top of page

Project Change: Pioneering a New Era in Huntington's Disease Diagnosis and Care - Is there a reason to fear change?

The proposed changes in the diagnostic criteria for Huntington's Disease (HD), as presented by the WeHaveAFace organization, aim to include cognitive, psychiatric, behavioral, and vegetative decline for diagnosis via the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS). This proposal, if accepted, could have several positive implications for research and funding in the field of Huntington's Disease:

  1. Broadened Research Focus: Including a wider range of symptoms in the diagnostic criteria could lead to more comprehensive research that covers not just the motor aspects of HD but also its cognitive, psychiatric, and behavioral dimensions. This could result in a more holistic understanding of the disease.

  2. Increased Funding Opportunities: With a broader definition, research into HD might become eligible for funding that is currently allocated for neurological and psychiatric disorders in general, rather than just for rare diseases.

  3. Improved Patient Participation in Studies: The new criteria could allow more patients to be diagnosed earlier, potentially increasing the pool of participants available for clinical trials and studies. This would be particularly beneficial for trials aimed at early intervention.

  4. Enhanced Disease Monitoring and Management: Research could also focus more on the development of tools and strategies for monitoring and managing the non-motor symptoms of HD, which are significant for the quality of life of patients.

  5. Policy and Advocacy Impact: A change in diagnostic criteria could lead to adjustments in health policies and advocacy efforts, potentially improving support and resources available to patients and their families.

  6. Earlier Intervention Possibilities: By recognizing the non-motor symptoms early, there could be a push for developing interventions that target these aspects of HD at a much earlier stage, which could potentially slow down the progression of the disease.

  7. Global Community Involvement: Such a change, driven by the perspectives of the global HD community, emphasizes the importance of patient and caregiver voices in shaping research and healthcare policies.

It's important to note that these positive changes would depend on the acceptance and implementation of the new criteria by the medical community and relevant health authorities. The success of such initiatives often requires collaboration between researchers, clinicians, patients, advocacy groups, and funding bodies. For more detailed information, you can visit the WeHaveAFace website here.

What if changes to the diagnostic criteria result in Huntington's Disease no longer having rare status due to more people being diagnosed?

When a disease that was previously classified as rare is no longer considered rare, it can lead to several repercussions in the context of research funding and other areas:

  1. Research Funding Adjustments: Rare diseases often benefit from specific funding streams aimed at addressing less common health issues. If a disease is no longer classified as rare, it may lose eligibility for these specialized funds. However, if the disease becomes more common, it might gain access to broader funding sources that are allocated for more prevalent conditions.

  2. Shift in Research Focus: When a disease becomes more common, research focus might shift to reflect its increased public health significance. This could lead to more comprehensive studies, larger clinical trials, and a broader scope of research activities.

  3. Policy and Advocacy Changes: Policies and advocacy efforts that are specific to rare diseases might need to be reevaluated and adjusted. This could affect how resources are allocated and how awareness campaigns are conducted.

  4. Impact on Patient Communities: For individuals with the disease, a change in classification might impact support networks and patient advocacy groups. These groups often provide essential support and resources specifically tailored to rare conditions.

  5. Regulatory Implications: Regulatory processes for drug approval and healthcare interventions might change. Drugs for rare diseases, for instance, often benefit from expedited review or special designations like Orphan Drug status. A change in disease prevalence could affect these regulatory pathways.

  6. Healthcare System Adaptation: The healthcare system may need to adapt to the changing prevalence of the disease. This could include training more healthcare providers in its management, changing guidelines for screening and diagnosis, and adjusting public health strategies.

  7. Insurance and Cost Implications: Insurance coverage and cost of treatment might be affected. Treatments for rare diseases can be exceptionally expensive, partly due to limited patient populations. As a disease becomes more common, economies of scale might reduce costs, but insurance coverage policies may also change.

It would appear that losing a rare disease designation by changing the diagnostic criteria, would have a positive effect for the HD community.



bottom of page