Historical and projected public spending on drugs for rare diseases in Canada between 2010 and 2025.

OBJECTIVE: Rare diseases are life-threatening, debilitating, or serious chronic conditions that affect < 50/100,000 people. Canadians can only access approximately 60% of drugs for rare diseases (DRDs), which is partially related to high per-patient costs and payers' affordability concerns. However, limiting access to DRDs can reduce survival and quality of life among patients and caregivers. Therefore, we projected Canadian non-oncology DRD spending relative to total public drug spending to provide perspective for decision makers. METHODS: Candidate historical (2010-2020) and pipeline (2021-2025) Canadian-marketed non-oncology DRDs were identified using definitions from the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible DRDs. Public payer claims data, prevalence rates, regulatory, and health technology assessment factors were used to project DRD spending in relation to total Canadian public drug spending. RESULTS: We included 42 historical DRDs and 122 pipeline DRDs. Public spending on DRDs grew from $14.8 million in 2010 (11 DRDs) to $380.9 million in 2020, then a projected $527.6 million in 2021 (59 potential DRDs) and $1.6 billion in 2025 (164 potential DRDs). Projected DRD spending increased from 3.2% of $16.5 billion public drug spending in 2021 to 8.3% of $19.4 billion in 2025. These projections do not include confidential manufacturer discounts, health outcome-related offsets, or additional safety-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Projected DRD spending shows robust growth but remains a fraction of total public drug spending. Limiting DRD access because of this growth is not aligned with Canadian patient or societal values. Given the renewed interest in a Canadian DRD framework, our results may help guide discussions that aim to balance control of public drug spending with the well-being of patients with rare diseases.

An integrated review of "unplanned" dialysis initiation: reframing the terminology to "suboptimal" initiation.

BACKGROUND: Ideally, care prior to the initiation of dialysis should increase the likelihood that patients start electively outside of the hospital setting with a mature arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter. However, unplanned dialysis continues to occur in patients both known and unknown to nephrology services, and in both late and early referrals. The objective of this article is to review the clinical and socioeconomic outcomes of unplanned dialysis initiation. The secondary objective is to explore the potential cost implications of reducing the rate of unplanned first dialysis in Canada. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 2008 were used to identify studies examining the clinical, economic or quality of life (QoL) outcomes in patients with an unplanned versus planned first dialysis. Data were described in a qualitative manner. RESULTS: Eight European studies (5,805 patients) were reviewed. Duration of hospitalization and mortality was higher for the unplanned versus planned population. Patients undergoing a first unplanned dialysis had significantly worse laboratory parameters and QoL. Rates of unplanned dialysis ranged from 2449%. The total annual burden to the Canadian healthcare system of unplanned dialysis in 2005 was estimated at $33 million in direct hospital costs alone. Reducing the rate of unplanned dialysis by one-half yielded savings ranging from $13.3 to $16.1 million. CONCLUSION: The clinical and socioeconomic impact of unplanned dialysis is significant. To more consistently characterize the unplanned population, the term suboptimal initiation is proposed to include dialysis initiation in hospital and/or with a central venous catheter and/or with a patient not starting on their chronic modality of choice. Further research and implementation of initiatives to reduce the rate of suboptimal initiation of dialysis in Canada are needed.

Vascular quality of care pilot study: how admission to a vascular surgery service affects evidence-based pharmacologic risk factor modification in patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) guidelines recommend aggressive risk factor modification to improve cardiovascular outcomes. Recommended pharmacologic therapies include antiplatelets, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and HMG-CoA-reductase inhibitors (statins). PURPOSE: We studied the degree to which patient admission to a vascular surgery service increased the use of these therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of 150 patients with PAD admitted to the vascular surgery service at a large Canadian tertiary care hospital. The use of recommended pharmacologic therapies at the time of admission and discharge were compared. A multidisciplinary clinical team established criteria by which patients were deemed ineligible to receive any of the recommended therapies. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) were considered an alternative to ACE inhibitors. RESULTS: Prior to hospital admission, 64% of patients were on antiplatelet therapy, 67% were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and 71% were on a statin. At the time of discharge, 91% of patients were on an antiplatelet (or not, with an acceptable reason), 77% were on an ACE inhibitor or an ARB (or not, with an acceptable reason), and 85% were on a statin (or not, with an acceptable reason). While new prescriptions were largely responsible for improved guideline adherence with antiplatelets and statins, most of the apparent improvement in ACE inhibitor and ARB use was the result of identifying an acceptable reason for not having them prescribed. CONCLUSION: This hypothesis generating pilot study supports the findings of others that there is suboptimal prescription of pharmacologic risk reduction therapies in the PAD population. Admission to a vascular service increases these rates. Nevertheless, some patients are still not receiving evidence-based treatment at discharge even after consideration of acceptable reasons. Strategies are needed to improve PAD guideline adherence in both the community at large and the vascular surgery service.