Ensuring Stakeholder Feedback in the Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials for Rare Diseases: ISCTM Position Paper of the Orphan Disease Working Group.

The 1983 Orphan Drug Act in the United States (US) changed the landscape for development of therapeutics for rare or orphan diseases, which collectively affect approximately 300 million people worldwide, half of whom are children. The act has undoubtedly accelerated drug development for orphan diseases, with over 6,400 orphan drug applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1983 to 2023, including 350 drugs approved for over 420 indications. Drug development in this population is a global and collaborative endeavor. This position paper of the International Society for Central Nervous System Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) describes some potential best practices for the involvement of key stakeholder feedback in the drug development process. Stakeholders include advocacy groups, patients and caregivers with lived experience, public and private research institutions (including academia and pharmaceutical companies), treating clinicians, and funders (including the government and independent foundations). The authors articulate the challenges of drug development in orphan diseases and propose methods to address them. Challenges range from the poor understanding of disease history to development of endpoints, targets, and clinical trials designs, to finding solutions to competing research priorities by involved parties.

Hurricane risk assessment in a multi-hazard context for Dominica in the Caribbean.

Hurricanes can trigger widespread landslides and flooding creating compound hazards and multiple risks for vulnerable populations. An example is the island of Dominica in the Caribbean, where the population lives predominantly along the coast close to sea level and is subject to storm surge, with steep topography rising behind, with a propensity for landslides and flash river flooding. The simultaneous occurrence of the multiple hazards amplifies their impacts and couples with physical and social vulnerabilities to threaten lives, livelihoods, and the environment. Neglecting compound hazards underestimates overall risk. Using a whole island macroscale, (level-I) analysis, susceptibility scenarios for hurricanes, triggered landslides, and floods were developed by incorporating physical process parameters. The susceptibilities were combined with vulnerability indicators to map spatial patterns of hurricane multi-risks in Dominica. The analysis adopted a coupled approach involving the frequency ratio (FR), analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and geographic information system (GIS). Detailed hazard modelling was done at selected sites (level-II), incorporating storm surge estimates, landslide runout simulations, and steady flow analysis for floods. High-resolution terrain data and simulation models, the Rapid Mass Movement Simulation (RAMMS) and the hydrologic engineering center's river analysis system (HEC-RAS), were employed. Ground validation confirmed reasonable agreement between projected and observed scenarios across different spatial scales. Following the United Nations Office for disaster risk reduction (UNDRR) call for the inclusion of local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge, feedback, and expert opinion to improve understanding of disaster risk, 17 interviews with local experts and 4 participatory workshops with residents were conducted, and findings were incorporated into the analysis, so as to gain insights into risk perceptions. The study's outcomes encompass projections and quantification of hurricane compound hazards, vulnerabilities, accumulated risks, and an understanding of local priorities. These findings will inform decision-making processes for risk mitigation choices and community actions by providing a new framework for multi-hazard risk assessment that is easy to implement in combining different data forms.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop.

Background: Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives: The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods: A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results: We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions: These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations: This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration: The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Randomised controlled trials are considered the best way to gather evidence about potential NHS treatments. They can be designed from different perspectives depending whether the aim is to show that a new treatment is better than, equal to or no worse than the current best available treatment. The selection of this design relates to the single most important outcome; however, often multiple outcomes can be affected by a treatment. For example, a new treatment may improve disease management but increase side effects. Patients want a treatment to work but not at the price of poor quality of life; therefore, a trade-off must be made, and the recommended treatment depends on this trade-off. Benefit­risk methods can assess the trade-off between multiple outcomes and can include patient preference. These methods could improve the way that decisions are made about treatments in the NHS, but there is currently limited research about the use of these methods in publicly funded trials. The aim of this report is to improve the design of clinical trials by helping researchers to select the most appropriate trial design and to decide when to include a benefit­risk method. The recommendations were created using the opinions of experts within the field and consisted of a survey, review of the literature and a workshop. The project created a list of 19 factors that can assist researchers to select the most appropriate trial design. Furthermore, six key areas were identified in which researchers may consider including a benefit­risk method within a trial. Finally, if a benefit­risk assessment is being used, a checklist of items has been created that identifies the information important to include in reports. This report is, however, limited in its applicability and further research should extend this work, as well as provide more detail on individual methods that are available.

Patient Centricity: Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials in Orphan Diseases: Third of Three Sets of Expanded Proceedings from the 2020 ISCTM Autumn Conference on Pediatric Drug Development.

This article expands on a session, titled "Patient Centricity: Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials in Orphan Diseases," that was presented as part of a two-day meeting on Pediatric Drug Development at the International Society for Central Nervous System (CNS) Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) Autumn Conference in Boston, Massachusetts, in October 2020. Speakers from various areas of pediatric drug development addressed a variety of implications of including children in drug development programs, including implications for rare/orphan diseases. The speakers have written summaries of their talks. The session's lead Chair was Dr. Joan Busner, who wrote introductory and closing comments. Dr. Simon Day, regulatory consultant, outlined some of the past mistakes that have plagued trials that did not consult with patient groups in the early design phase. Dr. Atul Mahableshwarkar provided an industry perspective of a recent trial that benefited from the inclusion of patient input. Drs. Lucas Kempf and Maria Sheean provided regulatory input from the perspectives of the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), respectively. Dr. Judith Dunn outlined a novel approach for assessing and rank ordering patient and clinician clinical meaningfulness and the disconnect that may occur. Dr. Busner provided closing comments, tied together the presented issues, and provided a synopsis of the lively discussion that followed the session. In addition to the speakers above, the discussion included two representatives from patient advocacy groups, as well as an additional speaker who described the challenges of conducting a pediatric trial in the US and European Union (EU), given the often competing regulatory requirements. This article should serve as an expert-informed reference to those interested and involved in CNS drug development programs that are aimed at children and rare diseases and seek to ensure a patient-centric approach.

c4c: Paediatric pharmacovigilance: Methodological considerations in research and development of medicines for children - A c4c expert group white paper.

Children frequently respond differently to therapies compared to adults. Differences also exist between paediatric age groups for pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in both efficacy and safety. Paediatric pharmacovigilance requires an understanding of the unique aspects of children with regard to, for example, drug response, growth and development, clinical presentation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), how they can be detected and population-specific factors (e.g., more frequent use of off-label/unlicensed drugs). In recognition of these challenges, a group of experts has been formed in the context of the conect4children (c4c) project to support paediatric drug development. This expert group collaborated to develop methodological considerations for paediatric drug safety and pharmacovigilance throughout the life-cycle of medicinal products which are described in this article. These considerations include practical points to consider for the development of the paediatric section of the risk management plan (RMP), safety in paediatric protocol development, safety data collection and analysis. Furthermore, they describe the specific details of post-marketing pharmacovigilance in children using, for example, spontaneous reports, electronic health care records, registries and record-linkage, as well as the use of paediatric pharmacoepidemiology studies for risk characterisation. Next the details of the assessment of benefit-risk and challenges related to medicinal product formulation in the context of a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) are presented. Finally, practical issues in paediatric signal detection and evaluation are included. This paper provides practical points to consider for paediatric pharmacovigilance throughout the life-cycle of medicinal products for RMPs, protocol development, safety data collection and analysis and PIPs.

Efficacy and safety of arimoclomol in Niemann-Pick disease type C: Results from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 2/3 trial of a novel treatment.

Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) is a rare, genetic, progressive neurodegenerative disorder with high unmet medical need. We investigated the safety and efficacy of arimoclomol, which amplifies the heat shock response to target NPC protein misfolding and improve lysosomal function, in patients with NPC. In a 12-month, prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02612129), patients (2-18 years) were randomised 2:1 to arimoclomol:placebo, stratified by miglustat use. Routine clinical care was maintained. Arimoclomol was administered orally three times daily. The primary endpoint was change in 5-domain NPC Clinical Severity Scale (NPCCSS) score from baseline to 12 months. Fifty patients enrolled; 42 completed. At month 12, the mean progression from baseline in the 5-domain NPCCSS was 0.76 with arimoclomol vs 2.15 with placebo. A statistically significant treatment difference in favour of arimoclomol of -1.40 (95% confidence interval: -2.76, -0.03; P = .046) was observed, corresponding to a 65% reduction in annual disease progression. In the prespecified subgroup of patients receiving miglustat as routine care, arimoclomol resulted in stabilisation of disease severity over 12 months with a treatment difference of -2.06 in favour of arimoclomol (P = .006). Adverse events occurred in 30/34 patients (88.2%) receiving arimoclomol and 12/16 (75.0%) receiving placebo. Fewer patients had serious adverse events with arimoclomol (5/34, 14.7%) vs placebo (5/16, 31.3%). Treatment-related serious adverse events (n = 2) included urticaria and angioedema. Arimoclomol provided a significant and clinically meaningful treatment effect in NPC and was well tolerated.

Utilising benefit-risk assessments within clinical trials-a protocol for the BRAINS project.

BACKGROUND: Depending on the treatment to be investigated, a clinical trial could be designed to assess objectives of superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority. The design of the study is affected by many different elements including the control treatment, the primary outcome and associated relationships. In some studies, there could be more than one outcome of interest. In these situations, benefit-risk methodologies could be used to assess the outcomes simultaneously and consider the trade-off between the benefits against the risks of a treatment. Benefit-risk is used within the regulatory industry but seldom included within publicly funded clinical trials within the UK. This project aims to gain an expert consensus on how to select the appropriate trial design (e.g. superiority) and when to consider including benefit-risk methods. METHODS: The project will consist of four work packages: 1. A web-based survey to elicit current experiences and opinions, 2. A rapid literature review to assess any current recommendations, 3. A two-day consensus workshop to gain agreement on the recommendations, and 4. Production of a guidance document. DISCUSSION: The aim of the project is to provide a guideline for clinical researchers, grant funding bodies and reviewers for grant bodies for how to select the most appropriate trial design and when it is appropriate to consider using benefit-risk methods. The focus of the guideline will be on publicly funded trials however, the vision is that the work will be applicable across research settings and we will connect with other organisations and committees as appropriate.

Clinical disease progression and biomarkers in Niemann-Pick disease type C: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) is a rare, progressive, neurodegenerative disease associated with neurovisceral manifestations resulting from lysosomal dysfunction and aberrant lipid accumulation. A multicentre, prospective observational study (Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT02435030) of individuals with genetically confirmed NPC1 or NPC2 receiving routine clinical care was conducted, to prospectively characterize and measure NPC disease progression and to investigate potential NPC-related biomarkers versus healthy individuals. Progression was measured using the abbreviated 5-domain NPC Clinical Severity Scale (NPCCSS), 17-domain NPCCSS and NPC clinical database (NPC-cdb) score. Cholesterol esterification and heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) levels were assessed from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), cholestane-3ß,5α-,6ß-triol (cholestane-triol) from serum, and unesterified cholesterol from both PBMCs and skin biopsy samples. The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the 5-domain NPCCSS was assessed by 13 expert clinicians' rating of four participants via video recordings, repeated after ≥ 3 weeks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 36 individuals with NPC (2-18 years) enrolled, 31 (86.1%) completed the 6-14-month observation period; 30/36 (83.3%) were receiving miglustat as part of routine clinical care. A mean (± SD) increase in 5-domain NPCCSS scores of 1.4 (± 2.9) was observed, corresponding to an annualized progression rate of 1.5. On the 17-domain NPCCSS, a mean (± SD) progression of 2.7 (± 4.0) was reported. Compared with healthy individuals, the NPC population had significantly lower levels of cholesterol esterification (p < 0.0001), HSP70 (p < 0.0001) and skin unesterified cholesterol (p = 0.0006). Cholestane-triol levels were significantly higher in individuals with NPC versus healthy individuals (p = 0.008) and correlated with the 5-domain NPCCSS (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.265, p = 0.0411). The 5-domain NPCCSS showed high ICC agreement in inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.995) and intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.937). CONCLUSIONS: Progression rates observed were consistent with other reports on disease progression in NPC. The 5-domain NPCCSS reliability study supports its use as an abbreviated alternative to the 17-domain NPCCSS that focuses on the most relevant domains of the disease. The data support the use of cholestane-triol as a disease monitoring biomarker and the novel methods of measuring unesterified cholesterol could be applicable to support NPC diagnosis. Levels of HSP70 in individuals with NPC were significantly decreased compared with healthy individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CT-ORZY-NPC-001: ClincalTrials.gov NCT02435030, Registered 6 May 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02435030 ; EudraCT 2014-005,194-37, Registered 28 April 2015, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2014-005194-37/DE . OR-REL-NPC-01: Unregistered.

Recommendations for the design of small population clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Orphan drug development faces numerous challenges, including low disease prevalence, patient population heterogeneity, and strong presence of paediatric patient populations. Consequently, clinical trials for orphan drugs are often smaller than those of non-orphan drugs, and they require the development of efficient trial designs relevant to small populations to gain the most information from the available data. The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) is aimed at promoting international collaboration and advance rare diseases research worldwide, and has as one of its goals to contribute to 1000 new therapies for rare diseases. IRDiRC set up a Small Population Clinical Trials (SPCT) Task Force in order to address the shortcomings of our understanding in carrying out clinical trials in rare diseases. RESULTS: The IRDiRC SPCT Task Force met in March 2016 to discuss challenges faced in the design of small studies for rare diseases and present their recommendations, structured around six topics: different study methods/designs and their relation to different characteristics of medical conditions, adequate safety data, multi-arm trial designs, decision analytic approaches and rational approaches to adjusting levels of evidence, extrapolation, and patients' engagement in study design. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations have been issued based on discussions of the Small Population Clinical Trials Task Force that aim to contribute towards successful therapy development and clinical use. While randomised clinical trials are still considered the gold standard, it is recommended to systematically take into consideration alternative trial design options when studying treatments for a rare disease. Combining different sources of safety data is important to give a fuller picture of a therapy's safety profile. Multi-arm trials should be considered an opportunity for rare diseases therapy development, and funders are encouraged to support such trial design via international networks. Patient engagement is critical in trial design and therapy development, a process which sponsors are encouraged to incorporate when conducting trials and clinical studies. Input from multiple regulatory agencies is recommended early and throughout clinical development. Regulators are often supportive of new clinical trial designs, provided they are well thought through and justified, and they also welcome discussions and questions on this topic. Parallel advice for multiregional development programs should also be considered.

Recent advances in methodology for clinical trials in small populations: the InSPiRe project.

Where there are a limited number of patients, such as in a rare disease, clinical trials in these small populations present several challenges, including statistical issues. This led to an EU FP7 call for proposals in 2013. One of the three projects funded was the Innovative Methodology for Small Populations Research (InSPiRe) project. This paper summarizes the main results of the project, which was completed in 2017.The InSPiRe project has led to development of novel statistical methodology for clinical trials in small populations in four areas. We have explored new decision-making methods for small population clinical trials using a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework to compare costs with potential benefits, developed approaches for targeted treatment trials, enabling simultaneous identification of subgroups and confirmation of treatment effect for these patients, worked on early phase clinical trial design and on extrapolation from adult to pediatric studies, developing methods to enable use of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data, and also developed improved robust meta-analysis methods for a small number of trials to support the planning, analysis and interpretation of a trial as well as enabling extrapolation between patient groups. In addition to scientific publications, we have contributed to regulatory guidance and produced free software in order to facilitate implementation of the novel methods.

Missing data handling in non-inferiority and equivalence trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority (NI) and equivalence clinical trials test whether a new treatment is therapeutically no worse than, or equivalent to, an existing standard of care. Missing data in clinical trials have been shown to reduce statistical power and potentially bias estimates of effect size; however, in NI and equivalence trials, they present additional issues. For instance, they may decrease sensitivity to differences between treatment groups and bias toward the alternative hypothesis of NI (or equivalence). AIMS: Our primary aim was to review the extent of and methods for handling missing data (model-based methods, single imputation, multiple imputation, complete case), the analysis sets used (Intention-To-Treat, Per-Protocol, or both), and whether sensitivity analyses were used to explore departures from assumptions about the missing data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of NI and equivalence trials published between May 2015 and April 2016 by searching the PubMed database. Articles were reviewed primarily by 2 reviewers, with 6 articles reviewed by both reviewers to establish consensus. RESULTS: Of 109 selected articles, 93% reported some missing data in the primary outcome. Among those, 50% reported complete case analysis, and 28% reported single imputation approaches for handling missing data. Only 32% reported conducting analyses of both intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Only 11% conducted any sensitivity analyses to test assumptions with respect to missing data. CONCLUSION: Missing data are common in NI and equivalence trials, and they are often handled by methods which may bias estimates and lead to incorrect conclusions.