Caregiver experiences and observations of intrathecal idursulfase-IT treatment in a phase 2/3 trial in pediatric patients with neuronopathic mucopolysaccharidosis II

BACKGROUND

Approximately two-thirds of patients with mucopolysaccharidosis II (MPS II) have a severe, neuronopathic phenotype, characterized by somatic, cognitive, and behavioral issues. Current standard of care for the treatment of MPS II is enzyme replacement therapy with intravenous recombinant human iduronate-2-sulfatase (idursulfase). To target cognitive manifestations of MPS II, idursulfase has been formulated for intrathecal administration into the cerebrospinal fluid (idursulfase-IT). In accordance with recommendations for patient-focused drug development, semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess caregiver experiences and observations in a 52-week phase 2/3 trial of idursulfase-IT, in addition to intravenous idursulfase in pediatric patients with neuronopathic MPS II, or a substudy which enrolled patients younger than 3 years old, all of whom received idursulfase-IT.

RESULTS

Overall, 46 caregivers providing care for 50 children (mean [range] age 7.9 [3-17] years at interview) took part in a single 60-min exit interview; six of these children had participated in the substudy. Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained demonstrating the burden of MPS II experienced by caregivers and their families. Following participation in the trials, 39 (78%) of the children were reported by their caregivers to have experienced improvements in the symptoms and impact of disease. Of those with improvements, 37 (95%) experienced cognitive improvements and 26 (67%) experienced emotional/behavioral improvements. Overall, 43 children (86%) were rated by caregivers as having moderate or severe symptoms before the trials; after the trials, 28 children (56%) were considered to have mild or no symptoms. For the six children who participated in the substudy, these proportions were 83% and 100%, respectively. Caregivers' qualitative descriptions of trial experiences suggested improvements in children's verbal and non-verbal functioning and spatial and motor skills, as well as a positive impact on family life.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed caregiver-reported improvements in children's MPS II symptoms and the impact of the disease on patients and their families. There was a trend for cognitive improvement and a reduction in severity of MPS II symptoms. After many years of extensive review and regulatory discussions of idursulfase-IT, the clinical trial data were found to be insufficient to meet the evidentiary standard to support regulatory filings.

Patient engagement in clinical trial design for rare neuromuscular disorders: impact on the DELIVER and ACHIEVE clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Engaging individuals living with disease in drug development and regulatory processes leads to more thoughtful and sensitive trial designs, drives more informative and meaningful outcomes from clinical studies, and builds trust between the public, government, and industry stakeholders. This engagement is especially important in the case of rare diseases, where affected individuals and their families face many difficulties getting information, treatment, and support. Dyne Therapeutics is developing therapeutics for people with genetically-driven muscle diseases. During the development of potential treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1), Dyne sought the opinions of individuals living with these diseases to inform its clinical trial design and to decrease the difficulties that participants and families might experience participating in them.

METHODS

Dyne engaged individuals and families living with DMD and DM1 as expert partners in its clinical development programs. Dyne convened panels of affected individuals and care partners/parents of individuals living with DMD (n = 8) or DM1 (n = 18). Workshops focused on how affected individuals and their families evaluate and select clinical trials for participation, the importance, quality, and burden associated with individual trial design elements, participation considerations such as site location and the study visit design, patient privacy, the suitability and scope of travel and participant support programs, and the accessibility of content in the informed consent (or assent) forms. Dyne also engaged the DMD Community Advisory Board (CAB) to collect feedback and advice on designing optimal and meaningful clinical trials and measuring relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

The issues most important to individuals living with DM1 and DMD regarding clinical trials were the ability to participate/access to the trial, perceptions of benefit and risk of trials and potential treatments, the flexibility of participation, clear communication from the sponsor, availability of information from trusted sources, and patient enrollment. In response to the patient advisory workshops and CAB feedback, Dyne refined clinical trial inclusion/exclusion criteria and clinic visit design, developed a travel service program to address the burden of clinical trial travel and enable long-distance and cross-border participation, planned for home visits when feasible, and allowed for adequate rest before clinic visit initiation and between assessments. Additionally, Dyne developed and implemented a transparent and consistent communications plan (including age-appropriate content) for trial participants and community members, and assessed and adjusted procedures to provide maximum participant comfort and lower anxiety, particularly with younger participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing communication with the Duchenne CAB and with DMD and DM1 patient advisory committee members allows Dyne to stay current with disease community perspectives and feedback on the needs and preferences of those affected and has provided valuable insights into the participant experience thereby helping Dyne initiate clinical trials that better meet the needs of affected individuals and their families.

The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt

BACKGROUND

In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Patient experts were an integral part of the decision-making process for patient-reported outcome (PRO) research and instrument development.

METHODS

In partnership with two patient organizations (Parkinson's UK and the Parkinson's Foundation), 6 patient experts were recruited into a multidisciplinary research group alongside clinical, patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, and outcome measurement experts. The group was involved across two phases of research; the first phase identified what symptoms are cardinal to the experience of living with early-stage Parkinson's and the second phase involved the development of PRO instruments to better assess the symptoms that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Patient experts were important in performing a variety of roles, in particular, qualitative study protocol design, conceptual model development, and subsequent co-creation of two PRO instruments.

RESULTS

Involving people with Parkinson's in PRO research ensured that the expertise of these representatives from the Parkinson's community shaped and drove the research; as such, PRO instruments were being developed with the patient at the forefront. Working with patient experts required considerable resource and time allocation for planning, communication, document development, and organizing meetings; however, their input enriched the development of PRO instruments and was vital in developing PRO instruments that are more meaningful for people with Parkinson's and clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting PRO research, in the context of clinical development involving pharmaceutical companies, requires balancing regulatory and scientific rigor with tight time constraints. Incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective, which included patient experts as joint investigators, had a strong positive impact on our research, despite the logistical complexities of their involvement. Due to the input of patient experts, the innovative clinical outcome assessment strategy and the co-created novel PRO instruments were more relevant and holistic to the patient experience of early-stage Parkinson's.

Initial Steps in Creating a Patient-Centric Addendum to Clinical Trial Informed Consent Forms

Introduction

The purpose of the informed consent form (ICF) is to outline the risks and benefits of an interventional clinical trial to potential participants. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a short addendum to the ICF, summarizing key points most relevant to potential participants.

Methods

A sample of 20 ICFs was reviewed against the requirements of the U.S. federal regulation documents and assessed for readability. Alongside the ICF review, we conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with people with lung cancer (n = 9) to learn what information was most important when considering participation in a clinical trial using a hypothetical phase 3 ICF.

Results

The 20 ICFs reviewed were from phases 1 to 3, expanded-access, and single-patient trials covering predominantly NSCLC; 60% were global. The mean length of the ICFs was 21 (range: 15-34) pages. The average reading level was tenth grade whereas the average U.S. reading level was eighth grade. Readability varied by section, the "purpose of the study" section had the highest reading level. In the qualitative research component, participants were "overwhelmed" by the hypothetical ICF. Participants were also asked to list information for the addendum; their suggestions broadly map to federal regulations. An addendum with reference to sections in the ICF for additional details was well received.

Conclusions

The variations in ICF architecture and readability make it difficult for patients to make an informed decision to participate in a clinical trial. Implications extend beyond lung cancer, highlighting key areas for ICF improvements and providing a roadmap for developing a patient-centric addendum.

Leveraging the regulatory framework to facilitate drug development in Parkinson's disease

There is an exigent need for disease-modifying and symptomatic treatment approaches for Parkinson's disease. A better understanding of Parkinson's disease pathophysiology and new insights in genetics has opened exciting new venues for pharmacological treatment targets. There are, however, many challenges on the path from discovery to drug approval. These challenges revolve around appropriate endpoint selection, the lack of accurate biomarkers, challenges with diagnostic accuracy, and other challenges commonly encountered by drug developers. The regulatory health authorities, however, have provided tools to provide guidance for drug development and to assist with these challenges. The main goal of the Critical Path for Parkinson's Consortium, a nonprofit public-private partnership part of the Critical Path Institute, is to advance these so-called drug development tools for Parkinson's disease trials. The focus of this chapter will be on how the health regulators' tools were successfully leveraged to facilitate drug development in Parkinson's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Using qualitative methods to establish the clinically meaningful threshold for treatment success in alopecia areata

PURPOSE

Traditionally, appropriate anchors are used to investigate the amount of change on a clinician-reported outcome assessment that is meaningful to individual patients. However, novel qualitative methods involving input from disease state experts together with patients may better inform the individual improvement threshold for demonstrating the clinical benefit of new treatments. This study aimed to establish a clinically meaningful threshold for treatment success for the clinician-reported Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score for patients with alopecia areata (AA).

METHODS

A purposive sample of 10 dermatologists expert in AA and 30 adult and adolescent patients with AA and a history of ≥ 50% scalp hair loss were recruited. Semi-structured interview questions explored the outcome that represented treatment success to clinicians and patients. Findings were analyzed using thematic methods to identify treatment success thresholds.

RESULTS

Both informant groups confirmed scalp hair amount as the outcome of priority. Most expert clinicians considered a static threshold of 80% (n = 5) or 75% (n = 3) of the scalp hair as a treatment success. Most patient responses ranged from 70 to 90% (median: 80% of the scalp hair). Subsequently, queried patients confirmed that achieving SALT score ≤ 20 with treatment would be a success, as reflected in the Alopecia Areata Investigator Global Assessment (AA-IGA™). The novel qualitative processes used to inform this meaningful threshold reflects a clinician-then-patient process for: (a) confirmation of the patient outcome of priority; and (b) clinician input on a preliminary treatment success level for independent understanding among patients.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative investigation of expert clinicians-then-patients with AA confirmed that achieving an amount of 80% or more scalp hair (SALT score ≤ 20) was an appropriate individual treatment success threshold indicating clinically meaningful improvement for patients with ≥ 50% scalp hair loss. A qualitative investigation of a quantifiable treatment success threshold is possible through a well-designed interview process with expert clinicians and the appropriate patient population.

Unmet Therapeutic Needs of Non-Ambulatory Patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Mixed-Method Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Duchenne muscular dystrophy has been a launching pad for patient-focused drug development (PFDD). Yet, PFDD efforts have largely neglected non-ambulatory patients. To support PFDD efforts in this population, we primarily sought to understand the needs of non-ambulatory Duchenne patients and, secondarily, to examine these needs in the context of the PUL-PROM-a validated patient-reported outcome measure of upper limb functioning.

METHODS

Non-ambulatory Duchenne patients or their caregivers from eight countries answered open-ended survey questions about patients' needs related to their most significant symptoms and important benefits of new treatments. The PUL-PROM was used to evaluate patients' upper limb functioning and was compared to data collected on non-ambulatory stage and quality of life. We thematically analyzed open-ended data, descriptively analyzed close-ended data, and compared themes by non-ambulatory stage.

RESULTS

The study included 275 participants. Mean patient age was 24. Most patients were early-stage non-ambulatory (67%). Thematic analysis identified three congruent themes between significant symptoms and important benefits of new treatments: muscle functioning, especially upper limb function; body system functioning; and quality of life. Muscle functioning and body system functioning were endorsed more frequently in responses from early- and late-stage patients, respectively. Mean PUL-PROM total score was 22 with higher scores in early-stage patients (p ≤ 0.001). Upper limb function positively correlated with quality of life (r = 0.42, p ≤ 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Non-ambulatory Duchenne patients want new treatments that improve upper limb functioning and body system functioning, and not exclusively regaining ambulation. The PUL-PROM can be used as a patient-centric measure that accounts for the needs of later-stage Duchenne patients.

Parent Experiences of Sanfilippo Syndrome Impact and Unmet Treatment Needs: A Qualitative Assessment

Introduction

Sanfilippo syndrome (MPS III) is a rare, degenerative condition characterized by symptoms impacting cognitive ability, mobility, behavior, and quality of life. Currently there are no approved therapies for this severe life-limiting disease. Integrating patient and caregiver experience data into drug development and regulatory decision-making has become a priority of the Food and Drug Administration and rare disease patient communities.

Methods

This study assesses parents’ perceptions of their child’s Sanfilippo syndrome disease-related symptoms using a research approach that is consistent with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) guidance. This study was initiated by the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation, and all steps in the research process were informed by a multidisciplinary advisory committee, with an objective of informing biopharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies. We explored caregiver burden, symptoms with greatest impact, and meaningful but unmet treatment needs. Data were collected from 25 parents through three focus groups and a questionnaire. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis, and descriptive analysis of quantitative data was conducted.

Results

Participating parents’ children ranged in age from 4 to 36 years. Participants endorsed high caregiving burden across all stages of the disease. Analysis revealed multiple domains of unmet need that impact child and family quality of life, including cognitive-behavioral challenges in communication, relationships, behavior, anxiety, and child safety; and physical health symptoms including sleep, pain, and mobility. Participants reported placing high value on incremental benefits targeting those symptoms, and on a treatment that would slow or stop symptom progression.

Conclusion

Even modest treatment benefits for Sanfilippo syndrome were shown to be highly valued. Despite high caregiver burden, most parents expressed a willingness to “try anything,” including treatments with potentially high risk profiles, to maintain their child’s current state.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40120-020-00226-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

New Drug and Biologics Approvals in 2019: A Systematic Analysis of Patient Experience Data in FDA Drug Approval Packages and Product Labels

Background

The FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative was launched to ensure the incorporation of the patient voice into drug development and evaluation. Since 2017, the FDA must publish a statement outlining patient experience data (PED) considered in the approval of new drugs. This study investigated the presence and role of PED in drug approval and translation into product label claims.

Methods

PED reported in approval packages of the 48 drugs approved by FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 2019 was identified and categorized. PED in the form of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) was characterized by endpoint positioning and outcome. The product labels were analyzed for PED-related claims.

Results

PED was reported as relevant for 39 of 48 (81.3%) drugs approved in 2019. COAs were the predominant PED type; other PED was identified for only 9 (18.8%) drugs, and none included qualitative or patient preference studies. COAs were the only type of PED for which associated claims were identified in the product labels. 27 out of 48 (56.3%) labels contained one or more efficacy claims based on COAs; of these, patient-reported outcomes were the most prevalent with claims identified in 19 labels (39.6%).

Conclusion

There are ample opportunities for incorporating PED beyond COAs to inform drug development and facilitate availability of medicines tailored to patient needs. A higher level of transparency on the role of PED in regulatory decision-making and a clear path to PED-based label claims could incentivize sponsors and enable patient empowerment in treatment decisions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s43441-020-00244-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Drug Information Association (DIA) 2020 Virtual Global Annual Meeting (June 14-18, 2020)

At the 56th Global Annual Meeting of the Drug Information Association (DIA), attendees met virtually during the height of the global COVID-19 pandemic for "rapid cross-stakeholder, cross-border collaboration" to support health worldwide. Sessions included presenters and speakers from regulatory, patient advocacy and academia sectors, with patients at the forefront of those discussions. This report covers various presentations and panel discussions from the 4-day meeting that focus on COVID-19, innovative trial designs spurred by a need to adapt amid a pandemic, digital health, novel products inspiring new regulatory standards, clinical trials, data collection and management, the need for more and better data and the ever-increasing importance of the patient perspective.

Side effects from acute myeloid leukemia treatment: results from a national survey

Objective: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is experiencing a therapeutic renaissance due to the heightened biomedical understanding of AML and patient-focused drug development (PFDD). Many AML patients now live long-term with the side effects of treatment. This study documents the prevalence and severity of AML treatment-related side effects. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey designed with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society assessed patients' experiences with short-term (nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, hair loss, mouth sores, infection, rash) and long-term (organ dysfunction, chemobrain, fatigue, neuropathy) treatment side effects. Patient and caregiver participants rated side effect severity (none-severe). Results: Survey participants (n = 1182) were mostly female (65%), AML patients (76%), and had undergone chemotherapy (94%). Eighty-seven per cent of participants reported severe short-term effects, and 33% reported severe long-term effects of treatment. Only 11% of respondents did not have any severe effects. Hair loss and fatigue were the most common severe short- and long-term side effects (78%, 33%). There was a moderate correlation between having short- and long-term adverse effects (r = 0.41, p < 0.001). Caregivers were more likely than patients to report severe organ dysfunction, fatigue, and neuropathy (p-values < 0.05). Conclusions: Survivors experience a high burden of side effects from AML treatments highlighting the need for the development of less toxic therapies. Differences in patients' and caregivers' experiences illustrate the importance of sampling from diverse sources to understand the full burden of AML treatment, and the need for less toxic drugs. This study informs patients, patient-advocacy groups, clinicians, and regulators about AML treatment burdens and provides the community with information to inform PFDD.

Enhancing the incorporation of the patient's voice in drug development and evaluation

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

People living with a condition are uniquely positioned to inform the understanding of the therapeutic context for drug development and evaluation. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established the Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative to more systematically obtain the patient perspective on specific diseases and their currently available treatments. PFDD meetings are unique among FDA public meetings, with a format designed to engage patients and elicit their perspectives on two topic areas: (1) the most significant symptoms of their condition and the impact of the condition on daily life; and, (2) their current approaches to treatment. FDA has conducted 24 disease-specific PFDD meetings to date. The lessons learned from PFDD meetings range from experiences common across rare diseases to more disease specific experiences that matter most to patients. FDA recognizes that FDA-led PFDD meetings alone cannot address the gaps in information on the patient perspective. Patient-focused drug development is an ongoing effort and FDA looks forward to the next steps in advancing the science and the utilization of patient input throughout drug development and evaluation.

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has multiple mechanisms for its regulators and staff to interact with patients -- but none quite like its novel Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative. FDA established the PFDD initiative to more systematically obtain the patient perspective on specific diseases and their currently available treatments. Since the initiative's inception in 2012, FDA has held 24 PFDD meetings, covering a range of disease areas and hearing directly from thousands of patients and caregivers. FDA's PFDD meetings have also provided key stakeholders, including patient advocates, researchers, drug developers, healthcare providers, and other government officials, an opportunity to hear the patient's voice. The lessons learned include but are not limited to specific experiences that matter most to patients, patient perspectives on meaningful treatment benefits and how patients want to be engaged in the drug development process. FDA recognizes that FDA-led PFDD meetings alone cannot address the gaps in information on the patient perspective. Further enhancing the incorporation of the patient's voice in drug development and evaluation continues to be a priority for FDA.