'Integrating Ethics and Equity with Economics and Effectiveness for newborn screening in the genomic age: A qualitative study protocol of stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Newborn bloodspot screening is a well-established population health initiative that detects serious, childhood-onset, treatable conditions to improve health outcomes. With genomic technologies advancing rapidly, many countries are actively discussing the introduction of genomic assays into newborn screening programs. While adding genomic testing to Australia's newborn screening program could improve outcomes for infants and families, it must be considered against potential harms, ethical, legal, equity and social implications, and economic and health system impacts. We must ask not only 'can' we use genomics to screen newborns?' but 'should we'?' and 'how much should health systems invest in genomic newborn screening?'. METHODS: This study will use qualitative methods to explore understanding, priorities, concerns and expectations of genomic newborn screening among parents/carers, health professionals/scientists, and health policy makers across Australia. In-depth, semi-structured interviews will be held with 30-40 parents/carers recruited via hospital and community settings, 15-20 health professionals/scientists, and 10-15 health policy makers. Data will be analysed using inductive content analysis. The Sydney Children's Hospital Network Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study protocol [2023/ETH02371]. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research will guide study planning, conduct and reporting. DISCUSSION: Few studies have engaged a diverse range of stakeholders to explore the implications of genomics in newborn screening in a culturally and genetically diverse population, nor in a health system underpinned by universal health care. As the first study within a multi-part research program, findings will be used to generate new knowledge on the risks and benefits and importance of ethical, legal, social and equity implications of genomic newborn screening from the perspective of key stakeholders. As such it will be the foundation on which child and family centered criteria can be developed to inform health technology assessments and drive efficient and effective policy decision-making on the implementation of genomics in newborn screening.

Informing a national rare disease registry strategy in Australia: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Rare disease registries (RDRs) facilitate monitoring of rare diseases by pooling small datasets to increase clinical and epidemiological knowledge of rare diseases and promote patient centred best practice. The aim of this study was to understand the current state of RDRs in Australia, data captured, impact on patient outcomes, funding models, and barriers and enablers regarding their establishment and maintenance. METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed methods study design was adopted. First, a list of Australian RDRs, primary contacts and data custodians was generated through online and consumer group (Rare Voices Australia (RVA)) contacts. A cross-sectional, anonymous online survey was distributed to registry custodians, managers, or principal investigators of 74 identified Australian RDRs, 88 RVA Partners, 17 pharmaceutical organizations and 12 RVA Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee members. Next, managers and coordinators of RDRs and databases who participated in the survey were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics and content analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Forty RDRs responded to the survey; nine were national, five were based in Australia and New Zealand, and the remaining were global. Of the 40 survey respondents, eight were interviewed. Most of the RDRs captured similar information regarding patient characteristics, comorbidities and clinical features, diagnosis, family history, genetic testing, procedures or treatment types, response to treatments and complications of treatments. Better treatment outcomes, changes in process of care and changes in quality of care were the most frequently reported benefits of the RDRs. The main challenges proved to be cost/funding of data collection, data completeness, and patient consent. When asked, the participants identified opportunities and challenges regarding potential options to streamline RDRs in Australia in the future. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study highlighted significant dataset heterogeneity based on the individual disease, and current lack of interoperability and coordination between different existing RDRs in Australia. Nevertheless, a nationally coordinated approach to RDRs should be investigated given the particular benefits RDRs offer, such as access to research and the monitoring of new disease-modifying treatments.

Current state of rare disease registries and databases in Australia: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases (RDs) affect approximately 8% of all people or > 400 million people globally. The Australian Government's National Strategic Action Plan for Rare Diseases has identified the need for a national, coordinated, and systematic approach to the collection and use of RD data, including registries. Rare disease registries (RDRs) are established for epidemiological, quality improvement and research purposes, and they are critical infrastructure for clinical trials. The aim of this scoping review was to review literature on the current state of RDRs in Australia; to describe how they are funded; what data they collect; and their impact on patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. Dissertations, government reports, randomised control trials, conference proceedings, conference posters and meeting abstracts were also included. Articles were excluded if they did not discuss RDs or if they were written in a language other than English. Studies were assessed on demographic and clinical patient characteristics, procedure or treatment type and health-related quality of life captured by RDRs or databases that have been established to date. RESULTS: Seventy-four RDRs were identified; 19 were global registries in which Australians participated, 24 were Australian-only registries, 10 were Australia and New Zealand based, and five were Australian jurisdiction-based registries. Sixteen "umbrella" registries collected data on several different conditions, which included some RDs, and thirteen RDRs stored rare cancer-specific information. Most RDRs and databases captured similar types of information related to patient characteristics, comorbidities and other clinical features, procedure or treatment type and health-related quality of life measures. We found considerable heterogeneity among existing RDRs in Australia, especially with regards to data collection, scope and quality of registries, suggesting a national coordinated approach to RDRs is required. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights the current state of Australian RDRs, identifying several important gaps and opportunities for improvement through national coordination and increased investment.

The involvement of rare disease patient organisations in therapeutic innovation across rare paediatric neurological conditions: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The patient voice is becoming increasingly prominent across all stages of therapeutic innovation. It pervades research domains from funding and recruitment, to translation, care, and support. Advances in genomic technologies have facilitated novel breakthrough therapies, whose global developments, regulatory approvals, and confined governmental subsidisations have stimulated renewed hope amongst rare disease patient organisations (RDPOs). With intensifying optimism characterising the therapeutic landscape, researcher-advocate partnerships have reached an inflexion point, at which stakeholders may evaluate their achievements and formulate frameworks for future refinement. MAIN TEXT: Through this narrative review, we surveyed relevant literature around the roles of RDPOs catering to the rare paediatric neurological disease community. Via available literature, we considered RDPO interactions within seven domains of therapeutic development: research grant funding, industry sponsorship, study recruitment, clinical care and support, patient-reported outcome measures, and research prioritisation. In doing so, we explored practical and ethical challenges, gaps in understanding, and future directions of inquiry. Current literature highlights the increasing significance of ethical and financial challenges to patient advocacy. Biomedical venture philanthropy is gaining momentum amongst RDPOs, whose small grants can incrementally assist laboratories in research, training, and pursuits of more substantial grants. However, RDPO seed funding may encounter long-term sustainability issues and difficulties in selecting appropriate research investments. Further challenges include advocate-industry collaborations, commercial biases, and unresolved controversies regarding orphan drug subsidisation. Beyond their financial interactions, RDPOs serve instrumental roles in project promotion, participant recruitment, biobank creation, and patient registry establishment. They are communication conduits between carers, patients, and other stakeholders, but their contributions may be susceptible to bias and unrealistic expectations. CONCLUSION: Further insights into how RDPOs navigate practical and ethical challenges in therapeutic development may enhance cooperative efforts. They may also inform resources, whose distribution among advocates, parents, and clinicians, may assist decision-making processes around rare disease clinical trials and treatments.

Rare diseases research and policy in Australia: On the journey to equitable care.

Almost exactly 10 years after the publication of 'Call for a national plan for rare diseases' in this journal, the Federal Government launched the National Strategic Action Plan for Rare Diseases (the Action Plan) on the 26th of February 2020, in the lead up to Rare Disease Day on the 29th of February - a rare day for rare diseases. The Action Plan is the culmination of effective advocacy by Rare Voices Australia (RVA) and other stakeholders in the rare disease (RD) sector. RVA is the peak body for Australians living with a RD. The organisation works collaboratively with RD organisations, researchers and clinicians. Since the initial call for a RD plan, a number of health-care initiatives and policy changes have gathered apace including expanded antenatal and newborn screening, the increasing application of next generation sequencing and advances in gene and cell therapeutics. The development of new models of care, diagnostic and treatment pathways, and communities of practice have started to ease the considerable burden and inequitable access to care experienced by RD patients and their families. However, much work remains to be done. The Action Plan outlines the actions to bring about the best possible health and well-being outcomes for Australians living with RD. It is centred around three pillars - awareness and education, care and support, research and data - and will be delivered against the principles of person centredness, equity, and sustainable systems and workforce.

Rare disease registries: a call to action.

When registries collect accurate clinical data over time, they can act as fundamental support structures for patients and their families and powerful cost-effective instruments to support clinical trials and translational research to improve quality of care, quality of life and survival. Registries are critical for rare diseases (RD) with low prevalence and propensity for variation in treatment and outcomes. Rare Voices Australia is leading a call for action to the research and clinical community to prioritise RD data collection and develop an integrated RD Registry strategy for Australia. Financial, operational and governance challenges exist for establishing and maintaining RD registries. As a multidisciplinary team whose interests converge on RD, we highlight the need for the establishment of an Australian RD Registry Alliance. This 'umbrella' organisation will: (i) bring together existing RD registries across Australia; (ii) establish National RD Registry Standards to support interoperability and cohesion across registries; (iii) develop strategies to attract sustainable funding from government and other sources to maximise the utility of existing RD registries and support the development of new RD registries. The most important role for the Alliance would be to use the RD registries for translational research to address current knowledge gaps about RD and to improve the care for the over 1.4 million Australians estimated to live with RD.