Alison Bateman-House

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.

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.

Little is known about patients’ and families’ lived experience 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 the 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 a) provide an overview of existing literature, b) identify gaps and areas for further research, and c) 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.

Currently, pediatric research involving investigational gene therapies (GT, used without intending to imply a therapeutic effect) targets a broad range of indications (including rare and ultra-rare diseases) that vary in severity and availability of approved disease-modifying therapies. Because of this diversity of circumstances, there is no one-size-fits-all list of ethical concerns relevant to all uses of investigational GTs in children. Here, we review the main ethical issues, specifically those surrounding the current state of knowledge about GT product-related immunogenicity, toxicity, duration, irreversibility, informed consent/assent, trial design (including the question of who ‘goes first’), participant and caregiver burdens, and equity in diagnosis and access to research opportunities. Ethical issues that can be anticipated to arise in pediatric GT clinical trials, e.g., the uncertainty and risk of this research, the resultant preclusion of GT trial participants from other research, the length of follow-up monitoring, and the urgency often felt by caregivers dealing with dire, rapidly progressive conditions, should be proactively identified, addressed in accordance with existing best practices, and transparently discussed among all stakeholders.

Advancements in fetal assessment and therapeutic intervention in medical practice and clinical research call for corresponding progress in regulatory and ethical guidance. In “A new ethical framewo...

Transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) youth who suffer from gender dysphoria are at a substantially elevated risk of numerous adverse physical and psychosocial outcomes compared with their cisgender peers. Innovative treatment options used to support and affirm an individual’s preferred gender identity can help resolve gender dysphoria and avoid many negative sequelae of nontreatment. Yet, despite advances in these relatively novel treatment options, which appear to be highly effective in addressing gender dysphoria and mitigating associated adverse outcomes, ethical challenges abound in ensuring that young patients receive appropriate, safe, affordable treatment and that access to this treatment is fair and equitable. Ethical considerations in gender-affirming care for TGNC youth span concerns about meeting the obligations to maximize treatment benefit to patients (beneficence), minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), supporting autonomy for pediatric patients during a time of rapid development, and addressing justice, including equitable access to care for TGNC youth. Moreover, although available data describing the use of gender-affirming treatment options are encouraging, and the risks of not treating TGNC youth with gender dysphoria are evident, little is known about the long-term effects of both hormonal and surgical interventions in this population. To support ethical decision-making about treatment options, we encourage the development of a comprehensive registry in the United States to track long-term patient outcomes. In the meantime, providers who work with TGNC youth and their families should endeavor to offer ethically sound, patient-centered, gender-affirming care based on the best currently available evidence.

Physicians in the United States play an essential role guiding patients through single patient pre-approval access (PAA) to investigational medical products via either the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s Expanded Access (EA) or the federal Right To Try (RTT) pathways. In this study, we sought to better understand pediatric hematologist/oncologists’ attitudes about seeking PAA, on behalf of single patients, to investigational drugs outside of clinical trials. A cross-sectional survey was developed and sent to pediatric hematologist/oncologists via St. Baldrick’s Foundation’s email distribution list. Of 73 respondents (10.1% of those who received the survey), 56 met eligibility criteria and are included in the analysis. Over 80% (n = 46) had prior experience with single patient PAA. Respondents were most concerned about the unknown risks and benefits of investigational drugs and financial implications of PAA for patients. One hundred percent and 91.1% of respondents indicated a willingness to support patients through EA and RTT pathways, respectively. When asked about their most recent experience with PAA, 40 out of 46 indicated that they used the FDA’s EA pathway to seek PAA and 4 out of 46 indicated that they used the RTT pathway. Of 44 respondents who had used the EA or RTT pathway, 43 indicated that the biotechnology or pharmaceutical company they solicited granted access to the requested product. Survey results support other findings suggesting a need for additional physician support and education about PAA and that physicians may have unequal access to information about investigational drugs and concerns about financial implications of PAA for their patients.