatments for rare diseases, respondents attributed most importance to drug response, risk of serious side effects, and the ability to conduct usual activities while on treatment. In contrast, attributes related to treatment modalities were the least important. Respondents expressed a willingness to accept risks in hopes of finding some benefit, such as a higher chance of drug response or greater health improvement potential. Increasing disease severity, impairment or disability, and the lack of effective therapeutic options were shown to raise significantly the willingness to gain benefit through increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study performing a quantitative discrete choice experiment amongst patients and caregivers across 52 rare conditions. It enables a more detailed understanding of the relationship between disease context, treatment attributes and the degree of risk respondents are willing to take to gain a specific degree of benefit. Researchers of novel therapeutics for rare diseases should be encouraged to invest in preference elicitation studies to generate rigorous patient evidence and specific regulatory guidance should be issued to acknowledge their importance and their use in marketing authorisations.

Patenting and licensing in genetic testing: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

Patents for inventions can be beneficial for society, if they drive innovation and promote progress. In most areas, the patenting system works satisfactorily. However, it must be recognized that in some instances it can also be problematic; this is the case in the field of genetics, and particularly in the area of genetic testing. As patents should serve their original purpose (promoting innovation through a fair reward system for the inventors), the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) suggests ways to improve the mechanisms that already form part of the patents system as a whole. In brief, the ESHG recommends limiting the breadth of the claims in genetic patents and, more practically, to reduce the number of patents by limiting the patentable subject matter, thereby improving the quality of the patents that will eventually be granted. There is also a suggestion to redefine the concept of utility in patent law, by taking account of downstream clinical experience. The ESHG sees no harm in the patenting of novel technical tools for genetic testing (eg PCR or chip technologies), as they can promote investment and still allow for invention around them. Many disputes between supporters of the patenting system and the public revolve around ethical issues. The European Patent Office should consider the benefit of having an ethics committee to consider issues of major interest, such as patents applied to genes. The problem of licensing should also be addressed. Practically, this means supporting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines, which prescribe that licences should be non-exclusive and easily obtainable, both in practical and in financial terms. To promote this, the practical exploration of alternative models for licensing, like patent pools and clearinghouses, is a prerequisite. To better track developments in this field, the establishment of a voluntary reporting system, whereby geneticists could report on any issues related to new and/or old patents or licences in the light of service provision to patients, would be worthwhile. Finally, the ESHG is calling upon all stakeholders to start the process of developing a code of conduct for partners with patents, covering ethical aspects as well as smooth licensing arrangements.

Patenting and licensing in genetic testing.

Patents for inventions can be beneficial for society, if they drive innovation and promote progress. In most areas, the patenting system works satisfactorily. However, it must be recognized that in some instances it can also be problematic; this is the case in the field of genetics, and particularly in the area of genetic testing. As patents should serve their original purpose (promoting innovation through a fair reward system for the inventors), the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) suggests ways to improve the mechanisms that already form part of the patents system as a whole. In brief, the ESHG recommends limiting the breadth of the claims in genetic patents and, more practically, to reduce the number of patents by limiting the patentable subject matter, thereby improving the quality of the patents that will eventually be granted. There is also a suggestion to redefine the concept of utility in patent law, by taking account of downstream clinical experience. The ESHG sees no harm in the patenting of novel technical tools for genetic testing (eg PCR or chip technologies), as they can promote investment and still allow for invention around them. Many disputes between supporters of the patenting system and the public revolve around ethical issues. The European Patent Office should consider the benefit of having an ethics committee to consider issues of major interest, such as patents applied to genes. The problem of licensing should also be addressed. Practically, this means supporting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines, which prescribe that licenses should be non-exclusive and easily obtainable, both in practical and in financial terms. To promote this, the practical exploration of alternative models for licensing, like patent pools and clearinghouses, is a prerequisite. To better track developments in this field, the establishment of a voluntary reporting system, whereby geneticists could report on any issues related to new and/or old patents or licenses in the light of service provision to patients, would be worthwhile. Finally, the ESHG is calling upon all stakeholders to start the process of developing a code of conduct for partners with patents, covering ethical aspects as well as smooth licensing arrangements.

Prevalence of vernal keratoconjunctivitis: a rare disease?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of vernal keratoconjuntivitis (VKC) in Europe. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to 3003 ophthalmologists from six countries (Finland, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) representing 151.9 million inhabitants. Results were analysed per country, and VKC prevalence for the 15 European member states in 2002 was extrapolated. Six hypotheses were used: disease duration (4 or 8 years) combined with three prevalence hypotheses for non-responding ophthalmologists. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 29.5%. The estimates of VKC prevalence in Western Europe (per 10,000 inhabitants) ranged from 1.16 to 10.55. The prevalence of VKC with corneal complications ranged from 0.30 to 2.26. The VKC prevalences per country were in the following ranges: Italy 2.4-27.8, Finland, 0.7-8.4, Sweden 1.2-8.7, The Netherlands 0.6-4.6, France 0.7-3.3 and Norway 0.3-1.9. VKC with corneal complications were: Italy 0.4-4.8, Sweden 0.3-2.4, Finland 0.2-2.8, The Netherlands 0.2-1.6, France 0.3-1.4 and Norway 0.1-1.0. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the most likely hypotheses concerning disease duration and non-responding ophthalmologists' VKC case rate, the best estimate of VKC prevalence in Western Europe is 3.2/10,000 inhabitants. The prevalence of VKC with corneal complications is 0.8/10,000 inhabitants.

Rare diseases in disabled children: an epidemiological survey.

AIM: To estimate the contribution of rare diseases (RD) to severe impairment in 7-year-old children. METHODS: Data from a morbidity register of childhood impairments in a single French region were used. Impairments were classified as a mental, sensorial, neuromuscular (skeletal or movement-related) impairment (MSN_I) according to the International Classification of Functioning. Details of children born from 1980 to 1994 and resident in the county under study when they were 7 years old were recorded. A rare disease was defined as a prevalence rate of <1 per 2000 general population. RESULTS: 26% of children with severe MSN_I had a rare disease; in 36% the MSN_I was of unknown origin. The proportion of impairments that were due to a rare disease varied according to the type of impairment: 3.3% for severe psychiatric disorders; 16.0% for intellectual impairment; 37.2% for hearing impairment; 41.2% for neuromuscular, skeletal and movement impairment; and 81.1% for visual impairment. The overall prevalence rate of rare diseases was 2.1 per 1000 (459/218 283), and it increased significantly over time (p = 0.003). The latter increase was not associated with a decrease in the proportion of impairments of unknown origin, indicating an improvement in the survival of the children with a rare disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a rare disease was at the origin of 26% of cases of severe MSN_I. This proportion remained stable over time, whereas the prevalence rate, as well as the prevalence rate of MSN_I disability, increased over time.

Networking for rare diseases: a necessity for Europe.

Most rare diseases are life-threatening and chronically debilitating conditions, and the vast majority of them are genetically determined. Their individually low prevalence requires special combined efforts to address them so as to improve diagnosis, care and prevention. Though it is difficult to develop a public health policy specific to each rare disease, it is possible to have a global rather than a piecemeal approach in the areas of scientific and biomedical research, drug research and development, industry policy, information and training, social benefits, hospitalisation and outpatient care. In the recent past, several initiatives at EU and Member States levels have been taken and proved efficient in developing suitable solutions which are now having a positive impact on the quality of life of patients. These initiatives are presented here. They include the establishment of Orphanet, a database of rare diseases and orphan drugs providing an encyclopedia of rare diseases and a directory of associated expert services, the funding of research networks to boost the collaboration between research teams, as well as the funding of networks of clinical centres of reference to better serve the patients and contribute to developing clinical research.

[Use of a directory of specialized services and guidance in the healthcare system: the example of the Orphanet database for rare diseases]. / Utilisation d'un annuaire des services spécialisés et orientation dans le système de soins: l'exemple d'Orphanet dans les maladies rares.

BACKGROUND: Orphanet is a database of rare diseases which includes a directory of services providing information on professional experts working either in laboratories offering diagnostic tests or in specialized outpatient clinics. The printed directory is sent to these experts, to all relevant hospital departments (public and private), healthcare authorities, and patient support groups. The directory is also available online (www.orpha.net). The aims of this study were (i) to determine how the directory is used to refer patients and send specimens, and (ii) to investigate its impact on patient referral. METHODS: Data were obtained from experts and patient support groups concerned with rare diseases, as well from non-expert health professionals and patients. Emphasis was placed on knowledge of the Orphanet database, use of the directory as a tool for referrals, opinion of users about the quality of the directory, and opinion of the referenced experts about its possible impact on their referrals. Four methods of data collection were used: (i) a postal questionnaire to all referenced experts; (ii) an on-line questionnaire posted for a few hours on the Orphanet Website that had to be completed to access the site; (iii) interviews with 25 of the referenced experts; (iv) interviews with 35 leaders of patient organizations. Data were analysed using the chi2 test and logistic regression. RESULTS: Response rates were good: 74% of laboratory experts (224/304) and 68% of clinicians (459/678) answered the questionnaire. The responders proved to be representative. Among those who responded, 85% of the laboratory experts and 80% of clinician experts used Orphanet. More than two-thirds of them used Orphanet to identify (other) laboratories to them send specimens, and (other) clinicians for patient referral. Some non-expert hospital-based clinicians had nearly the same use. Patient support groups also used the directory. Persons using the directory happened to know Orphanet in their professional environment. Conversely, patients, non-MDs healthcare professionals and professionals in private practice discovered Orphanet using search engines, often when searching information about a rare disease. Of those who had already accessed the directory, most (94%) consider that the quality of the lists was "good" or" rather good". Among the experts, 29% of laboratories and 9% of clinicians considered that Orphanet had an impact on their referrals. CONCLUSION: The Orphanet directory is used to refer patients and specimens, especially by experts and patient organizations. It appears to have more impact on referrals within the healthcare system for laboratories than for specialized outpatient clinics. The impact is strong when expertise in the field is very scarce.

[Information disclosure when screening for trisomy 21: a decision-making aid for pregnant women?]. / Information délivrée lors du dépistage de la trisomie 21: une aide à la décision des femmes enceintes?

We examined the contribution to decision-making of the information that is disclosed to women confronted with the proposition of screening for Down syndrome and when receiving the results. This review highlights the main results of a survey initiated by the French Ministry of Health. The purpose of this survey was to assess the modalities of prescription and results communication of the test, and also to determine the women's opinion concerning the information they had received. A large percentage of the women were dissatisfied with the information received before the test prescription, a percentage that was even more marked when the test results were delivered. Information was frequently regarded as not contributing to the decision-making process about testing and the data analysis suggested that information may not be adequate to prepare women for the decisions implied in the test results. However, a direct relationship cannot be established between satisfaction with information and contribution of the information to decision making: information may be considered as contributing to the decision although women did not understand the explanations; the contribution to decision-making does not have the same meaning when the test is proposed as a routine test (i.e. a self-evident act) or not. Finally, from the women's point of view, to make the "best possible" decision would require that health professionals' preferences regarding the information to be disclosed converge with the women's expectations regarding information, and with their preferences concerning the implication of health professionals in the decision-making process. In an operational perspective, the use of information and decision-making aid instruments could facilitate the elicitation of preferences and expectations.

Participation in maternal marker screening for Down syndrome: contribution of the information delivered to the decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE: In France, health care providers now have to fulfill two requirements before serum marker screening for Down syndrome can be carried out: provide a written statement confirming that they informed the pregnant woman about the test and obtain the woman's written consent. A survey was designed to assess: (1) women's opinion on the explanations they received when the screening test was offered and when test results were given, and (2) the decisions women planned to make in light of the test results (i.e. to carry out amniocentesis or not). METHODS: The survey was intended for all French pregnant women who underwent the serum marker screening test during the first week of October 1998. The questionnaire was sent to women via clinical laboratories (3,825 questionnaires were sent to the 54 laboratories authorized for Down syndrome screening in France). Besides chi(2) tests and tests of comparisons of paired proportions, we conducted a hierarchical clustering analysis and qualitatively analyzed the free comments provided by women. RESULTS: The response rate was 39% (n = 1,473). Explanations given by the provider at the time the test was offered were not clear and ample enough for 38.8% of women. Furthermore, 45.9% of women stated the same opinion about the explanations provided with the test results. Based on the test results, amniocentesis was recommended to 125 high-risk women; 20.8% of them were going to decline the offer or had not yet decided. Among low-risk women, 13% requested amniocentesis or had not yet decided. The opinion of these high- or low-risk women on the clarity and ampleness of the explanations provided with the test results was similar to that of high-risk women who wished to carry out amniocentesis. The hierarchical clustering analysis led us to identify clusters of women who mainly differed according to their opinion (anxious or reassured) on the explanations provided, regardless of their risk (high or low). CONCLUSION: Women's decision regarding screening for Down syndrome requires them to promptly integrate complex information on what the test is and entails. The question is then raised as to the type of information that is actually disclosed or that could be disclosed, based on how women value its contribution to decision-making.

[Prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with maternal serum markers: information for decision-making in pregnant women]. / Dépistage prénatal de la trisomie 21 par marqueurs sériques maternels: de l'information à la prise de décision des femmes enceintes.

INTRODUCTION: French health professionals are now required to provide relevant information on the test screening for Down syndrome and its possible implications when making the test available to pregnant women. A questionnaire was designed to assess prescription modalities, explanation of results, opinion on the information received when test was offered and test results were given, and likely decision after screening. RESULTS: The response rate was 39% (1473 questionnaires analyzed). In 90.5% of the answers, women declared that an interview had preceded test prescription. 61.2% of women were satisfied with both the clarity and quantity of explanations provided and 57.6% considered that the information had helped them decide to undergo or refuse screening. 54.1% were satisfied with the explanations of test results. Amniocentesis was proposed to 125 women, 79.2% of which decided to undergo the procedure. Their opinion concerning explanations of test results was similar to that of women who refused amniocentesis or had not yet made up their minds. CONCLUSION: Such results demonstrate the necessity to improve and adapt the information delivered by health professionals, keeping in mind that in this type of situation, decision making requires the rapid integration of complex information.

Maternal occupational risk factors for oral clefts. Occupational Exposure and Congenital Malformation Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the role of maternal exposures at work during pregnancy in the occurrence of oral clefts. METHODS: The occupational exposures of 851 women (100 mothers of babies with oral clefts and 751 mothers of healthy referents) who worked during the first trimester of pregnancy were studied. All the women were part of a multicenter European case-referent study conducted using 6 congenital malformation registers between 1989 and 1992. In each center, the mother's occupational history, obtained from an interview, was reviewed by industrial hygienists who were blinded to the subject's status and who assessed the presence of chemicals and the probability of exposure. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated by a multivariate analysis including maternal occupation or occupational exposures during the first trimester of pregnancy and possible confounding factors such as center of recruitment, maternal age, urbanization, socioeconomic status, and country of origin. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounding factors, cleft palate only was significantly associated with maternal occupation in services such as hairdressing [OR 5.1, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.0-26.0] and housekeeping (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.2). The analysis suggests that the following occupational exposures are associated with orofacial clefts: aliphatic aldehydes (OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.8-5.9) and glycol ethers (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.3) for cleft lip with or without cleft palate and lead compounds (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.3-12.2), biocides (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.0-6.0), antineoplastic drugs (OR 5.0, 95% CI 0.8-34.0), trichloroethylene (OR 6.7, 95% CI 0.9-49.7), and aliphatic acids (OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.5-22.8) for cleft palate only. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited number of subjects, these results must be interpreted with caution. However, they point out some chemicals already known or suspected as reproductive toxins.

Tobacco and alcohol use during pregnancy and risk of oral clefts. Occupational Exposure and Congenital Malformation Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the relationship between maternal tobacco and alcohol consumption during the first trimester of pregnancy and oral clefts. METHODS: Data were derived from a European multicenter case-control study including 161 infants with oral clefts and 1134 control infants. RESULTS: Multivariate analyses showed an increased risk of cleft lip with or without cleft palate associated with smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07, 3.04) and an increased risk of cleft palate associated with alcohol consumption (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.02, 5.09). The former risk increased with the number of cigarettes smoked. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence of the possible role of prevalent environmental exposures such as tobacco and alcohol in the etiology of oral clefts.

Bridging the gap between molecular genetics and metabolic medicine: access to genetic information.

UNLABELLED: Thanks to the World Wide Web, most results of research in genetics are made available in public databases. At the present time there are resources on genetic diseases, genes and their location, mutations of already cloned genes and on laboratories performing the mutation analysis. The main resources on phenotypes are On-line Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), Pedbase, GeneClinics, London Dysmorphology Database (LDDB) and Orphanet. The main resources on human genes are, in addition to OMIM, the Genome Database, Genatlas and Genecard. There are also two major sequence databases. All of them can be queried using the OMIM number of the disease. Central databases of mutations, as well as locus specific databases have been created. Their list is maintained at the Human Genome Organisation mutation database initiative website. Several initiative have been taken to integrate all these data and help the clinician to find out quickly what he/she needs. The website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information is the best example of such an effort with sections on diseases, a genome guide, and locus links. Several databases of genetic testing resources have been established. GeneTests is an on-line genetics resource that contains a directory of North American laboratories providing testing for heritable disorders. Orphanet is a similar database on French services which is in the process of becoming a European database. CONCLUSION: Even if clinicians do not have as many services at their disposal as the molecular geneticists, various useful databases already exist and should no longer be ignored in practice.