ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To reach a consensus amongst experts on the most feasible actions to be undertaken to facilitate patient access to specialised care and orphan drugs (OD) in the public health sector in Spain. METHODS: Two Delphi rounds were completed. The questionnaire was based on a literature review and 2 focus groups. Agreement was sought on the desire (D) and prognosis (P) for the implementation within the next 5 years, on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached when ≥75% participants chose agreement (1-2) or disagreement options (4-5). RESULTS: 82 experts on rare disease (RD) participated. Agreement on the D and P was reached in 66.07% statements: OD pricing review [absence of clinical effectiveness (D:85.37%; P:85.90%), target population increase (D:79.27%; P:91.03%)]; reference team definition of referral protocols and clinical practice guidelines (D: 97.56%; P: 89.74%); and a unified, usable, etiology-based registry (D:97.56%; P:84.62%). D and P assessment diverged in 32.14% items: creation of a specific funding system for OD (D: 97.56%; P: 60.25%); and a network of medical teams to coordinate the care of RD patients (D: 99%; P: 62%). CONCLUSIONS: The results have shown the need to promote dialogue between stakeholders, introduce European recommendation to national and regional Spanish policies and set up priorities and undertake actions to drive relevant changes in current medical practice in managing RD patients.
Subject(s)
Consensus , Delphi Technique , Health Equity , Health Plan Implementation/methods , Orphan Drug Production/economics , Rare Diseases/drug therapy , Focus Groups , Humans , Rare Diseases/economics , Rare Diseases/epidemiology , Spain/epidemiology , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
The concept of Rare Diseases is relatively new. They are those processes "...that can be mortal or to cause a chronic weakening of the patient and who, due to its little prevalence, require combined efforts to treat them. For indicative purposes, a little prevalence is considered when is lesser than 5 cases per 10,000 people in the Community". The existence of these diseases is closely tied with orphan drugs, meaning all drugs, prosthesis, biological agents or dietetic preparations destined to the treatment of a Rare Disease. Besides, it is necessary to add two factors more: 1. The Primary Attention physicians do not feel very motivated in their knowledge and 2. These diseases need a complex sociosanitary attention, habitually more expensive than chronic diseases. By all exposed the Rare Diseases appear like a universe that requires a new sociosanitary approach from the health system.
Subject(s)
Rare Diseases , Chronic Disease , Female , Humans , Male , Rare Diseases/diagnosis , Rare Diseases/epidemiology , Rare Diseases/therapyABSTRACT
El concepto de Enfermedades Raras es relativamente nuevo. Suponen aquellos procesos que pueden ser mortales o provocar un debilitamiento crónico del paciente y que, debido a su escasa prevalencia, requieren esfuerzos combinados para tratarlas. A título indicativo, se considera una prevalencia escasa cuando es inferior a 5 casos por 10.000 personas en la Comunidad. La existencia de estas enfermedades está vinculada estrechamente con los medicamentos huérfanos, incluyendo como tales a todo fármaco, prótesis, agente biológico o preparación dietética destinado al tratamiento de una Enfermedad Rara. A este espectro hay que añadir dos factores más: 1. Los médicos de Atención Primaria no se sienten muy motivados en su conocimiento y 2. Necesitan una atención sociosanitaria compleja y habitualmente más onerosa que las enfermedades crónicas. Por todo lo expuesto las Enfermedades Raras se presentan como un universo que requiere un nuevo enfoque sociosanitario por parte de los sistemas de salud
The concept of Rare Diseases is relatively new. They are those processes that can be mortal or to cause a chronic weakening of the patient and who, due to its little prevalence, require combined efforts to treat them. For indicative purposes, a little prevalence is considered when is lesser than 5 cases per 10,000 people in the Community. The existence of these diseases is closely tied with orphan drugs, meaning all drugs, prosthesis, biological agents or dietetic preparations destined to the treatment of a Rare Disease. Besides, it is necessary to add two factors more: 1. The Primary Attention physicians do not feel very motivated in their knowledge and 2. These diseases need a complex sociosanitary attention, habitually more expensive than chronic diseases. By all exposed the Rare Diseases appear like a universe that requires a new sociosanitary approach from the health system
Subject(s)
Humans , Rare Diseases/epidemiology , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Quality of Life , Sickness Impact Profile , Primary Health Care/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Leflunomide and methotrexate have proven to be efficacious in reducing joint inflammation and slowing destruction in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was conducted to provide more insight into the mechanism of action of these agents in synovial tissue. METHODS: In a 2-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, we compared leflunomide (20 mg/day, after a 3-day 100 mg/day loading dose) and methotrexate (increased stepwise to 15 mg/week) treatment in patients with active RA. Paired synovial tissue biopsy samples were obtained by knee arthroscopy at baseline and after 4 months of treatment. Frozen synovial tissue sections were stained for macrophages (CD68), T cells (CD3), adhesion molecules (intercellular adhesion molecule 1 [ICAM-1], vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 [VCAM-1]), cytokines (tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin-1beta [IL-1beta]), matrix metalloproteinase 1 (MMP-1), and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1). RESULTS: Paired synovial tissue sections were available in 35 patients (16 taking leflunomide, 19 taking methotrexate). Both drugs displayed equal clinical efficacy, with 8 leflunomide-treated patients (50%) and 10 methotrexate-treated patients (53%) fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology 20% response criteria. Both compounds showed similar effects on synovial tissue: reduced numbers of macrophages and reduced ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 expression were noted after 4 months of treatment. Both leflunomide- and methotrexate-treated patients exhibited a decreased MMP-1:TIMP-1 ratio in the synovial tissue. In the subset of patients fulfilling the 20% response criteria of the American College of Rheumatology, a more pronounced reduction in the expression of ICAM-1, VCAM-1, IL-1beta, and MMP-1 was found compared with the nonresponders. CONCLUSION: Leflunomide and methotrexate are clinically efficacious drugs that interfere with mechanisms involved in joint inflammation and destruction of joint integrity.
