Faculty Bibliography

Patient access to experimental drugs outside of clinical trials is called compassionate use or expanded access. Compassionate use/expanded access presents a powerful ethical dilemma in that it involves competing claims that both have moral weight: specifically, an individual patient's very understandable desire to try to extend his or her life versus the orderly and efficient functioning of a drug development and clinical trial system that benefits much larger numbers of patients. Patient advocates, the FDA, pharmaceutical trade groups, and state and national legislators in the US are all currently weighing in on patient access to experimental drugs, and new guidelines and rules are being introduced. In this editorial, we discuss the impulse to rescue individual patients facing dire diseases and underscore the ethical questions that such rescue efforts raise.

In recent years, a small number of people with rare diseases caused by unique genetic variants have been treated with therapies developed specifically for them. This pioneering field of genetic N-of-1 therapies is evolving rapidly, giving hope for the individualized treatment of people living with very rare diseases. In this Review, we outline the concept of N-of-1 individualized therapies, focusing on genetic therapies, and illustrate advances and challenges in the field using cases for which therapies have been successfully developed. We discuss why the traditional drug development and reimbursement pathway is not fit for purpose in this field, and outline the pragmatic, regulatory and ethical challenges this poses for future access to N-of-1 therapies. Finally, we provide a roadmap for N-of-1 individualized therapy development.

The field of individualized, or N-of-1, therapy development is growing and increasingly gaining attention as a novel option for people with serious diseases, caused by unique genetic variants for whom approved therapies are not available. The N-of-1 taskforce of the International Rare Disease Research Consortium previously outlined a roadmap of aspects involved in N-of-1 therapy development and implementation. Here, this follow-up paper looks forward and reflects on how to address existing gaps to advance the current state of individualized interventions toward an integrated and sustainable treatment development model. It discusses what needs to be established for N-of-1 therapies to be developed and utilized at a larger scale, which involves features like sustainability; safety; efficacy; regulatory aspects; dedicated registries and data sharing; tools; long-term treatment monitoring; partnering with patient advocates; and reimbursement models. It closes with recommendations to shape the future of individualized therapies, focusing on ethical implications, education, creation of tools, incentives for data sharing, and innovative payment models.

To date, sparse attention has been paid to the importance of the "lived experience" of participants and their caregivers in pediatric gene therapy (GT) trials for rare genetic neurological disorders. Pediatric GT studies differ meaningfully from adult GT studies as the decision to participate involves a dyad: the child participant and their caregiver(s). As a multistakeholder group of authors, we are a diverse group with expert perspectives on the social, emotional, physical, and logistical burdens/benefits of trial participation and the myriad ways they affect pediatric GT research. For both pragmatic and ethical reasons, it is essential to prioritize addressing child participant and adult caregiver needs and concerns when designing and conducting GT clinical trials in pediatric populations with rare genetic neurological disorders. We use the term "lived experience" in reference to how people think about and make decisions regarding participation in research studies and how they articulate the emotional, social, ethical, and equity tradeoffs that impact their lives and illness experience. In this article, we describe why accounting for child participants' and adult caregivers' lived experience and addressing pertinent equity issues are essential when designing and conducting pediatric GT trials for rare genetic neurological diseases.

Genetically modified cell therapies (GMCT), particularly immune effector cells (IEC) such as chimeric receptor antigen (CAR) T cells, have shown promise in curing cancer and rare diseases after a single treatment course. Following close behind CAR T approvals are GMCT based on hematopoietic stem cells, such as products developed for hemoglobinopathies and other disorders. Academically sponsored GMCT products, often developed in academic centers without industry involvement, face challenges in sustaining access after completion of early phase studies when there is no commercial partner invested in completing registration trials for marketing applications. The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) formed a task force named ACT To Sustain (Adoptive Cell Therapy to Sustain) to address the "valley of death" of academic GMCT products. This paper presents the task force's findings and considerations regarding financial sustainability of academically sponsored GMCT products in the absence of commercial development. We outline case scenarios illustrating barriers to maintaining access to promising GMCT developed by academic centers. The paper also delves into the current state of GMCT development, commercialization, and reimbursement, citing examples of abandoned products, cost estimates associated with GMCT manufacturing and real-world use of cost recovery. We propose potential solutions to address the financial, regulatory, and logistical challenges associated with sustaining access to academically sponsored GMCT products and to ensure that products with promising results do not languish in a "valley of death" due to financial or implementational barriers. The suggestions include aligning US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designations with benefit coverage, allowing for cost recovery of certain products as a covered benefit, and engaging with regulators and policy makers to discuss alternative pathways for academic centers to provide access. We stress the importance of sustainable access to GMCT and call for collaborative efforts to develop regulatory pathways that support access to academically sponsored GMCT products.

Manipulation of a patient's genome for therapeutic ends is being attempted through numerous methods, some of which have resulted in disease-modifying interventions. The much anticipated promise of somatic gene therapy is starting to pay off; however, there remain many scientific unknowns, including concerns about safety and durability. A significant ethical concern is that of access to these novel interventions, an issue that is normally framed in terms of the high costs of approved products. I describe how access issues permeate gene therapy long before there is any commercial product and how even upstream decisions-such as choices of indication to pursue, viral vector, and where to site a trial-have significant implications for access to resultant products in both the developmental and commercial stages.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a progressive, life-limiting, neuromuscular disorder. Clinicians play an important role in informing families about therapy options, including approved gene therapies and clinical trials of unapproved therapies. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:This study aimed to understand the perspectives of clinicians about gene therapy for DMD, which has not previously been studied. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted interviews with specialist clinicians treating patients with DMD in the United States (n = 8) and United Kingdom (n = 8). Interviews were completed in 2022, before any approved gene therapies, to gain insight into barriers and facilitators to implementing gene therapy and educational needs of clinicians. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Most respondents expressed cautious optimism about gene therapy. Responses varied regarding potential benefits with most expecting delayed progression and duration of benefit (1 year to lifelong). Concern about anticipated risks also varied; types of anticipated risks included immunological reactions, liver toxicity, and cardiac or renal dysfunction. Clinicians generally, but not uniformly, understood that gene therapy for DMD would not be curative. Most reported needing demonstrable clinical benefit to justify treatment-related risks. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our data demonstrate variability in knowledge and attitudes about gene therapy among clinicians who follow patients with DMD. As our knowledge base about DMD gene therapy grows, clinician education is vital to ensuring that accurate information is communicated to patients and families.

Little is known about patients' and families' lived experiences of participating in pediatric gene therapy (GT) clinical trials. Currently, pediatric GT research targets a broad range of indications--including rare and ultra-rare diseases--which vary in severity and in the availability of alternative therapies. Pediatric GT differs meaningfully from adult GT because the decision to participate involves a dyad of both the child and parent or caregiver/s. It is critical to understand patients' and caregivers' perceptions and experiences of social, emotional, physical, and logistical burdens or benefits of participating in such trials, and how they weigh and prioritize these factors when deciding whether to participate. We conducted a scoping review of the current literature in this subject area with objectives to (1) provide an overview of existing literature, (2) identify gaps and areas for further research, and (3) better understand the lived impact of pediatric GT research on patients and their parents/caregivers. Four themes emerged, including (1) weighing risks and benefits (2) timing of GT trial participation, (3) value of clear communication, and (4) potential impact on quality of life. Notably, our sample surfaced articles about how patients/parents/caregivers were thinking about GT-their understanding of its safety, efficacy, and risks-rather than accounts of their experiences, which was our initial intention. Nevertheless, our findings offer useful insights to improve the informed consent process and promote a more patient- and family-centered approach. Moreover, our findings can contribute to patient advocacy organizations' efforts to develop educational materials tailored to patients' and families' expressed informational needs and perspectives, and can inform more patient- and family-centered policies from GT clinical trial sponsors.