Position statement on the role of healthcare professionals, patient organizations and industry in European Reference Networks

A call from the EU for the set-up of European Reference Networks (ERNs) is expected to be launched in the first quarter of 2016. ERNs are intended to improve the care for patients with low prevalent or rare diseases throughout the EU by, among other things, facilitating the pooling and exchange of experience and knowledge and the development of protocols and guidelines. In the past, for example where costly orphan drugs have been concerned, industry has played an important role in facilitating consensus meetings and publication of guidelines. The ERNs should provide a unique opportunity for healthcare professionals and patients to lead these activities in an independent way. However, currently costs for networking activities are not to be covered by EU funds and alternative sources of funding are being explored. There is growing concern that any involvement of the industry in the funding of ERNs and their core activities may create a risk of undue influence. To date, the European Commission has not been explicit in how industry will be engaged in ERNs. We believe that public funding and a conflict of interest policy are needed at the level of the ERNs, Centers of Expertise (CEs), healthcare professionals and patient organizations with the aim of maintaining scientific integrity and independence. Specific attention is needed where it concerns the development of clinical practice guidelines. A proposal for a conflict of interest policy is presented, which may support the development of a framework to facilitate collaboration, safeguard professional integrity and to establish and maintain public acceptability and trust among patients, their organizations and the general public

Newborn screening in metachromatic leukodystrophy – European consensus-based recommendations on clinical management

Introduction: Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) is a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder resulting from arylsulfatase A enzyme deficiency, leading to toxic sulfatide accumulation. As a result affected individuals exhibit progressive neurodegeneration. Treatments such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and gene therapy are effective when administered pre-symptomatically. Newborn screening (NBS) for MLD has recently been shown to be technically feasible and is indicated because of available treatment options. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to monitor and manage identified cases. This study aims to establish consensus among international experts in MLD and patient advocates on clinical management for NBS-identified MLD cases. Methods: A real-time Delphi procedure using eDELPHI software with 22 experts in MLD was performed. Questions, based on a literature review and workshops, were answered during a seven-week period. Three levels of consensus were defined: A) 100%, B) 75–99%, and C) 50–74% or >75% but >25% neutral votes. Recommendations were categorized by agreement level, from strongly recommended to suggested. Patient advocates participated in discussions and were involved in the final consensus. Results: The study presents 57 statements guiding clinical management of NBS-identified MLD patients. Key recommendations include timely communication by MLD experts with identified families, treating early-onset MLD with gene therapy and late-onset MLD with HSCT, as well as pre-treatment monitoring schemes. Specific knowledge gaps were identified, urging prioritized research for future evidence-based guidelines. Discussion: Consensus-based recommendations for NBS in MLD will enhance harmonized management and facilitate integration in national screening programs. Structured data collection and monitoring of screening programs are crucial for evidence generation and future guideline development. Involving patient representatives in the development of recommendations seems essential for NBS programs

Core protocol development for phase 2/3 clinical trials in the leukodystrophy vanishing white matter: a consensus statement by the VWM consortium and patient advocates

Abstract Background The leukodystrophy “Vanishing White Matter” (VWM) is an orphan disease with neurological decline and high mortality. Currently, VWM has no approved treatments, but advances in understanding pathophysiology have led to identification of promising therapies. Several investigational medicinal products are either in or about to enter clinical trial phase. Clinical trials in VWM pose serious challenges, as VWM has an episodic disease course; disease phenotype is highly heterogeneous and predictable only for early onset; and study power is limited by the small patient numbers. To address these challenges and accelerate therapy delivery, the VWM Consortium, a group of academic clinicians with expertise in VWM, decided to develop a core protocol to function as a template for trials, to improve trial design and facilitate sharing of control data, while permitting flexibility regarding other trial details. Overall aims of the core protocol are to collect safety, tolerability, and efficacy data for treatment assessment and marketing authorization. Methods To develop the core protocol, the VWM Consortium designated a committee, including clinician members of the VWM Consortium, family and patient group advocates, and experts in statistics, clinical trial design and alliancing with industries. We drafted three age-specific protocols, to stratify into more homogeneous patient groups, of ages ≥ 18 years, ≥ 6 to < 18 years and < 6 years. We chose double‐blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design for patients aged ≥ 6 years; and open-label non-randomized natural-history-controlled design for patients < 6 years. The protocol describes study populations, age-specific endpoints, inclusion and exclusion criteria, study schedules, sample size determinations, and statistical considerations. Discussion The core protocol provides a shared uniformity across trials, enables a pool of shared controls, and reduces the total number of patients necessary per trial, limiting the number of patients on placebo. All VWM clinical trials are suggested to adhere to the core protocol. Other trial components such as choice of primary outcome, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and biomarkers are flexible and unconstrained by the core protocol. Each sponsor is responsible for their trial execution, while the control data are handled by a shared research organization. This core protocol benefits the efficiency of parallel and consecutive trials in VWM, and we hope accelerates time to availability of treatments for VWM. Trial registration NA. From a scientific and ethical perspective, it is strongly recommended that all interventional trials using this core protocol are registered in a clinical trial register