Explore the vast range of titles available.

Independent disease registries for pre-and post-approval of novel treatments for rare diseases are increasingly important for healthcare professionals, patients, regulators and the pharmaceutical industry. Current registries for rare diseases to evaluate orphan drugs are mainly set up and owned by the pharmaceutical industry which leads to unacceptable conflicts of interest. To ensure independence from commercial interests, disease registries should be set up and maintained by healthcare professionals and patients. Public funding should be directed towards an early establishment of international registries for orphan diseases, ideally well before novel treatments are introduced. Regulatory bodies should insist on the use of data from independent disease registries rather than company driven, drug-oriented registries.

Background Gene therapy is currently in development for several monogenetic diseases including lysosomal storage disorders. Limited evidence is available on patient preferences for gene therapy in this population. In this study, we compare gene therapy-related risk tolerance between people affected by three lysosomal storage diseases currently faced with different therapeutic options and prognoses. Methods A survey including the probabilistic threshold technique was developed in which respondents were asked to choose between gene therapy and the current standard of care. The attributes included to establish participants’ risk tolerance were previously identified in focus groups of affected people or their representatives, namely: risk of mild side effects, severe side effects, the need for additional medication, and the likelihood of long-term effectiveness. The survey was distributed among people receiving outpatient care for type 1 Gaucher disease (good prognosis with current treatment options), Fabry disease (varying prognosis with current treatment options, XY-genotype on average more severely affected than XX), and parents representing people with severe forms of mucopolysaccharidosis type III A/B (poor prognosis, no disease-specific therapy available). Results A total of 85 surveys were completed (15 Gaucher disease respondents, 62 Fabry disease respondents (17 self-identifying male), eight parents of ten people with mucopolysaccharidosis type III). Disease groups with higher disease severity trended towards higher risk tolerance: Gaucher disease respondents were most cautious and predominantly preferred the current standard of care as opposed to MPS III representatives who were more risk tolerant. Respondents with Fabry disease were most heterogeneous in their risk tolerance, with male participants being more risk tolerant than female participants. Long-term effectiveness was the attribute in which respondents tolerated the least risk. Conclusions People affected by a lysosomal storage disease associated with a poorer prognosis and less effective current treatment options trended towards more risk tolerance when choosing between gene therapy and the current standard of care. This study shows the importance of involvement of patient preferences before and during the development process of new treatment modalities such as gene therapy for rare diseases, to ensure that innovative therapies align with the wishes and needs of people affected by these diseases.

Introduction Several new treatment modalities are being developed for lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs), including gene therapy. As the currently available treatment options and their influence on disease progression differ greatly within the spectrum of LSDs, willingness to undergo gene therapy might vary among patients with LSDs and/or their representatives. The width of the LSD spectrum is illustrated by the differences between type 1 Gaucher disease, Fabry disease and Mucopolysaccharidosis type III (MPS III). For type 1 Gaucher and Fabry disease several therapies are available, resulting in a near normal or improved, but individually varying, prognosis. No treatment options are available for MPS III. Aim To identify factors influencing patients’ and/or their representatives’ decisions regarding undergoing gene therapy. Methods Focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients with type 1 Gaucher disease, Fabry disease and MPS III. Parents of MPS III patients were included as patients’ representatives. Results Nine Gaucher patients, 23 Fabry patients, two adult MPS III patients and five parents of MPS III patients participated in the study. The five main themes that arose were: outcome of gene therapy, risks and side effects, burden of gene therapy treatment, current situation and ethical aspects . Participants’ views ranged from hesitance to eagerness to undergo gene therapy, which seemed to be mostly related to disease severity and currently available treatment options. Severe disease, limited treatment options and limited effectiveness of current treatment augmented the willingness to choose gene therapy. Gaucher and Fabry patients deemed the burden of treatment important. Fabry and MPS III patients and parents considered outcome important, suggesting hope for improvement. When asked to rank the factors discussed in the focus group discussions, Gaucher patients ranked outcome low, which could indicate a more cautious attitude towards gene therapy. Conclusion This study underlines the importance of exploring patients’ needs and expectations before using limited resources in the development of therapies for patient groups of which a significant subset may not be willing to undergo that specific therapy.

Table of contents O1 The European Social Preferences Measurement (ESPM) study project: social cost value analysis, budget impact, commercial life cycle revenue management, and the economics of biopharmaceutical Research & Development (R&D) Michael Schlander, Søren Holm, Erik Nord, Jeff Richardson, Silvio Garattini, Peter Kolominsky-Rabas, Deborah Marshall, Ulf Persson, Maarten Postma, Steven Simoens, Oriol de Solà Morales, Keith Tolley, Mondher Toumi, Harry Telser O2 Newborn Screening: the potential and the challenges James R Bonham O3 Untreatable disease outcomes - how would we measure them? Helmut Hintner, Anja Diem, Martin Laimer O4 Taking Integrated Care Forward: Experiences from Canada to inspire service provision for people living with rare disease in Europe Réjean Hébert O5 Listening to the patient’s voice: social media listening for safety and benefits in rare diseases Nabarun Dasgupta, Carrie E. Pierce, Melissa Jordan O6 Via Opta: Mobile apps making visually impaired patients’ lives easier Barbara Bori, Mohanad Fors, Emilie Prazakova O7 A report of the IRDiRC “Small Population Clinical Trial” Task Force Simon Day O8 HAE patient identification and diagnosis: An innovative, ‘game changing’ collaboration Thomas J. Croce Jr. O9 Co-creating with the community: primary packaging & administration for people with haemophilia Jonas Fransson, Philip Wood O10 Go with Gaucher, taking forward the next generation. How to involve young people to create a new generation of patient advocates Anne-Grethe Lauridsen, Joanne Higgs, Vesna Stojmirova Aleksovska P1 ODAK – Orphan Drug for Acanthamoeba Keratitis Christina Olsen, Ritchie Head, Antonio Asero, Vincenzo Papa, Christa van Kan, Loic Favennec, Silvana Venturella, Michela Salvador, Alan Krol P5 Rare Navigators help people living with rare diseases to manage the social – and healthcare systems Stephanie J. Nielsen, Birthe B. Holm P6 The eAcademy for Tay-Sachs & Sandhoff disease app Daniel Lewi, Patricia Durão P10 The role of a patient organisation in driving the research agenda in a rare disease Heather Band, Andrea West P13 Expertise for rare diseases mapped Marinda J.A. Hammann, Marije C. Effing-Boele, Hanka K. Dekker P14 The hidden costs of rare diseases: a feasibility study Amy Hunter, Amy Simpson P15 FDA’s new natural history grant program: support to build a solid foundation for development of products for rare diseases Gumei Liu, Katherine Needleman, Debra Lewis, Gayatri Rao P17 Understanding the wider impact of adrenal insufficiency: patient organisation involvement in the TAIN project Amy Simpson, Amy Hunter, Martin J Whitaker P20 Bridging the gaps between medical and social care for people living with a rare disease Raquel Castro

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.

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.

Table of contents O1 The European Social Preferences Measurement (ESPM) study project: social cost value analysis, budget impact, commercial life cycle revenue management, and the economics of biopharmaceutical Research & Development (R&D) Michael Schlander, Søren Holm, Erik Nord, Jeff Richardson, Silvio Garattini, Peter Kolominsky-Rabas, Deborah Marshall, Ulf Persson, Maarten Postma, Steven Simoens, Oriol de Solà Morales, Keith Tolley, Mondher Toumi, Harry Telser O2 Newborn Screening: the potential and the challenges James R Bonham O3 Untreatable disease outcomes - how would we measure them? Helmut Hintner, Anja Diem, Martin Laimer O4 Taking Integrated Care Forward: Experiences from Canada to inspire service provision for people living with rare disease in Europe Réjean Hébert O5 Listening to the patient’s voice: social media listening for safety and benefits in rare diseases Nabarun Dasgupta, Carrie E. Pierce, Melissa Jordan O6 Via Opta: Mobile apps making visually impaired patients’ lives easier Barbara Bori, Mohanad Fors, Emilie Prazakova O7 A report of the IRDiRC “Small Population Clinical Trial” Task Force Simon Day O8 HAE patient identification and diagnosis: An innovative, ‘game changing’ collaboration Thomas J. Croce Jr. O9 Co-creating with the community: primary packaging & administration for people with haemophilia Jonas Fransson, Philip Wood O10 Go with Gaucher, taking forward the next generation. How to involve young people to create a new generation of patient advocates Anne-Grethe Lauridsen, Joanne Higgs, Vesna Stojmirova Aleksovska P1 ODAK – Orphan Drug for Acanthamoeba Keratitis Christina Olsen, Ritchie Head, Antonio Asero, Vincenzo Papa, Christa van Kan, Loic Favennec, Silvana Venturella, Michela Salvador, Alan Krol P5 Rare Navigators help people living with rare diseases to manage the social – and healthcare systems Stephanie J. Nielsen, Birthe B. Holm P6 The eAcademy for Tay-Sachs & Sandhoff disease app Daniel Lewi, Patricia Durão P10 The role of a patient organisation in driving the research agenda in a rare disease Heather Band, Andrea West P13 Expertise for rare diseases mapped Marinda J.A. Hammann, Marije C. Effing-Boele, Hanka K. Dekker P14 The hidden costs of rare diseases: a feasibility study Amy Hunter, Amy Simpson P15 FDA’s new natural history grant program: support to build a solid foundation for development of products for rare diseases Gumei Liu, Katherine Needleman, Debra Lewis, Gayatri Rao P17 Understanding the wider impact of adrenal insufficiency: patient organisation involvement in the TAIN project Amy Simpson, Amy Hunter, Martin J Whitaker P20 Bridging the gaps between medical and social care for people living with a rare disease Raquel Castro