Individualized Therapeutics Development for Rare Diseases: The Current Ethical Landscape and Policy Responses

Understanding individualised genetic interventions as research-treatment hybrids

Until recently, medicine has had little to offer most of the millions of patients suffering from rare and ultrarare genetic conditions. But the development in 2019 of Milasen, the first genetic intervention developed for and administered to a single patient suffering from an ultrarare genetic disorder, has offered hope to patients and families. In addition, Milasen raised a series of conceptual and ethical questions about how individualised genetic interventions should be developed, assessed for safety and efficacy and financially supported. The answers to these questions depend in large part on whether individualised therapies are understood as human subjects research or clinical innovation, different domains of biomedicine that are regulated by different modes of oversight, funding and professional norms. In this article, with development and administration of the drug Milasen as our case study, we argue that at least some individualised genetic therapies are not, as some have argued, either research or treatment. Instead, they are research-treatment hybrids, a category that has both epistemological and pragmatic repercussions for funding, ethics oversight and regulation.

Balancing ethical norms and duties for the introduction of new medicines through conditional marketing authorization: a research agenda

The European Medicines Agency's conditional marketing authorization (CMA) aims to expedite patient access to medicines for unmet medical needs by shifting a part of the drug development process post-authorization. We highlight ethical issues surrounding CMA, comprising (i) the complexity of defining unmet medical need; (ii) poor understanding of CMA and its impact on informed consent; (iii) hope versus unrealistic optimism; (iv) implications of prolonged post-authorization studies and potential patient harm; (v) rights and duties of patients surrounding participation in post-authorization studies; (vi) access to previously authorized CMA medicines; and (vii) the "benefit slippage" phenomenon, defined as the gradual shift of strict criteria to less strict criteria. We propose a comprehensive research agenda to address these ethical issues, and stress the need for multi-stakeholder engagement to ensure patient-centered use of CMA.

Genomics Research with Undiagnosed Children: Ethical Challenges at the Boundaries of Research and Clinical Care

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of parents of undiagnosed children enrolled in genomic diagnosis research regarding their motivations for enrolling their children, their understanding of the potential burdens and benefits, and the extent to which their experiences ultimately aligned with or diverged from their original expectations.

STUDY DESIGN

In-depth interviews were conducted with parents, audio-recorded and transcribed. A structured codebook was applied to each transcript, after which iterative memoing was used to identify themes.

RESULTS

Fifty-four parents participated, including 17 (31.5%) whose child received a diagnosis through research. Themes describing parents' expectations and experiences of genomic diagnosis research included (1) the extent to which parents' motivations for participation focused on their hope that it would directly benefit their child, (2) the ways in which parents' frustrations regarding the research process confused the dual clinical and research goals of their participation, and (3) the limited clinical benefits parents ultimately experienced for their children.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that parents of undiagnosed children seeking enrollment in genomic diagnosis research are at risk of a form of therapeutic misconception-in this case, diagnostic misconception. These findings indicate the need to examine the processes and procedures associated with this research to communicate appropriately and balance the potential burdens and benefits of study participation.

General public's understanding of rare diseases and their opinions on medical resource allocation in Japan: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases (RDs) may impose a considerable financial burden on patients and their families. Public acceptance is essential to ensure sustainable public systems supporting RDs, especially in countries with universal healthcare coverage, such as Japan. This study aimed to explore the public's understanding of RDs and identify crucial factors associated with the public acceptance of prioritizing financial support for RDs in Japan.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to 131,220 Japanese residents aged 20-69 years. The items included in the questionnaire were general interest in medical science and medical care, general knowledge regarding RDs and health care systems, opinions on the cost of medical care, opinions on the research and development of RDs and common diseases, and individual characteristics.

RESULTS

The responses of 11,019 respondents were analyzed. Several respondents agreed to partially cover the medication cost of adult and pediatric RDs (59.5% and 66.8%, respectively) with public funding. The major reasons for agreeing were the huge financial burden imposed on patients and their families, limited available treatment options, effects of RDs on the life planning of patients, and difficulties caused by RDs in the patient's social life. Furthermore, the respondents ranked RDs (56.0%) higher than common diseases (44.0%) for government funding for research and development. The reasons for supporting government-funded research and development for RDs included the lack of treatment options for numerous RDs (34.9%) and difficulty of studying RDs owing to the small number of researchers (25.9%). The chief reasons for supporting government-funded research and development for common diseases were the large number of affected patients (59.7%) and the possibility of more treatment options becoming available through the promotion of research and development (22.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The general public considers burdens associated with daily living or finance more than the epidemiological characteristics of RD while making funding decisions, demonstrating that rarity was less prioritized. A gap appears to exist between the general public and RD experts regarding the understanding of the epidemiological characteristics of RD and its thresholds. This gap should be bridged to ensure that prioritization of financial support for RDs is accepted by the society.

Individualized interventions for rare genetic conditions and the research-treatment spectrum: Stakeholder perspectives

PURPOSE

Advances in the study of ultrarare genetic conditions are leading to the development of targeted interventions developed for single or very small numbers of patients. Owing to the experimental but also highly individualized nature of these interventions, they are difficult to classify cleanly as either research or clinical care. Our goal was to understand how parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists familiar with individualized genetic interventions conceptualize these activities and their implications for the relationship between research and clinical care.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 28 parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists and derived themes from those interviews through content analysis.

RESULTS

Individuals described individualized interventions as blurring the lines between research and clinical care and focused on hopes for therapeutic benefit and expectations for generalizability of knowledge and benefit to future patients.

CONCLUSION

Individualized interventions aimed at one or few patients reveal the limitations of a binary framing of research and clinical care. As a hybrid set of activities, individualized interventions suggest the need for flexibility and new frameworks that acknowledge these activities across the spectrum of research and clinical care.

GENE TARGET: A framework for evaluating Mendelian neurodevelopmental disorders for gene therapy

Interest in gene-based therapies for neurodevelopmental disorders is increasing exponentially, driven by the rise in recognition of underlying genetic etiology, progress in genomic technology, and recent proof of concept in several disorders. The current prioritization of one genetic disorder over another for development of therapies is driven by competing interests of pharmaceutical companies, advocacy groups, and academic scientists. Although these are all valid perspectives, a consolidated framework will facilitate more efficient and rational gene therapy development. Here we outline features of Mendelian neurodevelopmental disorders that warrant consideration when determining suitability for gene therapy. These features fit into four broad domains: genetics, preclinical validation, clinical considerations, and ethics. We propose a simple mnemonic, GENE TARGET, to remember these features and illustrate how they could be scored using a preliminary scoring rubric. In this suggested rubric, for a given disorder, scores for each feature may be added up to a composite GENE TARGET suitability (GTS) score. In addition to proposing a systematic method to evaluate and compare disorders, our framework helps identify gaps in the translational pipeline for a given disorder, which can inform prioritization of future research efforts.

Precision medicine for genetic epilepsy on the horizon: Recent advances, present challenges, and suggestions for continued progress

The genetic basis of many epilepsies is increasingly understood, giving rise to the possibility of precision treatments tailored to specific genetic etiologies. Despite this, current medical therapy for most epilepsies remains imprecise, aimed primarily at empirical seizure reduction rather than targeting specific disease processes. Intellectual and technological leaps in diagnosis over the past 10 years have not yet translated to routine changes in clinical practice. However, the epilepsy community is poised to make impressive gains in precision therapy, with continued innovation in gene discovery, diagnostic ability, and bioinformatics; increased access to genetic testing and counseling; fuller understanding of natural histories; agility and rigor in preclinical research, including strategic use of emerging model systems; and engagement of an evolving group of stakeholders (including patient advocates, governmental resources, and clinicians and scientists in academia and industry). In each of these areas, we highlight notable examples of recent progress, new or persistent challenges, and future directions. The future of precision medicine for genetic epilepsy looks bright if key opportunities on the horizon can be pursued with strategic and coordinated effort.