| 1. |
- Cossee, Mireille, et al.
(författare)
-
Friedreich's ataxia: point mutations and clinical presentation of compound heterozygotes
- 1999
-
Ingår i: Annals of Neurology. - 0364-5134 .- 1531-8249. ; 45:2, s. 200-206
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Friedreich's ataxia is the most common inherited ataxia. Ninety-six percent of patients are homozygous for GAA trinucleotide repeat expansions in the first intron of the frataxin gene. The remaining cases are compound heterozygotes for a GAA expansion and a frataxin point mutation. We report here the identification of 10 novel frataxin point mutations, and the detection of a previously described mutation (G130V) in two additional families. Most truncating mutations were in exon 1. All missense mutations were in the last three exons coding for the mature frataxin protein. The clinical features of 25 patients with identified frataxin point mutations were compared with those of 196 patients homozygous for the GAA expansion. A similar phenotype resulted from truncating mutations and from missense mutations in the carboxy-terminal half of mature frataxin, suggesting that they cause a comparable loss of function. In contrast, the only two missense mutations located in the amino-terminal half of mature frataxin (D122Y and G130V) cause an atypical and milder clinical presentation (early-onset spastic gait with slow disease progression, absence of dysarthria, retained or brisk tendon reflexes, and mild or no cerebellar ataxia), suggesting that they only partially affect frataxin function. The incidence of optic disk pallor was higher in compound heterozygotes than in expansion homozygotes, which might correlate with a very low residual level of normal frataxin produced from the expanded allele.
|
|
| 2. |
- Janssens, Rosanne, et al.
(författare)
-
How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? : Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Pharmacology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1663-9812. ; 14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making.Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022.Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions.Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Smith, Meredith Y., et al.
(författare)
-
Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Research Involvement and Engagement. - 2056-7529. ; 9:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI.Objective: To describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI.Methods: We reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI.Results: Eight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of ‘patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study.Conclusion: PPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area.
|
|
