Lessons learned from the Canadian Fabry Disease Initiative for future risk-sharing and managed access agreements for pharmaceutical and advanced therapies in Canada.

Risk sharing agreements (RSAs) and managed access agreements have emerged as tools to overcome evidentiary uncertainty and contain costs of pharmaceuticals; however, Canada has relatively little experience with these health policy instruments. This article describes one of the few examples of national RSAs. Enzyme replacement therapies (ERT) were introduced in Canada to treat Fabry disease in the early 2000s through an RSA. Based on qualitative interviews with key participating actors, this article explains how this RSA ensured continuity of treatment for patients already on ERT, and collected robust real-world evidence to secure treatment for future Fabry patients. We show the importance of partnerships, collaborations, and active patient communities in establishing RSAs, as well as the critical role of robust registries for the collection, storage, and use of that real-world data. In doing so, this paper points to reasons that explain the relative dearth of RSAs in Canada, which can be resource (both human and finance) intensive and are difficult to broker in a federalist health system. Through these findings, policy lessons are developed concerning the need for technological and governance platforms on how RSA in Canada can be more effectively supported going forward in a broader move towards "social pharmaceutical innovation".

International Experiences and Made-in-Canada "Social Pharmaceutical Innovations" as Responses to Challenges Facing Drugs for Rare Diseases.

Significant challenges are associated with the availability of and access to treatments for rare diseases. In this issue, Sirrs et al. (2023) frame challenges in terms of evidence, economics and ethics and describe how they manifest in the Canadian context. This short response paper argues that although interesting initiatives exist internationally to deal with some of these challenges, a plug-and-play approach will not suffice given the particularities of the Canadian system. Rather than seeking international lessons on how to deal with Canadian challenges, the emerging interdisciplinary framework of social pharmaceutical innovation is advanced here as a whole-systems approach that stands to address interconnected components of the rare disease ecosystem, and in doing so, a made-in-Canada approach is advocated for.

Social pharmaceutical innovation and alternative forms of research, development and deployment for drugs for rare diseases.

Rare diseases are associated with difficulties in addressing unmet medical needs, lack of access to treatment, high prices, evidentiary mismatch, equity, etc. While challenges facing the development of drugs for rare diseases are experienced differently globally (i.e., higher vs. lower and middle income countries), many are also expressed transnationally, which suggests systemic issues. Pharmaceutical innovation is highly regulated and institutionalized, leading to firmly established innovation pathways. While deviating from these innovation pathways is difficult, we take the position that doing so is of critical importance. The reason is that the current model of pharmaceutical innovation alone will not deliver the quantity of products needed to address the unmet needs faced by rare disease patients, nor at a price point that is sustainable for healthcare systems. In light of the problems in rare diseases, we hold that re-thinking innovation is crucial and more room should be provided for alternative innovation pathways. We already observe a significant number and variety of new types of initiatives in the rare diseases field that propose or use alternative pharmaceutical innovation pathways which have in common that they involve a diverse set of societal stakeholders, explicitly address a higher societal goal, or both. Our position is that principles of social innovation can be drawn on in the framing and articulation of such alternative pathways, which we term here social pharmaceutical innovation (SPIN), and that it should be given more room for development. As an interdisciplinary research team in the social sciences, public health and law, the cases of SPIN we investigate are spread transnationally, and include higher income as well as middle income countries. We do this to develop a better understanding of the social pharmaceutical innovation field's breadth and to advance changes ranging from the bedside to system levels. We seek collaborations with those working in such projects (e.g., patients and patient organisations, researchers in rare diseases, industry, and policy makers). We aim to add comparative and evaluative value to social pharmaceutical innovation, and we seek to ignite further interest in these initiatives, thereby actively contributing to them as a part of our work.

Parental perspectives on retention and secondary use of neonatal dried bloodspots: a Dutch mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal bloodspot screening (NBS) identifies conditions to offer early intervention and minimize irreversible damage. NBS policies guide a comprehensive system including processes for storage of neonatal dried blood spots (NDBS). NDBS retention and secondary use policies have been subject of public debates internationally, suggesting that the public's perceptions of NDBS policy are not always on par with existing policies. The current study aims to provide insight in relevant factors for new parents in the Netherlands regarding retention and secondary use of NDBS. These factors can be taken into account when developing or updating NDBS policies. METHODS: A mixed methods design was used combining an online survey (n = 753), focus groups (6 groups, 37 participants), and individual in-depth interviews (n = 7). The discussed topics included: parental information, obtaining informed consent, support for retention, and support for secondary use. The study population consisted of Dutch-speaking new parents: pregnant women (≥20 weeks) and/or their partner, and parents of at least one child (≤5 years). RESULTS: New parents expressed needs for easily accessible information, adequate communication on the retention and (potential) use of NDBS, clearly described safeguards for privacy, a more active consent process, regulation for the actors conducting NDBS research, and parental involvement in decisions on secondary use. Overall, participants were positive about prolonged retention and different types of secondary use if those needs were met. CONCLUSIONS: While parental involvement is a challenge, our study is an example of gauging parent's perspectives on NDBS policy and contributes to including these perspectives in the current policy discussion on longer retention. Prolonged retention could be a feasible option in the Netherlands if several prerequisites are met. Therefore, implementation studies involving parents are needed.

Mothers' Views on Longer Storage of Neonatal Dried Blood Spots for Specific Secondary Uses.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal dried blood spots (DBS) present a wealth of data. Currently, many countries discuss DBS storage, management and use. We collected data in the Netherlands on the awareness and views of an unheard stakeholder: mothers (-to-be). METHODS: A survey was conducted on an Amsterdam pregnancy fair website in 2011. We included 1,272 women who were pregnant and/or had at least one child ≤5 years old. A descriptive analysis was used to score the awareness of and views on policies regarding the length of storage and secondary use. RESULTS: 18.9% of mothers (n = 1,272) were aware of all five current DBS screening, storage and use policies. The views were positive for all ten potential specific secondary uses. Most support was given to etiology research, while test development by a company was least supported. Extending the DBS storage beyond the 5-year status quo was approved by 67.8% of the respondents, indefinite storage was approved by 54.7%. CONCLUSION: Mothers indicate support of several secondary uses and prolonged storage of DBS but report a low awareness of current storage and secondary use policies. Efforts must be made to involve parents as key stakeholders in DBS policies. This could be achieved through a parent-led advisory structure.

Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives.

Biobanking, the large-scale, systematic collection of data and tissue for open-ended research purposes, is on the rise, particularly in clinical research. The infrastructures for the systematic procurement, management and eventual use of human tissue and data are positioned between healthcare and research. However, the positioning of biobanking infrastructures and transfer of tissue and data between research and care is not an innocuous go-between. Instead, it involves changes in both domains and raises issues about how distinctions between research and care are drawn and policed. Based on an analysis of the emergence and development of clinical biobanking in the Netherlands, this article explores how processes of bio-objectification associated with biobanking arise, redefining the ways in which distinctions between research and clinical care are governed.

Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement.

Recently there has been an increase in the active involvement of publics and patients in healthcare and research, which is extending their roles beyond the passive recipients of medicines. However, there has been noticeably less work engaging them into decision-making for healthcare rationing exercises, priority setting, health technology assessment, and coverage decision-making. This is particularly evident in reimbursement decision-making for 'orphan drugs' or drugs for rare diseases. Medicinal products for rare disease offer particular challenges in coverage decision-making because they often lack the 'evidence of efficacy' profiles of common drugs that have been trialed on larger populations. Furthermore, many of these drugs are priced in the high range, and with limited health care budgets the prospective opportunity costs of funding them means that those resources cannot be allocated elsewhere. Here we outline why decision-making for drugs for rare diseases could benefit from increased levels of publics and patients involvement, suggest some possible forms that involvement could take, and advocate for empirical experimentation in this area to evaluate the effects of such involvement. Focus is given to the Canadian context in which we are based; however, potentialities and challenges relating to involvement in this area are likely to be similar elsewhere.

Rethinking biobanking and translational medicine in the Netherlands: how the research process stands to matter for patient care.

Biobanking has been identified as one of the key components of translational medicine, and while current models for translation tend to focus their attention on how the products of research projects are fed back into health-care practices, we suggest that in addition to that the research process itself can have beneficial effects on the delivery of high-quality health care by streamlining diagnostic and follow-up protocols, reduced patient waiting times, and facilitating data comparison across patients. This Viewpoint is based on experiences with, and observations of, the neurodegenerative component of a clinical biobanking initiative in the Netherlands called the Parelsnoer Institute (PSI), which links all eight of the University Medical Centers for harmonized and standardized collection and storage processes for multiple disease conditions.

Governing synthetic biology for global health through responsible research and innovation.

Synthetic biology (SynBio) is a global endeavour with research and development programs in many countries, and due (in part) to its multi-use characteristics it has potential to improve global health in the area of vaccine development, diagnostics, drug synthesis, and the detection and remediation of environmental toxins. However, SynBio will also concurrently require global governance. Here we present what we have learnt from the articles in this Special Issue, and the workshop we hosted in The Hague in February of 2012 on SynBio, global health, and global governance that generated many of the papers appearing here. Importantly we take the notion of 'responsible research and innovation' as a guiding perspective. In doing so our understanding of governance is one that shifts its focus from preventing risks and other potential negative implications, and instead is concerned with institutions and practices involved in the inclusive steering of science and technology towards socially desirable outcomes. We first provide a brief overview of the notion of global health, and SynBio's relation to global health issues. The core of the paper explores some of the dynamics involved in fostering SynBio's global health pursuits; paying particular attention to of intellectual property, incentives, and commercialization regimes. We then examines how DIYbio, Interactive Learning and Action, and road-mapping activities can be seen as positive and productive forms of governance that can lead to more inclusive SynBio global health research programs.

Governing biological material at the intersection of care and research: the use of dried blood spots for biobanking.

A series of governance issues currently surrounds the multiple uses and multiple users of dried blood spots (DBS) for research purposes. Internationally there is a discussion on storing DBS resulting from newborn screening for public health and using them as the basis for large biobank-like collections to facilitate biomedical research. If such a transformation were to be formalized, then DBS would sit at the intersection of care (ie, public health) and research, with the mechanisms through which such a collection could be managed not totally self-evident. What is more, a DBS collection raises questions about the fuzzy boundaries between privacy and anonymity; how to control or define quality control uses of DBS; medical vs nonmedical uses; as well as benefit sharing and stakeholder involvement. Our goal here is to explore some of the key questions relating to DBS governance by way of the bio-objects and bio-objectification concepts. By embracing - rather than resisting to - the blurring of boundaries and problems in categorization that have come to characterize bio-objects and bio-objectification processes recently described in this journal, we attempt to highlight some issues that might not be currently considered, and to point to some possible directions to go (or avoid). Building from our knowledge of the current DBS situation in the Netherlands, we outline questions concerning the uses, management, collection, and storage of DBS.