Real-life impacts of olipudase alfa: The experience of patients and families taking an enzyme replacement therapy for acid sphingomyelinase deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Acid Sphingomyelinase Deficiency (ASMD) is an ultra-rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder characterized by intracellular lipid accumulation resulting from reduced function of acid sphingomyelinase. Olipudase alfa, an enzyme replacement therapy, was recently approved in several countries for the treatment of the non-neurologic manifestations of ASMD. Studies demonstrate improvement in organomegaly, pulmonary function and lipid profiles with olipudase alfa, yet little is known about its impact on quality of life (QoL) for patients and caregivers. The purpose of this study is to better understand the real-life impact of ASMD on patients and caregivers and assess how olipudase alfa impacts QoL for pediatric patients and their caregivers. METHODS: Caregivers of pediatric patients (≤ 18 years of age) with a confirmed diagnosis of ASMD that received olipudase alfa for at least 12 months were recruited in early 2022 through national patient organizations to participate in a global online questionnaire followed by semi-structured interviews. Ten caregivers of patients with ASMD who utilized olipudase alfa as an experimental therapy for pediatric patients participated in the study. Quantitative analysis of the results was undertaken, and qualitative data was analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Ten eligible participants completed questionnaires, and 8 of the 10 went on to participate in structured interviews. Symptom burden of ASMD and impact on symptomatology and quality of life after olipudase alfa use are reported here. Five themes emerged from analysis: (1) ASMD is a systemic disease with a wide array of manifestations that significantly impact QoL; (2) Olipudase alfa was associated with improvements in all non-neurologic manifestations of ASMD; (3) Participants perceived the risk associated with olipudase alfa to be low and the benefits to greatly outweigh any risk or burden; (4) Participants reported an unmet need to treat the neurologic manifestations of the disease despite the benefits of olipudase alfa in the management of non-neurological symptoms; (5) Participants felt all patients with ASMD need access to olipudase alfa based on the life-changing experience they perceived. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the sustained positive impact olipudase alfa had in many domains that are deemed important to patients and families living with ASMD and outline the extensive unmet need for patients and families living with ASMD.

Clinical disease characteristics of patients with Niemann-Pick Disease Type C: findings from the International Niemann-Pick Disease Registry (INPDR).

BACKGROUND: Niemann-Pick Disease Type C (NPC) is an autosomal recessive rare disease characterised by progressive neurovisceral manifestations. The collection of on-going large-scale NPC clinical data may generate better understandings of the natural history of the disease. Here we report NPC patient data from the International Niemann-Pick Disease Registry (INPDR). METHOD: The INPDR is a web-based, patient-led independent registry for the collection of prospective and retrospective clinical data from Niemann-Pick Disease patients. Baseline data from NPC patients enrolled into the INPDR from September 2014 to December 2019 was extracted to analyse the demographic, genetic and clinical features of the disease. RESULTS: A total of 203 NPC patients from six European countries were included in this study. The mean age (SD) at diagnosis was 11.2 years (14.2). Among enrolled patients, 168 had known neurological manifestations: 43 (24.2%) had early-infantile onset, 47 (26.4%) had late-infantile onset, 41 (23.0%) had juvenile onset, and 37 (20.8%) had adult onset. 10 (5.6%) patients had the neonatal rapidly fatal systemic form. Among the 97 patients with identified NPC1 variants, the most common variant was the c. 3182T > C variant responsible for the p.lle1061Thr protein change, reported in 35.1% (N = 34) of patients. The frequencies of hepatomegaly and neonatal jaundice were greatest in patients with early-infantile and late-infantile neurological onset. Splenomegaly was the most commonly reported observation, including 80% of adult-onset patients. The most commonly reported neurological manifestations were cognitive impairment (78.5%), dysarthria (75.9%), ataxia (75.9%), vertical supranuclear gaze palsy (70.9%) and dysphagia (69.6%). A 6-domain composite disability scale was used to calculate the overall disability score for each neurological form. Across all with neurological onset, the majority of patients showed moderate to severe impairments in all domains, except for 'swallowing' and 'seizure'. The age at diagnosis and death increased with increased age of neurological symptom onset. Miglustat use was recorded in 62.4% of patients and the most common symptomatic therapies used by patients were antiepileptics (32.9%), antidepressants (11.8%) and antacids (9.4%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of participants at each age of neurological onset was relatively equal across the cohort. Neurological manifestations, such as ataxia, dysphagia, and dysarthria, were frequently observed across all age categories.

Impacts and Burden of Niemann pick Type-C: a patient and caregiver perspective.

BACKGROUND: Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) is a debilitating condition that impacts patients' and caregivers' quality of life (QOL) and reduces the patient's life expectancy. Since there is little qualitative research from the perspective of patients and family caregivers, this study explored the impact of NPC on patients' and caregivers' daily lives to understand the burden of disease. RESULTS: A survey of caregivers for patients with NPC and adult patients with NPC (n = 49; patient age: 13 months-65 years) assessed NPC severity, importance of NPC symptoms, and how symptoms impacted patients' and caregivers' activities of daily living (ADLs) and health-related QOL (HRQOL). Follow-up interviews with a subset of survey participants (n = 28) explored the ranking of NPC symptom importance and impact on ADLs and HRQOL. Findings indicated that the most important manifestations of NPC were ambulation, swallowing, speech, fine motor skills, and cognition, which were those that had the most significant impact on ADLs and HRQOL. A wide range of ADLs were affected by NPC, mainly eating/drinking and the ability to perform daily tasks, including self-care, communicating, participating in school or work, and moving indoors as well as outside the home. Along with these impacts, there was an increased risk of experiencing dangerous or life-threatening situations leading to loss of patient independence and additional caregiver burden, often requiring changes in lifestyle such as giving up work. All aspects of patients' and caregivers' HRQOL were affected. Participants reported feelings of social isolation, loss of enjoyment in activities (patients), and feelings of sadness or worry (caregivers). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulation, swallowing, speech, fine motor skills, and cognition are important manifestations of NPC. ADLs and HRQOL were impaired in the majority of patients as well as their caregivers. The findings were independent of current age, age of onset of symptoms, and level of NPC disease-related disability; however, the impact increased at higher levels of disease disability. Knowing the impact of NPC on patients and caregivers is important for understanding the lived experience of NPC and for identifying potential areas of support.

International consensus on clinical severity scale use in evaluating Niemann-Pick disease Type C in paediatric and adult patients: results from a Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Several scales have been developed in the past two decades to evaluate Niemann-Pick disease Type C (NPC) severity in clinical practice and trials. However, a lack of clarity concerning which scale to use in each setting is preventing the use of standardised assessments across the world, resulting in incomparable data sets and clinical trial outcome measures. This study aimed to establish agreed approaches for the use of NPC severity scales in clinical practice and research. METHODS: A Delphi method of consensus development was used, comprising three survey rounds. In Round 1, participants were asked nine multiple-choice and open-ended questions to gather opinions on the six severity scales and domains. In Rounds 2 and 3, questions aimed to gain consensus on the opinions revealed in Round 1 using a typical Likert scale. RESULTS: Nineteen experts, active in NPC paediatric and adult research and treatment, participated in this study. Of these, 16/19 completed Rounds 1 and 2 and 19/19 completed Round 3. Consensus (defined as ≥ 70% agreement or neutrality, given the study aim to identify the severity scales that the clinical community would accept for international consistency) was achieved for 66.7% of the multiple-choice questions in Round 2 and 83% of the multiple-choice questions in Round 3. Consensus was almost reached (68%) on the use of the 5-domain NPCCSS scale as the first choice in clinical practice. Consensus was reached (74%) for the 17-domain NPCCSS scale as the first choice in clinical trial settings, but the domains measured in the 5-domain scale should be prioritised as the primary endpoints. Experts called for educational and training materials on how to apply the NPCCSS (17- and 5-domains) for clinicians working in NPC. CONCLUSIONS: In achieving a consensus on the use of the 17-domain NPCCSS scale as the first choice for assessing clinical severity of NPC in clinical trial settings but prioritising the domains in the 5-domain NPCCSS scale for routine clinical practice, this study can help to inform future discussion around the use of the existing NPC clinical severity scales. For routine clinical practice, the study helps provide clarity on which scale is favoured by a significant proportion of a representative body of experts, in this case, the 5-domain NPCCSS scale.

Principles for interactions with biopharmaceutical companies: the development of guidelines for patient advocacy organizations in the field of rare diseases.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases are a global public health concern, affecting an estimated 350 million individuals. Only 5% of approximately 7000 known rare diseases have a treatment, and only about half have a patient advocacy organization. Biopharmaceutical companies face complex challenges in developing treatments for rare diseases. Patient advocacy organizations may play a major role by positively influencing research and development, clinical trials, and regulations. Thus, collaboration among patient advocacy organizations and industry is essential to bring new therapeutics to patients. METHODS: We identified an unmet need for guidelines on day-to-day decision-making by rare disease patient advocacy organizations when working with biopharmaceutical partners. We convened an Independent Expert Panel experienced in collaborations between patient advocacy organizations and biopharmaceutical companies (April 2017) to develop consensus guidelines for these relationships. The guidelines were based on an original version by the International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association (IFOPA). The Expert Panel reviewed and broadened these to be applicable to all patient advocacy organizations. Comments on the draft Guidelines were provided first by Panel participants and subsequently by six independent experts from patient advocacy organizations and industry. RESULTS: The Panel comprised four experts from the rare disease community who lead patient advocacy organizations; three leaders who perform advocacy functions within biopharmaceutical companies; and two facilitators, both having leadership experience in rare diseases and industry. The finalized Guidelines consist of four main sections: Identification and Engagement With Companies, Patient Engagement and Patient Privacy, Financial Contributions, and Clinical Trial Communication and Support. The Guidelines address the daily considerations, choices, and consequences of patient advocacy organizations as they engage with biopharmaceutical companies, and offer recommendations for volunteer/paid leaders of the organizations on how to interact in a thoughtful, responsible, ethical way that engenders trust. CONCLUSIONS: These Guidelines recommend best practices and standards for interactions between patient advocacy organizations and industry that will ultimately have a positive effect on the development of novel treatments. Patient advocacy organizations will be provided free access to these Guidelines to help bring clarification to day-to-day decision-making around their interactions, and for use as a living document with the potential for regular revisions and updates.