Model consent clauses for rare disease research.

BACKGROUND: Rare Disease research has seen tremendous advancements over the last decades, with the development of new technologies, various global collaborative efforts and improved data sharing. To maximize the impact of and to further build on these developments, there is a need for model consent clauses for rare diseases research, in order to improve data interoperability, to meet the informational needs of participants, and to ensure proper ethical and legal use of data sources and participants' overall protection. METHODS: A global Task Force was set up to develop model consent clauses specific to rare diseases research, that are comprehensive, harmonized, readily accessible, and internationally applicable, facilitating the recruitment and consent of rare disease research participants around the world. Existing consent forms and notices of consent were analyzed and classified under different consent themes, which were used as background to develop the model consent clauses. RESULTS: The IRDiRC-GA4GH MCC Task Force met in September 2018, to discuss and design model consent clauses. Based on analyzed consent forms, they listed generic core elements and designed the following rare disease research specific core elements; Rare Disease Research Introductory Clause, Familial Participation, Audio/Visual Imaging, Collecting, storing, sharing of rare disease data, Recontact for matching, Data Linkage, Return of Results to Family Members, Incapacity/Death, and Benefits. CONCLUSION: The model consent clauses presented in this article have been drafted to highlight consent elements that bear in mind the trends in rare disease research, while providing a tool to help foster harmonization and collaborative efforts.

ASPECTS OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN RARE DISEASES: A DISCUSSION PAPER.

OBJECTIVES: A patient reported outcome (PRO) is "any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else" (USFDA 2009). PROs are discussed widely, and many regard the patients' perspective on treatment benefit as very valuable. Although many PROs have shown satisfactory measurement properties including reliability, validity, and responsiveness, there is great concern about risk of bias, that is, in clinical trials. METHODS: Differences in perspectives of PRO measurement in rare diseases are given arising from methodology, clinical, HTA, and patient advocacy views. RESULTS: PROs are playing an important role in dealing with treatment benefit especially in small sample size as occurring often in rare diseases. Challenges remain especially regarding lack of responsiveness of generic measures, limited capture of all patient relevant aspects, study design and high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: PROs seem a valuable instrument to detect patient relevant aspects in rare diseases. They should be seen in addition to other approved assessment methods as randomized controlled trials but not as their substitute.

Validation and reliability of a disease-specific quality of life measure (the TranQol) in adults and children with thalassaemia major.

This study aimed to demonstrate the validity, reliability and responsiveness of a new disease-specific quality of life (QoL) questionnaire for children and adults with thalassaemia major, the Transfusion-dependent QoL questionnaire (TranQol). 106 participants (51 adults and 55 children) were recruited from six North American thalassaemia treatment centres with a mean age of 20·7 years (standard deviation [SD] 9, range 7-51 years). The mean total TranQol score was 71 (SD 17, 32-97) on a scale of 0-100. Patients with co-morbidities had significantly lower scores (63 vs. 75, P = 0·001). TranQol scores showed substantial agreement (P < 0·001) with the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (all patients, r = 0·65), the Pediatric QoL (children, r = 0·77) and the Short Form (36) physical (adults, r = 0·69) and mental summary scores (r = 0·76). In the subgroup who rated their QoL as better, there was a 4·0 point (SD 9·0) improvement in TranQol scores, from baseline of 67·1-71·1 one week later (P = 0·008). Test-retest reliability was excellent (intra-class correlation coefficient, 0·93). The TranQol was valid, with acceptable correlation for all administered measures and was reliable and responsive to change. The TranQol can be incorporated into future studies of thalassaemia major.

Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases.

PURPOSE: To explore parental perceptions and experiences regarding the return of genomic incidental research findings in children with rare diseases. METHODS: Parents of children affected by various rare diseases were invited to participate in focus groups or individual telephone interviews in Montreal and Ottawa. Fifteen participants were interviewed and transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four emergent themes underscored parental enthusiasm for receiving incidental findings concerning their child's health: (1) right to information; (2) perceived benefits and risks; (3) communication practicalities: who, when, and how; and (4) service needs to promote the communication of incidental findings. Parents believed they should be made aware of all results pertaining to their child's health status, and that they are responsible for transmitting this information to their child, irrespective of disease severity. Despite potential negative consequences, respondents generally perceived a favourable risk-benefit ratio in receiving all incidental findings. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how parents assess the risks and benefits of returning incidental findings is essential to genomic research applications in paediatric medicine. The authors believe the study findings will contribute to establishing future best practices, although further research is needed to evaluate the impact of parental decisions on themselves and their child.

Generating health technology assessment evidence for rare diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Rare diseases are often heterogeneous in their progression and response to treatment, with only a small population for study. This provides challenges for evidence generation to support HTA, so novel research methods are required. METHODS: Discussion with an expert panel was augmented with references and case studies to explore robust approaches for HTA evidence generation for rare disease treatments. RESULTS: Traditional RCTs can be modified using sequential, three-stage or adaptive designs to gain more power from a small patient population or to focus trial design. However, such designs need to maintain important design aspects such as randomization and blinding and be analyzed to take account of the multiple analyses performed. N-of-1 trials use within-patient randomization to test repeat periods of treatment and control until a response is clear. Such trials could be particularly valuable for rare diseases and when prospectively planned across several patients and analyzed using Bayesian techniques, a population effect can be estimated that might be of value to HTA. When the optimal outcome is unclear in a rare disease, disease specific patient reported outcomes can elucidate impacts on patients' functioning and wellbeing. Likewise, qualitative research can be used to elicit patients' perspectives, with just a small number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: International consensus is needed on ways to improve evidence collection and assessment of technologies for rare diseases, which recognize the value of novel study designs and analyses in a setting where the outcomes and effects of importance are yet to be agreed.

Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications.

Considerable variety in how patients respond to treatments, driven by differences in their geno- and/ or phenotypes, calls for a more tailored approach. This is already happening, and will accelerate with developments in personalized medicine. However, its promise has not always translated into improvements in patient care due to the complexities involved. There are also concerns that advice for tests has been reversed, current tests can be costly, there is fragmentation of funding of care, and companies may seek high prices for new targeted drugs. There is a need to integrate current knowledge from a payer's perspective to provide future guidance. Multiple findings including general considerations; influence of pharmacogenomics on response and toxicity of drug therapies; value of biomarker tests; limitations and costs of tests; and potentially high acquisition costs of new targeted therapies help to give guidance on potential ways forward for all stakeholder groups. Overall, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize care. However, current challenges and concerns need to be addressed to enhance its uptake and funding to benefit patients.

How can we deliver on the promise of precision medicine in oncology and beyond? A practical roadmap for action.

Background: Precision medicine (PM) is a form of personalized medicine that recognizes that individuals with the same condition may have different underlying factors and uses molecular information to provide tailored treatments. This approach can improve treatment outcomes and transform lives through favorable risk/benefit ratios, avoidance of ineffective interventions, and possible cost savings, as evidenced in the field of lung cancer and other oncology/therapeutic settings, including cardiac disease, diabetes, and rare diseases. However, the potential benefits of PM have yet to be fully realized. Discussion: There are many barriers to the implementation of PM in clinical practice, including fragmentation of the PM landscape, siloed approaches to address shared challenges, unwarranted variation in availability and access to PM, lack of standardization, and limited understanding of patients' experience and needs throughout the PM pathway. We believe that a diverse, intersectoral multistakeholder collaboration, with three main pillars of activity: generation of data to demonstrate the benefit of PM, education to support informed decision-making, and addressing barriers across the patient pathway, is necessary to reach the shared goal of making PM an accessible and sustainable reality. Besides healthcare providers, researchers, policymakers/regulators/payers, and industry representatives, patients in particular must be equal partners and should be central to the PM approach-from early research through to clinical trials and approval of new treatments-to ensure it represents their entire experience and identifies barriers, solutions, and opportunities at the point of delivery. Conclusion: We propose a practical and iterative roadmap to advance PM and call for all stakeholders across the healthcare system to employ a collaborative, cocreated, patient-centered methodology to close gaps and fully realize the potential of PM.

Developing a Framework of Cost Elements of Socioeconomic Burden of Rare Disease: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Rare diseases place a significant burden on patients, families, the healthcare system, and society. Evidence on the socioeconomic burden of rare disease is limited and mostly reflects diseases where treatments are available. We developed a framework encompassing recommended cost elements for studies of the socioeconomic burden of rare diseases. METHODS: A scoping review, conducted in five databases (Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO), identified English language publications from 2000 to 2021 presenting frameworks developed for determining, measuring or valuing costs for rare or chronic diseases. Cost elements were extracted and used to develop a literature-informed framework. Structured feedback was gathered from experts in rare diseases, health economics/health services, and policy research to revise the framework. RESULTS: Of 2990 records identified, eight papers were included and informed our preliminary framework; three focused on rare disease and five on chronic disease. Following expert input, we developed a framework consisting of nine cost categories (inpatient, outpatient, community, healthcare products/goods, productivity/education, travel/accommodation, government benefits, family impacts, and other), with several cost elements within each category. Our framework includes unique costs, added from the expert feedback, including genetic testing to inform treatment, use of private laboratories or out-of-country testing, family involvement in foundations and organizations, and advocacy costs for special access programs. CONCLUSIONS: Our work is the first to identify a comprehensive list of cost elements for rare disease for use by researchers and policy makers to fully capture socioeconomic burden. Use of the framework will increase the quality and comparability of future studies. Future work should focus on measuring and valuing these costs through onset, diagnosis, and post-diagnosis.

The IRDiRC Chrysalis Task Force: making rare disease research attractive to companies.

Background: The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) is an international initiative that aims to use research to facilitate rapid diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases. Objective: IRDiRC launched the Chrysalis Task Force to identify key financial and nonfinancial factors that make rare disease research and development attractive to companies. Methods: The Chrysalis Task Force was comprised of thought leaders from companies, patient advocacy groups, regulatory agencies, and research funders. The Task Force created a survey that was distributed to companies of different sizes with varied investment portfolios and interests in rare disease research. Based on the survey results, the Task Force then conducted targeted interviews. Results: The survey and interview respondents identified several factors that make rare disease research and development attractive (e.g. a good understanding of the underlying biology) as well as barriers (e.g. absence of an advocacy organization representing the affected community's needs). The concept of Return On Investment allowed the exploration of factors that were weighed differently by survey and interview respondents, depending on a number of intrinsic and extrinsic issues. Conclusions: The Chrysalis Task Force identified factors attributable to rare disease research and development that may be of interest to and actionable by funders, academic researchers, patients and their families, companies, regulators, and payers in the medium term to short term. By addressing the identified challenges, involved parties may seek solutions to significantly advance the research and development of treatments for rare diseases.

Making rare disease research attractive to companies The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) is an international initiative that aims to speed the diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases through research. The IRDiRC Chrysalis Task Force, comprised of thought leaders from companies, patient advocacy groups, regulatory agencies, and research funders, identified key factors that make rare disease research and development attractive to companies. The Task Force distributed a survey to companies with varied investment portfolios and interests in rare disease research, followed by in-depth interviews based on the survey results. The survey and interview respondents identified both attractive factors and barriers to rare disease research and development. The concept of Return On Investment was used to frame discussion of factors that companies weighed differently, depending on a number of issues that were a function of both the company itself and outside factors. The identified challenges can be addressed by funders, academic researchers, patients and their families, companies, regulators, and payers, which hopefully will lead to significant advances in the research and development of treatments for rare diseases.

An international comparative analysis of public reimbursement of orphan drugs in Canadian provinces compared to European countries.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian government has committed to developing a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases starting in 2022. Considering this announcement, we conducted a comparative analysis to examine patient access to therapies for rare disease in Canada relative to Europe and the U.S. METHODS: Given its similarity to the Canadian health care system, we used Europe as the reference point to analyze all of the therapies with an orphan drug designation approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2020. We then contrasted access to these drugs in Canada (Health Canada) and the U.S. (Food and Drug Administration, FDA). We focused on: (1) the number of therapies for rare diseases entering the Canadian market; (2) the percentage of these therapies that are publicly available to Canadians; and (3) the timelines for patients to access these therapies in Canada. RESULTS: Sixty-three approved therapies with an orphan drug designation from the EMA were identified. Fifty-three (84%) of these drugs had also been submitted to the FDA for approval, and 41 (65%) were submitted to Health Canada for approval. In Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the U.K. had the highest percentage of publicly reimbursed orphan drugs (84%, 70%, 68%, respectively). In comparison, Ontario (32%), Quebec (25%), and Alberta (25%) had the highest percentage of drugs reimbursed among the Canadian provinces. The shortest median duration (in months) from EMA approval to jurisdictional decision on reimbursement was in Austria (3.2), followed by Germany (4.1), and Finland (6.0). In Canada, the shortest median duration (in months) from regulatory approval to reimbursement was in British Columbia (17.3), Quebec (19.6) and Manitoba (19.6), while the longest duration was in P.E.I (38.5), followed by Nova Scotia (25.9), and Newfoundland (25.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analysis found that relative to the EU Canadians had less frequent and timely access to therapies for rare diseases. This highlights the need for a rare disease strategy in Canada that allows for clear identification and transparent tracking of the pathway for rare disease drugs, and ultimately optimizes the number of patients with access to these therapies.

Essential list of medicinal products for rare diseases: recommendations from the IRDiRC Rare Disease Treatment Access Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Treatments are often unavailable for rare disease patients, especially in low-and-middle-income countries. Reasons for this include lack of financial support for therapies and onerous regulatory requirements for approval of drugs. Other barriers include lack of reimbursement, administrative infrastructure, and knowledge about diagnosis and drug treatment options. The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium set up the Rare Disease Treatment Access Working Group with the first objective to develop an essential list of medicinal products for rare diseases. RESULTS: The Working Group extracted 204 drugs for rare diseases in the FDA, EMA databases and/or China's NMPA databases with approval and/or marketing authorization. The drugs were organized in seven disease categories: metabolic, neurologic, hematologic, anti-inflammatory, endocrine, pulmonary, and immunologic, plus a miscellaneous category. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed list of essential medicinal products for rare diseases is intended to initiate discussion and collaboration among patient advocacy groups, health care providers, industry and government agencies to enhance access to appropriate medicines for all rare disease patients throughout the world.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications.

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia patient support groups and advocacy: A multinational perspective.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is an autosomal-dominant disorder associated with high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Left untreated, 50% of men with FH will develop coronary heart disease by the age of 50 and 30% of women by the age 60 [1,2]. It is estimated that the prevalence may be as high as one in 250 people, with most undiagnosed. This article explores the development of advocacy in FH patient organisations, citing examples from Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, the US and the UK as well as the pan-European patient organisation, FH Europe. The article demonstrates that for patient advocacy, the link with medical and scientific expertise is essential to ensure that advocacy for familial hypercholesterolaemia is well-founded and credible and that patient associations are prepared to take a long-term view on achieving improvements in identification and treatment.

Moving from Patient Advocacy to Partnership: A Long and Bumpy Road.

Real-life experiences of grassroots patient organizations across a variety of diseases, countries and contexts have been used to develop a four-mode framework of the transition from patient advocacy to partnership, defined by one axis as individual versus collective action and the other axis as activities 'outside' or 'inside' the system. The four quadrants are labeled as advocacy, activism, reform and broker, and engagement is further refined by whether the participation is 'pushed' by the group or 'pulled' by the system. There are many examples of patient advocacy groups transitioning through the four quadrants; however, depending on other factors of culture, opportunity and their own preferences, groups may work primarily through one or two quadrants.

Review of 11 national policies for rare diseases in the context of key patient needs.

Rare diseases collectively exert a global public health burden in the severity of their manifestations and the total number of people they afflict. For many patients, considerable barriers exist in terms of access to appropriate care, delayed diagnosis and limited or non-existing treatment options. Motivated by these challenges, the rare disease patient community has played a critical role, elevating the patient voice and mobilizing legislation to support the development of programs that address the needs of patients with rare diseases.The US Orphan Drug Act of 1983 served as a key milestone in this journey, providing a roadmap for other countries to introduce and implement similar orphan drug legislation; more recently, the European Union (EU) has gone further to encourage the widespread adoption and implementation of rare disease plans or strategies designed to more adequately address the comprehensive needs of patients with rare diseases. Despite these legislative efforts and the growing contributions of patient advocacy groups in moving forward implementation and adoption of rare disease programs, gaps still exist across the policy landscape for several countries. To gain deeper insights into the challenges and opportunities to address key needs of rare disease patients, it is critical to define the current status of rare disease legislation and policy across a geographically and economically diverse selection of countries. We analyzed the rare disease policy landscape across 11 countries: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Bulgaria, Turkey, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, China, and Taiwan. The status and implementation of policy was evaluated for each country in the context of key patient needs across 5 dimensions: improving coordination of care, diagnostic resources, access to treatments, patient awareness and support, and promoting innovative research. Our findings highlight the continuing role of the patient community in driving the establishment and adoption of legislation and programs to improve rare disease care. Further, we found that while national rare disease plans provide important guidance for improving care, implementation of plans is uneven across countries. More research is needed to demonstrate the effect of specific elements of rare disease plans on patient outcomes.

Developing a patient-directed policy framework for managing orphan and ultra-orphan drugs throughout their lifecycle.

INTRODUCTION: Policy decisions related to orphan and ultra-orphan drugs challenge traditional decision-making processes and often frustrate those affected by them. In general, these drugs are associated with significant uncertainties around clinical benefit, 'value for money', affordability, and 'adoption/diffusion', all of which arise from a lack of available high-quality evidence. Increasingly, patients with rare diseases and their families are looking for opportunities to contribute to initiatives aimed at reducing these uncertainties. Therefore, a policy framework for guiding their involvement is needed to optimize the impact of any evidence generated. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were (1) to explore opportunities for patient involvement in reducing decision uncertainties throughout the lifecycle of orphan and ultra-orphan drugs from the perspectives of patients within the Canadian rare disease community; and (2) to develop a policy framework for patient input that maximizes the impact of their involvement on decision uncertainties around orphan and ultra-orphan drugs. METHODS: Two one-day conferences and four workshops involving patients and/or families from rare disease communities in Canada were held to discuss issues around orphan and ultra-orphan drug development, access, and coverage, and identify opportunities for patient input to reduce related decision uncertainties. Their feedback and the findings from a recent literature review on patient involvement in rare diseases were combined into a draft policy framework based upon Kingdon's multiple streams model of decision making. The framework was presented to a group of patients and other stakeholders, including providers, pharmaceutical drug plan managers, and industry representatives, and then revised accordingly. RESULTS: Patients and family members/caregivers identified tangible ways of contributing to the generation of information at all stages of the drug lifecycle. However, the proximity of that information to the reduction of a specific decision uncertainty varied. While the scope of possible ways mentioned was less broad when compared with the findings of the literature review, the focus was similar-capturing the clinical benefit of an orphan or ultra-orphan drug. A policy framework comprising three stages, each with a key question and corresponding set of sub-questions to be asked by patients, was developed. The three main sequential questions were as follows. (1) What uncertainties need to be addressed? (2) What roles should patients play? (3) Is each role feasible? CONCLUSIONS: Reducing decision uncertainties around orphan and ultra-orphan drugs requires a policy framework that explicates when and what type of information needs to be generated, and recognizes the role of patients as important sources of such information throughout the lifecycle of these drugs.

Quality indicators as a tool in improving the introduction of new medicines.

Quality indicators are increasingly used as a tool to achieve safe and quality clinical care, cost-effective therapy, for professional learning, remuneration, accreditation and financial incentives. A substantial number focus on drug therapy but few address the introduction of new medicines even though this is a burning issue. The objective was to describe the issues and challenges in designing and implementing a transparent indicator framework and evaluation protocol for the introduction of new medicines and to provide guidance on how to apply quality indicators in the managed entry of new medicines. Quality indicators need to be developed early to assess whether new medicines are introduced appropriately. A number of key factors need to be addressed when developing, applying and evaluating indicators including dimensions of quality, suggested testing protocols, potential data sources, key implementation factors such as intended and unintended consequences, budget impact and cost-effectiveness, assuring the involvement of the medical professions, patients and the public, and reliable and easy-to-use computerized tools for data collection and management. Transparent approaches include the need for any quality indicators developed to handle conflict of interests to enhance their validity and acceptance. The suggested framework and indicator testing protocol may be useful in assessing the applicability of indicators for new medicines and may be adapted to healthcare settings worldwide. The suggestions build on existing literature to create a field testing methodology that can be used to produce country-specific quality indicators for new medicines as well as a cross international approach to facilitate access to new medicines.