Management of corneal neovascularization: Current and emerging therapeutic approaches.

Corneal neovascularization (CoNV) is a sight-threatening condition affecting an estimated 1.4 million people per year, and the incidence is expected to rise. It is a complication of corneal pathological diseases such as infective keratitis, chemical burn, corneal limbal stem cell deficiency, mechanical trauma, and immunological rejection after keratoplasties. CoNV occurs due to a disequilibrium in proangiogenic and antiangiogenic mediators, involving a complex system of molecular interactions. Treatment of CoNV is challenging, and no therapy thus far has been curative. Anti-inflammatory agents such as corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment due to their accessibility and well-studied safety profile. However, they have limited effectiveness and are unable to regress more mature neovascularization. With the advent of advanced imaging modalities and an expanding understanding of its pathogenesis, contemporary treatments targeting a wide array of molecular mechanisms and surgical options are gaining traction. This review aims to summarize evidence regarding conventional and emerging therapeutic options for CoNV.

Comparative policy analysis of national rare disease funding policies in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases pose immense challenges for healthcare systems due to their low prevalence, associated disabilities, and attendant treatment costs. Advancements in gene therapy, such as treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), have introduced novel therapeutic options, but the high costs, exemplified by Zolgensma® at US$2.1 million, present significant financial barriers. This scoping review aimed to compare the funding approaches for rare disease treatments across high-performing health systems in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), aiming to identify best practices and areas for future research. METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley and ensuing recommendations, a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and grey literature from health department websites and leading national organizations dedicated to rare diseases in these countries was conducted. Countries selected for comparison were high-income countries with advanced economies and high-performing health systems: Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the UK, and the US. The inclusion criteria focused on studies detailing drug approval processes, reimbursement decisions and funding mechanisms, and published from 2010 to 2024. RESULTS: Based on a thorough review of 18 published papers and grey literature, various strategies are employed by countries to balance budgetary constraints and access to rare disease treatments. Australia utilizes the Life Saving Drugs Program and risk-sharing agreements. Singapore depends on the Rare Disease Fund, which matches public donations. South Korea's National Health Insurance Service covers specific orphan drugs through risk-sharing agreements. The UK relies on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to evaluate treatments for cost-effectiveness, supported by the Innovative Medicines Fund. In the US, a combination of federal and state programs, private insurance and non-profit support is used. CONCLUSION: Outcome-based risk-sharing agreements present a practical solution for managing the financial strain of costly treatments. These agreements tie payment to actual treatment efficacy, thereby distributing financial risk and promoting ongoing data collection. Countries should consider adopting and expanding these agreements to balance immediate expenses with long-term benefits, ultimately ensuring equitable access to crucial treatments for patients afflicted by rare diseases.