Rare Lung Disease Research: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Commitment to Partnership and Progress

Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options

BACKGROUND

The number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context.

OBJECTIVE

To review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna®, Kymriah®, Yescarta®, Zynteglo®, Zolgensma® and Strimvelis®, and coverage with evidence development for Kymriah® and Yescarta®. Targeted testing with OncotypeDX® was granted value-based reimbursement through initial coverage with evidence development. The main barriers and disincentives to PM financing and reimbursement were the lack of strong links between stakeholders and the lack of demonstrable benefit and value of PM.

CONCLUSIONS

Public-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.

The Trouble With Group 3 Pulmonary Hypertension in Interstitial Lung Disease: Dilemmas in Diagnosis and the Conundrum of Treatment

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) due to interstitial lung disease (ILD; PH-ILD) can complicate a multitude of ILDs, including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia. Development of PH-ILD is associated with increased need for supplemental oxygen, reduced mobility, and decreased survival. A high index of suspicion is required to make the diagnosis, given the substantial overlap in symptoms with those of ILD without PH. Severely reduced diffusing capacity or 6-min walk test distance, prominent exertional desaturation, and impaired heart rate recovery after exercise are all suggestive of the development of PH-ILD. Traditional transthoracic echocardiography is the most commonly used screening test for PH-ILD, but it lacks sensitivity and specificity. Newer echocardiographic tools involving 3-dimensional assessment of the right ventricle may have a role in both prognosis and the monitoring of patients with PH-ILD. Right-sided heart catheterization remains the gold standard for confirming a diagnosis of PH-ILD. Although there is little debate about the use of supplemental oxygen and diuretic therapy in the treatment of PH-ILD, treatment with pulmonary vasodilator therapy remains controversial. Although several studies have been terminated prematurely for harm, the recently completed INCREASE trial of inhaled treprostinil appears to validate the concept of treating PH-ILD with pulmonary vasodilators and, we hope, will serve as a foundation from which future studies can be developed.

Objectivity in rare disease research: A philosophical approach

Individuals living with rare conditions are faced with important challenges derived from the rarity of their conditions and aggravated by the low priority given to rare disease research. However, current realities of rare disease research require consideration of the relationship between subjectivity and 'traditional' objectivity. Objectivity in research has traditionally been associated with processes and descriptions that are independent of the investigator. The need for researchers to provide unbiased knowledge and achieve a balance between objectivity and the underlying values in nursing and scientific research requires an examination of how objectivity is conceptualized within the context of rare disease research. The aim of this paper is to examine scientific objectivity in rare disease research from a philosophical viewpoint and, in doing so, demonstrate the need to redefine it to reflect the current scientific environment. As such, healthcare providers working on this field need to redefine objectivity around ethical and moral obligation to advance science in an equitable manner with the end goal to produce knowledge that is trustworthy and beneficial to our patients.