Search Results (3)

Background/Objectives: DDX3X syndrome is often misdiagnosed as autism spectrum disorder (ASD, Rett Syndrome, and Dandy–Walker Syndrome). Precise phenotyping is needed with reference to neurodevelopmental diagnosis. Observation of behavior and communication in parents with DDX3X syndrome in the USA, France, and Poland; conversations with the parents of patients; and rudimentary information in evidence-based medical articles prompted us to identify differences in communication, play, and social interaction between children with ASD only, those with both ASD and DDX3X, and those with DDX3X only. Methods: As diagnostic tool for DDX3X patients, we created a questionnaire divided into four sections: medical, social, play, and communication. Results: The results showed inconsistent diagnoses in different countries where children could have been diagnosed with DDX3X. In a comparative analysis, individuals with DDX3X exhibited greater social skills than individuals with ASD. Furthermore, those with DDX3X demonstrated higher levels of social functioning compared to children with ASD. Therefore, parents of children recently diagnosed with ASD or similar conditions are encouraged to complete a survey to determine if their child is likely to have features of DDX3X syndrome. Conclusion: Identification of early behavioral markers that differentiate children with ASD and those with DDX3X could lead to the earliest opportunity for identification and intervention, and can significantly impact developmental trajectories, leading to better long-term outcomes. Full article

The economic evaluation which supports Health Technology Assessment (HTA) should inform policy makers of the value to society conferred by a given allocation of resources. However, neither the theory nor practise of economic evaluation satisfactorily reflect social values. Both are primarily concerned with efficiency, commonly conceptualised as the maximisation of utility or quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The focus is upon the service and the benefits obtained from it. This has resulted in an evaluation methodology which discriminates against groups and treatments which the population would like to prioritise. This includes high cost treatments for patients with rare diseases. In contrast with prevailing methods, there is increasing evidence that the public would prefer a fairness-focused framework in which the service was removed from centre stage and replaced by the patient. However methods for achieving fairness are ad hoc and under-developed. The article initially reviews the theory of economic evaluation and argues that its focus upon individual utility and efficiency as defined by the theory omits potentially important social values. Some empirical evidence relating to population values is presented and four studies by the first author are reviewed. These indicate that when people adopt the social perspective of a citizen they have a preference for sharing the health budget in a way which does not exclude patients who require services that are not cost effective, such as orphan medicinal products (OMP’s) and treatments for patients with ultra-rare diseases (URD’s). Full article

Background: In most jurisdictions, policies have been adopted to encourage the development of treatments for rare or orphan diseases. While successful as assessed against their primary objective, these policies have prompted concerns among payers about the economic burden that might be caused by an annual cost per patient in some cases exceeding 100,000 Euro. At the same time, many drugs for rare disorders do not meet conventional standards for cost-effectiveness or ‘value for money’. Owing to the fixed (volume-independent) cost of research and development, this issue is becoming increasingly serious with decreasing prevalence of a given disorder. Methods: In order to critically appraise the problems posed by the systematic valuation of interventions for ultra-rare disorders (URDs), an international group of clinical and health economic experts was convened in conjunction with the Annual European ISPOR Congress in Berlin, Germany, in November 2012. Following this meeting and during subsequent deliberations, the group achieved a consensus on the specific challenges and potential ways forward. Results: The group concluded that the complexities of research and development for new treatments for URDs may require conditional approval and reimbursement policies, such as managed entry schemes and coverage with evidence development agreements, but should not use as justification surrogate end point improvement only. As a prerequisite for value assessment, the demonstration of a minimum significant clinical benefit should be expected within a reasonable time frame. As to the health economic evaluation of interventions for URDs, the currently prevailing logic of cost-effectiveness (using benchmarks for the maximum allowable incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained) was considered deficient as it does not capture well-established social preferences regarding health care resource allocation. Conclusion: Modified approaches or alternative paradigms to establish the ‘value for money’ conferred by interventions for URDs should be developed with high priority. Full article