Caregiver perspectives on patient-focused drug development for Phelan-McDermid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Phelan-McDermid syndrome (PMS) is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by SHANK3 haploinsufficiency with clinical manifestations that can be devastating and profoundly affect quality of life. RESULTS: The Externally Led Patient-Focused Drug Development (EL-PFDD) meeting was an opportunity for families affected by PMS to share with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) how symptoms impact their lives and how treatments could be most meaningful. The Voice of the Patient report serves as a summary of this meeting to influence upcoming drug development and clinical trials. The purpose of this report is to provide a clinical perspective on the results of the EL-PFDD meeting to amplify the voice of these caregivers to the scientific community. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers prioritize an improved quality of life for their loved ones characterized by improved cognitive function, improved communication, increased independence, and reduced risk of regression. With these caregiver priorities in mind, this report provides the FDA and the scientific community with a clear understanding of which aspects of PMS should influence the development of future therapeutics.

Bringing everyone to the table - findings from the 2018 Phelan-McDermid Syndrome Foundation International Conference.

BACKGROUND: Phelan-McDermid Syndrome (PMS) is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by global developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder, and numerous systemic complications including seizures, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and renal anomalies. The Phelan-McDermid Syndrome Foundation (PMSF) was created to improve the quality of life of people affected by PMS worldwide by supporting families, accelerating research, and raising awareness. To further this mission, the PMSF initiated the Phelan-McPosium in 2016 to bring families affected by PMS, clinicians, and researchers together to design patient-centered rigorous clinical and translational research. Here, we present findings from the 2018 Phelan-McPosium. RESULTS: The 2018 Phelan-McPosium was attended by 183 families and 35 researchers and clinicians. Overall, the Early Childhood parents raised the fewest number of concerns, families of Late-Childhood patients raised more concerns around epilepsy and behavioral problems, and Teen and Adult families were primarily concerned about implications of genetic testing, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and regression. All families were concerned with feasibility, safety and importance of clinical trials for PMS. CONCLUSIONS: The concerns raised by families across the sessions varied by age in a manner which may overlap with the emergence of various signs and symptoms through the natural history of PMS. The design of the Phelan-McPosium session has successfully generated thoughtful research questions that led to innovative investigations and clinical trials that are shaping the standard of care for PMS. This is an approach which could be employed by any rare disease group to align translational research efforts with a patient-centered focus.

Phelan-McDermid syndrome data network: Integrating patient reported outcomes with clinical notes and curated genetic reports.

The heterogeneity of patient phenotype data are an impediment to the research into the origins and progression of neuropsychiatric disorders. This difficulty is compounded in the case of rare disorders such as Phelan-McDermid Syndrome (PMS) by the paucity of patient clinical data. PMS is a rare syndromic genetic cause of autism and intellectual deficiency. In this paper, we describe the Phelan-McDermid Syndrome Data Network (PMS_DN), a platform that facilitates research into phenotype-genotype correlation and progression of PMS by: a) integrating knowledge of patient phenotypes extracted from Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) data and clinical notes-two heterogeneous, underutilized sources of knowledge about patient phenotypes-with curated genetic information from the same patient cohort and b) making this integrated knowledge, along with a suite of statistical tools, available free of charge to authorized investigators on a Web portal https://pmsdn.hms.harvard.edu. PMS_DN is a Patient Centric Outcomes Research Initiative (PCORI) where patients and their families are involved in all aspects of the management of patient data in driving research into PMS. To foster collaborative research, PMS_DN also makes patient aggregates from this knowledge available to authorized investigators using distributed research networks such as the PCORnet PopMedNet. PMS_DN is hosted on a scalable cloud based environment and complies with all patient data privacy regulations. As of October 31, 2016, PMS_DN integrates high-quality knowledge extracted from the clinical notes of 112 patients and curated genetic reports of 176 patients with preprocessed PRO data from 415 patients.

Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.

Institutional review boards, which are charged with overseeing research, must classify the riskiness of proposed research according to a federal regulation known as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) and by regulations governing the US Food and Drug Administration codified in 21 CFR 50. If an institutional review board determines that a clinical trial constitutes "minimal risk," there are important practical implications: the institutional review board may then allow a waiver or alteration of the informed consent process; the study may be carried out in certain vulnerable populations; or the study may be reviewed by institutional review boards using an expedited process. However, it is unclear how institutional review boards should assess the risk levels of pragmatic clinical trials. Such trials typically compare existing, widely used medical therapies or interventions in the setting of routine clinical practice. Some of the therapies may be considered risky of themselves but the study comparing them may or may not add to that pre-existing level of risk. In this article, we examine the common interpretations of research regulations regarding minimal-risk classifications and suggest that they are marked by a high degree of variability and confusion, which in turn may ultimately harm patients by delaying or hindering potentially beneficial research. We advocate for a clear differentiation between the risks associated with a given therapy and the incremental risk incurred during research evaluating those therapies as a basic principle for evaluating the risk of a pragmatic clinical trial. We then examine two pragmatic clinical trials and consider how various factors including clinical equipoise, practice variation, research methods such as cluster randomization, and patients' perspectives may contribute to current and evolving concepts of minimal-risk determinations, and how this understanding in turn affects the design and conduct of pragmatic clinical trials.