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.

Suitability of North Star Ambulatory Assessment in young boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

The aim of this study was to establish the suitability of the North Star Ambulatory Assessment for use in young boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. We studied 147 typically developing and 144 boys affected by Duchenne muscular dystrophy between the ages of 3 and 5 years. More than 85% of the typically developing boys by the age of 4 years had full scores on all the items with total scores ≥33/34. Before the age of 4 years more than 15% of the typically developing boys did not achieve full scores on all the items. Some items, such as standing on one leg, showed significant improvement with age. In contrast, other activities were rarely achieved even in the older boys. Even if there was a progressive increase in scores with age, both total and individual item scores in Duchenne were still far from those obtained in the typically developing children of the same age. Our findings suggest that the North Star Ambulatory Assessment can be reliably used at least from the age of 4 years. Longitudinal natural history data studies are needed to assess possible changes over time and the possible effect of early steroids.

Reliability of the Performance of Upper Limb assessment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

The Performance of Upper Limb was specifically designed to assess upper limb function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The aim of this study was to assess (1) a cohort of typically developing children from the age of 3years onwards in order to identify the age when the activities assessed in the individual items are consistently achieved, and (2) a cohort of 322 Duchenne children and young adults to establish the range of findings at different ages. We collected normative data for the scale validation on 277 typically developing subjects from 3 to 25years old. A full score was consistently achieved by the age of 5years. In the Duchenne cohort there was early involvement of the proximal muscles and a proximal to distal progressive involvement. The scale was capable of measuring small distal movements, related to activities of daily living, even in the oldest and weakest patients. Our data suggest that the assessment can be reliably used in both ambulant and non ambulant Duchenne patients in a multicentric setting and could therefore be considered as an outcome measure for future trials.