A review of economic issues for gene-targeted therapies: Value, affordability, and access.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences' virtual 2021 conference on gene-targeted therapies (GTTs) encouraged multidisciplinary dialogue on a wide range of GTT topic areas. Each of three parallel working groups included social scientists and clinical scientists, and the three major sessions included a presentation on economic issues related to their focus area. These experts also coordinated their efforts across the three groups. The economics-related presentations covered three areas with some overlap: (1) value assessment, uncertainty, and dynamic efficiency; (2) affordability, pricing, and financing; and (3) evidence generation, coverage, and access. This article provides a synopsis of three presentations, some of their key recommendations, and an update on related developments in the past year. The key high-level findings are that GTTs present unique data and policy challenges, and that existing regulatory, health technology assessment, as well as payment and financing systems will need to adapt. But these adjustments can build on our existing foundation of regulatory and incentive systems for innovation, and much can be done to accelerate progress in GTTs. Given the substantial unmet medical need that exists for these oft-neglected patients suffering from rare diseases, it would be a tragedy to not leverage these exciting scientific advances in GTTs.

Gene-targeted therapies: Towards equitable development, diagnosis, and access.

Genomic and gene-targeted therapies hold great promise in addressing the global issue of rare diseases. To achieve this promise, however, it is critical the twin goals of equity in access to testing and diagnosis, and equity in access to therapy be considered early in the life cycle of development and implementation. Rare disease researchers and clinicians must simultaneously recognize the life-altering potential of early diagnosis and administration of gene-targeted therapeutics while acknowledging that not everyone who experiences a rare disease and needs these therapies will be able to afford or access them. Achieving equity in the development of and access to gene-targeted therapies will not only require innovations in research, clinical, regulatory, and reimbursement frameworks, but will also necessitate increased attention to the ethical, legal, and social implications when establishing research paradigms and the translation of research results into novel interventions for rare genetic diseases. This article highlights and discusses the growing importance and recognition of health equity across the spectrum of rare disease research and care delivery.

A checklist for clinical trials in rare disease: obstacles and anticipatory actions-lessons learned from the FOR-DMD trial.

BACKGROUND: Trials in rare diseases have many challenges, among which are the need to set up multiple sites in different countries to achieve recruitment targets and the divergent landscape of clinical trial regulations in those countries. Over the past years, there have been initiatives to facilitate the process of international study set-up, but the fruits of these deliberations require time to be operationally in place. FOR-DMD (Finding the Optimum Steroid Regimen for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy) is an academic-led clinical trial which aims to find the optimum steroid regimen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for 5 years (July 2010 to June 2015), anticipating that all sites (40 across the USA, Canada, the UK, Germany and Italy) would be open to recruitment from July 2011. However, study start-up was significantly delayed and recruitment did not start until January 2013. METHOD: The FOR-DMD study is used as an example to identify systematic problems in the set-up of international, multi-centre clinical trials. The full timeline of the FOR-DMD study, from funding approval to site activation, was collated and reviewed. Systematic issues were identified and grouped into (1) study set-up, e.g. drug procurement; (2) country set-up, e.g. competent authority applications; and (3) site set-up, e.g. contracts, to identify the main causes of delay and suggest areas where anticipatory action could overcome these obstacles in future studies. RESULTS: Time from the first contact to site activation across countries ranged from 6 to 24 months. Reasons of delay were universal (sponsor agreement, drug procurement, budgetary constraints), country specific (complexity and diversity of regulatory processes, indemnity requirements) and site specific (contracting and approvals). The main identified obstacles included (1) issues related to drug supply, (2) NIH requirements regarding contracting with non-US sites, (3) differing regulatory requirements in the five participating countries, (4) lack of national harmonisation with contracting and the requirement to negotiate terms and contract individually with each site and (5) diversity of languages needed for study materials. Additionally, as with many academic-led studies, the FOR-DMD study did not have access to the infrastructure and expertise that a contracted research organisation could provide, organisations often employed in pharmaceutical-sponsored studies. This delay impacted recruitment, challenged the clinical relevance of the study outcomes and potentially delayed the delivery of the best treatment to patients. CONCLUSION: Based on the FOR-DMD experience, and as an interim solution, we have devised a checklist of steps to not only anticipate and minimise delays in academic international trial initiation but also identify obstacles that will require a concerted effort on the part of many stakeholders to mitigate.

Motor milestone assessment of infants with spinal muscular atrophy using the hammersmith infant neurological Exam-Part 2: Experience from a nusinersen clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: In this study we examined the feasibility of assessing motor milestone performance of infants with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) using the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Exam-Part 2 (HINE-2) in a phase 2 study of nusinersen. METHODS: Nineteen SMA infants were assessed using the HINE-2 at baseline (≤7 months of age), and periodically up to 39 months of age. We evaluated whether the HINE-2 was feasible, reliable, and sensitive to change. RESULTS: Motor milestone assessments in SMA infants were feasible using the HINE-2. Baseline test-retest reliability was excellent (R = 0.987; P < 0.0001). SMA infants were extremely low functioning at baseline and the HINE-2 was able to detect changes over time in 16 of 19 infants within all 8 domains. HINE-2 improvements were correlated with changes in other neuromuscular outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Results support the use of the HINE-2 motor milestone assessment in clinical trials of SMA infants. Muscle Nerve 57: 143-146, 2017.

Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy assessment of lower extremity skeletal muscles in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a multicenter cross sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked recessive disorder that results in functional deficits. However, these functional declines are often not able to be quantified in clinical trials for DMD until after age 7. In this study, we hypothesized that (1)H2O T2 derived using (1)H-MRS and MRI-T2 will be sensitive to muscle involvement at a young age (5-7 years) consistent with increased inflammation and muscle damage in a large cohort of DMD subjects compared to controls. METHODS: MR data were acquired from 123 boys with DMD (ages 5-14 years; mean 8.6 SD 2.2 years) and 31 healthy controls (age 9.7 SD 2.3 years) using 3-Tesla MRI instruments at three institutions (University of Florida, Oregon Health & Science University, and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia). T2-weighted multi-slice spin echo (SE) axial images and single voxel 1H-MRS were acquired from the lower leg and thigh to measure lipid fraction and (1)H2O T2. RESULTS: MRI-T2, (1)H2O T2, and lipid fraction were greater (p<0.05) in DMD compared to controls. In the youngest age group, DMD values were different (p<0.05) than controls for the soleus MRI-T2, (1)H2O T2 and lipid fraction and vastus lateralis MRI-T2 and (1)H2O T2. In the boys with DMD, MRI-T2 and lipid fraction were greater (p<0.05) in the oldest age group (11-14 years) than the youngest age group (5-6.9 years), while 1H2O T2 was lower in the oldest age group compared to the young age group. DISCUSSION: Overall, MR measures of T2 and lipid fraction revealed differences between DMD and Controls. Furthermore, MRI-T2 was greater in the older age group compared to the young age group, which was associated with higher lipid fractions. Overall, MR measures of T2 and lipid fraction show excellent sensitivity to DMD disease pathologies and potential therapeutic interventions in DMD, even in the younger boys.

An international effort towards developing standards for best practices in analysis, interpretation and reporting of clinical genome sequencing results in the CLARITY Challenge.

BACKGROUND: There is tremendous potential for genome sequencing to improve clinical diagnosis and care once it becomes routinely accessible, but this will require formalizing research methods into clinical best practices in the areas of sequence data generation, analysis, interpretation and reporting. The CLARITY Challenge was designed to spur convergence in methods for diagnosing genetic disease starting from clinical case history and genome sequencing data. DNA samples were obtained from three families with heritable genetic disorders and genomic sequence data were donated by sequencing platform vendors. The challenge was to analyze and interpret these data with the goals of identifying disease-causing variants and reporting the findings in a clinically useful format. Participating contestant groups were solicited broadly, and an independent panel of judges evaluated their performance. RESULTS: A total of 30 international groups were engaged. The entries reveal a general convergence of practices on most elements of the analysis and interpretation process. However, even given this commonality of approach, only two groups identified the consensus candidate variants in all disease cases, demonstrating a need for consistent fine-tuning of the generally accepted methods. There was greater diversity of the final clinical report content and in the patient consenting process, demonstrating that these areas require additional exploration and standardization. CONCLUSIONS: The CLARITY Challenge provides a comprehensive assessment of current practices for using genome sequencing to diagnose and report genetic diseases. There is remarkable convergence in bioinformatic techniques, but medical interpretation and reporting are areas that require further development by many groups.