Delayed access to treatments for rare diseases: Who's to blame?

The development and commercialization of drugs for rare diseases, termed ‘orphan drugs’, has historically been economically unattractive. However, because of the introduction of legislation that provides financial and regulatory incentives for the development of orphan drugs, new developments are making their way through the regulatory approval processes. Unfortunately, delays in availability of new drugs for treating rare disease continue to persist. This paper reviews the approach of several regulatory jurisdictions to orphan drugs in an effort to determine their relative effectiveness in providing patient access. Generally speaking, regulatory authorities across jurisdictions have recognized the need to enhance timely access to safe, effective treatment for patients with rare diseases and have been able to shift the approval timelines for access to new care. The greater impediment to orphan drug access appears to be funding, particularly in publicly sponsored health‐care systems. Redundancies in federal and provincial reviews of orphan drugs can result in significant delays in access to new drugs. Clearly, more must be done to accelerate access to the treatments so desperately needed by patients. Public payers must be held accountable for their process and decisions—especially for rare disease therapies.     

Alzheimer's disease: from pathology to preventive methods?

INTRODUCTION: Sporadic Alzheimer's disease is the most frequent form of dementia and appears to be associated with increasing age and certain genetic and environmental factors. Some studies have recently been published on potential protective factors. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS: Several genes appear to be involved; one of the most common is the ApoE4 allele on chromosome 19. The physiopathology is not elucidated, but recent studies have shown a protective effect for NSAIDs, estrogen, nutritional factors (vitamins E, B6 and B12) as well as some biochemical amino acids (homocysteine). FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS: Interventional studies are now in progress and some preventive approaches will soon be available.     

Expanding access to coronary artery bypass surgery: who stands to gain?

OBJECTIVE--To determine the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) about the benefits of coronary artery bypass surgery, in terms of gains in life expectancy, for different groups of patients. DESIGN--A questionnaire survey of all GPs in Northern Ireland. SETTING--A survey conducted collaboratively by the departments of public health medicine in each of the four health boards in the province, serving a total population of 1.5 million. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--The median and mean gain in life expectancy perceived by groups of doctors for smoking and non-smoking male and female 55 year old patients. The percentage of 50 year old and 70 year old non-smoking patients considered likely to have their lives extended with bypass surgery. Differences were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test for unpaired samples and the Wilcoxon signed rank tests for paired. RESULTS--541 GPs replied (response rate 56%). The median (and mean) perceived gain in life expectancy after cardiac surgery for non-smoking 55 year old subjects was 120 (104) months for men and 120 (112) months for women (z = 6.42; P < 0.0001; Wilcoxon signed rank test). For male and female smokers of the same age, the perceived gains were 48 (47) and 60 (52) months respectively (z = 6.72; P < 0.0001; Wilcoxon signed ranks test), both figures being significantly different than for non-smokers. The median (and mean) percentage of patients that the doctors considered would have their lives extended by bypass surgery was 70 (64) of every 100 "young" patients and 40 (42) of every 100 "old" patients, (z = 16.2; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS--These results point to a significant overestimation of the benefits of coronary artery bypass surgery by GPs in Northern Ireland and to a need to develop guidelines for referral.     

Hyperglycemia and Vascular Metabolic Memory: Truth or Fiction?

Prevention of long-term complications remains the main challenge in the treatment of diabetes. A strong relationship between glucose control and development of complications is apparent in all epidemiologic studies. Yet, intervention trials have yielded questionable results, particularly when intensive treatment was introduced in patients with long-standing diabetes. It has been postulated that in these subjects, prior exposure to chronic hyperglycemia may have generated a negative “metabolic memory,” preventing full exertion of the beneficial effects of any subsequent improvement of glucose control. This phenomenon has been replicated in animal models and it recognizes a molecular basis in the role of oxidative stress, advanced glycation processes, and epigenetic mechanisms accounting for self-perpetuating modifications of gene expression. Conversely, early intervention in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes has proven that good glycemic control reduces the risk of development and progression of complications with a beneficial effect that extends well beyond the duration of near-normoglycemia. This has brought up the concept of “metabolic legacy,” an advantage handed down by early and effective implementation of treatments designed to reduce blood glucose levels as safely as possible along with multifactorial intervention of all cardiovascular risk factors. The evidence, nature, and clinical implication of these concepts are reviewed.     

Vascular dysfunction and heart failure: epiphenomenon or etiologic agent?

Endothelial function plays a key role in the local regulation of vascular tone. Alterations in endothelial function may result in impaired release of endothelium-derived relaxing factors or increased release of endothelium-derived contracting factors. Heart failure may impair endothelial function by means of reduced synthesis and release of nitric oxide (NO) or by increased degradation of NO and increased production of endothelin-1. Endothelial dysfunction may worsen heart function by means of peripheral effects, causing increased afterload and central effects such as myocardial ischemia and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS)-induced detrimental effects. Evidence from clinical studies has suggested that there is a correlation between decreased endothelial function and increasing severity of congestive heart failure (CHF). Treatments that improve heart function may also improve endothelial dysfunction. The relationship between endothelial dysfunction and heart failure may be masked by the stage of endothelial dysfunction, the location of vessels being tested, and the state of endothelial-dependent vasodilatation response. (Am Heart J 2002;143:383-90.)     

Hormone Therapies and Vascular Outcomes: Who is at Risk?

Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT), such as estrogen with a progestin (E+P), is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and venous thrombosis. Subgroups of susceptible women for these clinical outcomes have not been clearly identified, although women with a prior history of venous thrombosis and women with factor V Leiden are at higher risk of venous thrombosis on HRT than others. Effects of HRT on atherosclerosis, coagulation, and inflammation have been investigated, and might improve our understanding of the pathogenesis of this drug effect. In 2 trials E+P did not alter the progression of coronary atherosclerosis, while in a third trial unopposed estradiol retarded atherosclerosis progression in the carotid arteries. HRT is associated with an increase in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), an inflammation marker associated with arterial disease risk, and an increase in activated protein C resistance, the biochemical defect associated with factor V Leiden. Given recent data, the only current indication for E+P is the short-term treatment of symptoms of estrogen deficiency, such as hot flashes. Testing for coagulation disorders or inflammatory factors, such as factor V Leiden or CRP, for use in decision-making about HRT use would be premature in unselected patients. Further research is needed to identify pathophysiological mechanisms of vascular harm from these hormones.     

Vascular disease and diabetes: is hypoglycaemia an aggravating factor?

Acute hypoglycaemia provokes profound physiological changes affecting the cardiovascular system and several haematological parameters, principally as a consequence of sympatho-adrenal activation and counter-regulatory hormonal secretion. Many of these responses have an important role in protecting the brain from neuroglycopenia, through altering regional blood flow and promoting metabolic changes that will restore blood glucose to normal. In healthy young adults the cardiovascular effects are transient and have no obvious detrimental consequences. However, some of the effected changes are potentially pathophysiological and in people with diabetes who have developed endothelial dysfunction, they may have an adverse impact on a vasculature that is already damaged. The acute haemodynamic and haematological changes may increase the risk of localized tissue ischaemia, and major vascular events can certainly be precipitated by acute hypoglycaemia. These include myocardial and cerebral ischaemia and occasionally infarction. Established diabetic retinopathy often deteriorates after strict glycaemic control is instituted, the latter being associated with a threefold increase in frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, and enhanced exposure to mild hypoglycaemia. The possible mechanisms underlying these hypoglycaemia-induced effects include haemorrheological changes, white cell activation, vasoconstriction, and the release of inflammatory mediators and cytokines. The concept that acute hypoglycaemia could aggravate vascular complications associated with diabetes is discussed in relation to evolving comprehension of the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and blood vessel disease.