Search

The time required to reach a correct diagnosis is a key concern for rare disease (RD) patients. Diagnostic delay can be intolerably long, often described as an odyssey and, for some, a diagnosis may remain frustratingly elusive. The International Rare Disease Research Consortium proposed, as ultimate goal for 2017-2027, to enable all people with a suspected RD to be diagnosed within one year of presentation, if the disorder is known. Subsequently, unsolved cases would enter a globally coordinated diagnostic and research pipeline. In-depth analysis of the genotype through next generation sequencing, together with a standardized in-depth phenotype description and sophisticated high-throughput approaches, have been applied as diagnostic tools to increase the chance of a timely and accurate diagnosis. The success of this approach is evident in the Orphanet database. From 2010 to March 2017 over 600 new RDs and roughly 3600 linked genes have been described and identified. However, combination of -omics and phenotype data, as well as international sharing of this information, has raised ethical concerns. Values to be assessed include not only patient autonomy but also family implications, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, solidarity and reciprocity, which must be respected and promoted and, at the same time, balanced among each other. In this work we suggest that, to maximize patients' involvement in the search for a diagnosis and identification of new causative genes, undiagnosed patients should have the possibility to: (1) actively participate in the description of their phenotype; (2) choose the level of visibility of their profile in matchmaking databases; (3) express their preferences regarding return of new findings, in particular which level of Variant of Unknown Significance (VUS) significance should be considered relevant to them. The quality of the relationship between individual patients and physicians, and between the patient community and the scientific

Rare diseases (RD) patient registries are powerful instruments that help develop clinical research, facilitate the planning of appropriate clinical trials, improve patient care, and support healthcare management. They constitute a key information system that supports the activities of European Reference Networks (ERNs) on rare diseases. A rapid proliferation of RD registries has occurred during the last years and there is a need to develop guidance for the minimum requirements, recommendations and standards necessary to maintain a high-quality registry. In response to these heterogeneities, in the framework of RD-Connect, a European platform connecting databases, registries, biobanks and clinical bioinformatics for rare disease research, we report on a list of recommendations, developed by a group of experts, including members of patient organizations, to be used as a framework for improving the quality of RD registries. This list includes aspects of governance, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data and information, infrastructure, documentation, training, and quality audit. The list is intended to be used by established as well as new RD registries. Further work includes the development of a toolkit to enable continuous assessment and improvement of their organizational and data quality.

Solidarity plays a relevant role in rare diseases (RDs) research to create and enable research in the field. In Europe RDs are estimated to affect between 27 and 36 million people even though single RDs can count very few patients, making the contribution of everyone essential to reach solid results. Often RD research is initiated by patient groups devoting substantial time and resources to the scientific enterprise. In RD research solidarity is often evocated and expressed, in different ways and on different levels, so that it is possible to talk about "solidarities" played by different stakeholders and sometimes conflicting with each other. In this paper we describe different contexts in which solidarity is expressed and embedded in RD research, in particular the context of tight relationships between individuals and their families or in small communities/ethnic groups; among individuals suffering from different RDs and researchers working on a specific RD or a group of RDs, and within society at large. In all these cases the different types of solidarity should be balanced against each other and also against conflicting values. The request to a patient to share data and samples to increase scientific knowledge on the basis of solidarity values needs to be balanced against the need to protect her privacy and autonomy; the duty for a researcher to allow fair access to RD sample and data collections which were donated in a spirit of solidarity is balanced against the need to be competitive in the research world. In the Report "Solidarity. Reflections on an emerging concept in bioethics", the Nuffield Council of Bioethics defines solidarity as "shared practices reflecting a collective commitment to carry 'costs' (financial, social, emotional or otherwise) to assist others". Therefore, if a solidarity framework has to be solid and ethically sound it needs to be framed as a shared value, reflected in the different practices by all the stakeholders and be based on recip

Within the myriad articles about participants' opinions of genomics research, the views of a distinct group - people with a rare disease (RD) - are unknown. It is important to understand if their opinions differ from the general public by dint of having a rare disease and vulnerabilities inherent in this. Here we document RD patients' attitudes to participation in genomics research, particularly around large-scale, international data and biosample sharing. This work is unique in exploring the views of people with a range of rare disorders from many different countries. The authors work within an international, multidisciplinary consortium, RD-Connect, which has developed an integrated platform connecting databases, registries, biobanks and clinical bioinformatics for RD research. Focus groups were conducted with 52 RD patients from 16 countries. Using a scenario-based approach, participants were encouraged to raise topics relevant to their own experiences, rather than these being determined by the researcher. Issues include wide data sharing, and consent for new uses of historic samples and for children. Focus group members are positively disposed towards research and towards allowing data and biosamples to be shared internationally. Expressions of trust and attitudes to risk are often affected by the nature of the RD which they have experience of, as well as regulatory and cultural practices in their home country. Participants are concerned about data security and misuse. There is an acute recognition of the vulnerability inherent in having a RD and the possibility that open knowledge of this could lead to discrimination.

The increased international sharing of data in research consortia and the introduction of new technologies for sequencing challenge the informed consent (IC) process, adding complexities that require coordination between research centres worldwide. Rare disease consortia present special challenges since available data and samples may be very limited. Thus, it is especially relevant to ensure the best use of available resources but at the same time protect patients' right to integrity. To achieve this aim, there is an ethical duty to plan in advance the best possible consent procedure in order to address possible ethical and legal hurdles that could hamper research in the future. Therefore, it is especially important to identify key core elements (CEs) to be addressed in the IC documents for international collaborative research in two different situations: (1) new research collections (biobanks and registries) for which information documents can be created according to current guidelines and (2) established collections obtained without IC or with a previous consent that does not cover all CEs. We propose here a strategy to deal with consent in these situations. The principles have been applied and are in current practice within the RD-Connect consortia - a global research infrastructure funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework program but forward looking in terms of issues addressed. However, the principles established, the lessons learned and the implications for future research are of direct relevance to all internationally collaborative rare-disease projects.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked genetic disease, caused by the absence of the dystrophin protein. Although many novel therapies are under development for DMD, there is currently no cure and affected individuals are often confined to a wheelchair by their teens and die in their twenties/thirties. DMD is a rare disease (prevalence<5/10,000). Even the largest countries do not have enough affected patients to rigorously assess novel therapies, unravel genetic complexities, and determine patient outcomes. TREAT-NMD is a worldwide network for neuromuscular diseases that provides an infrastructure to support the delivery of promising new therapies for patients. The harmonized implementation of national and ultimately global patient registries has been central to the success of TREAT-NMD. For the DMD registries within TREAT-NMD, individual countries have chosen to collect patient information in the form of standardized patient registries to increase the overall patient population on which clinical outcomes and new technologies can be assessed. The registries comprise more than 13,500 patients from 31 different countries. Here, we describe how the TREAT-NMD national patient registries for DMD were established. We look at their continued growth and assess how successful they have been at fostering collaboration between academia, patient organizations, and industry., Warszawa Banacha 1A: Skall troligen vara "Stefana Banacha 1A"

Antipsychotic drugs are widely used to treat behavioural and psychological disturbances associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), although only modest evidence from randomized controlled trials supports their efficacy, and increasing evidence from post-marketing surveillance shows serious adverse events associated with their use, including increased mortality. The AdCare study, a non-profit, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, pragmatic trial coordinated by the Italian National Institute of Health, aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy profiles of three atypical antipsychotic drugs (risperidone, olanzapine and quetiapine) and one conventional antipsychotic drug (haloperidol) in treating psychosis, aggression and agitation in outpatients with AD. The study was planned to be carried out in 19 clinical centres and to enrol 1000 outpatients. According to Italian law, in the case where a patient is considered unable to give informed consent, a legal representative designated by the court has to provide it. Because of difficulties in the informed consent procedure, the study had to be prematurely interrupted. From February 2009 to April 2010, 83 patients gave informed consent to participate in the trial. Fifty-six patients (68%) were included with consent given by a legal representative, while 27 patients (32%) were considered to provide personal informed consent on the basis of the results from a specifically built procedure. Patients and caregivers were offered the opportunity to participate in the trial before the occurrence of behavioural disturbances, in order to provide them with enough time to consider their participation in the study. Twenty-three patients experienced behavioural, clinically relevant symptoms and were randomized to the study drug; all randomized patients except one had consent for inclusion in the study given by legal representatives. After trial interruption, all patients taking an active drug continued treatm