ArticleThe patient2015
Developing a patient-directed policy framework for managing orphan and ultra-orphan drugs throughout their lifecycle.
Article in The patient, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Policy evaluation frameworks for rare diseases: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Patient and family experiences of lysosomal storage diseases in Canada: A qualitative interview study.JIMD reports · 2024Article
- Article
- How do patients and other members of the public engage with the orphan drug development? A narrative qualitative synthesis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Review
- Pharmaceutical policy and innovation for rare diseases: A narrative review.F1000Research · 2023Review
- The involvement of rare disease patient organisations in therapeutic innovation across rare paediatric neurological conditions: a narrative review.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Review
- Designing rare disease care pathways in the Republic of Ireland: a co-operative model.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Article
- Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.International journal of health policy and management · 2019Article
- Generic Substitution of Orphan Drugs for the Treatment of Rare Diseases: Exploring the Potential Challenges.Drugs · 2018Review
- The imperative for patient-centred research to develop better quality services in rare diseases.The patient · 2015Article
- From care to cure: a patient engagement framework for rare disease and orphan drug research.Therapeutic advances in rare diseaseArticle
- Lysosomal storage diseases in North America: a comprehensive review of enzyme therapies and unmet needs.Therapeutic advances in rare diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPolicy decisions related to orphan and ultra-orphan drugs challenge traditional decision-making processes and often frustrate those affected by them. In general, these drugs are associated with significant uncertainties around clinical benefit, 'value for money', affordability, and 'adoption/diffusion', all of which arise from a lack of available high-quality evidence. Increasingly, patients with rare diseases and their families are looking for opportunities to contribute to initiatives aimed at reducing these uncertainties. Therefore, a policy framework for guiding their involvement is needed to optimize the impact of any evidence generated.
objectivesThe aims of this study were (1) to explore opportunities for patient involvement in reducing decision uncertainties throughout the lifecycle of orphan and ultra-orphan drugs from the perspectives of patients within the Canadian rare disease community; and (2) to develop a policy framework for patient input that maximizes the impact of their involvement on decision uncertainties around orphan and ultra-orphan drugs.
methodsTwo one-day conferences and four workshops involving patients and/or families from rare disease communities in Canada were held to discuss issues around orphan and ultra-orphan drug development, access, and coverage, and identify opportunities for patient input to reduce related decision uncertainties. Their feedback and the findings from a recent literature review on patient involvement in rare diseases were combined into a draft policy framework based upon Kingdon's multiple streams model of decision making. The framework was presented to a group of patients and other stakeholders, including providers, pharmaceutical drug plan managers, and industry representatives, and then revised accordingly.
resultsPatients and family members/caregivers identified tangible ways of contributing to the generation of information at all stages of the drug lifecycle. However, the proximity of that information to the reduction of a specific decision uncertainty varied. While the scope of possible ways mentioned was less broad when compared with the findings of the literature review, the focus was similar-capturing the clinical benefit of an orphan or ultra-orphan drug. A policy framework comprising three stages, each with a key question and corresponding set of sub-questions to be asked by patients, was developed. The three main sequential questions were as follows. (1) What uncertainties need to be addressed? (2) What roles should patients play? (3) Is each role feasible?
conclusionsReducing decision uncertainties around orphan and ultra-orphan drugs requires a policy framework that explicates when and what type of information needs to be generated, and recognizes the role of patients as important sources of such information throughout the lifecycle of these drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.