Theodore Bosworth

Sanfilippo syndrome is a rare inherited neurodegenerative metabolic disorder for which there are no approved therapies. Symptoms of the more severe subtypes typically begin within the first years of life, rapidly producing serious and progressive physical and cognitive deficits. The underlying pathophysiology is targetable, but the delay in diagnosis of this as well as other lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) is slowing progress toward effective therapies.

“Lack of awareness and the delays to diagnosis have been a real challenge for us. There is reason for cautious optimism about treatments now in or approaching clinical studies, but to evaluate efficacy on cognitive outcomes we need to enroll more children at a very young age, before loss of milestones,” according to Cara O’Neill, MD, a co-founder and chief science officer of Cure Sanfilippo Foundation.

Epidemiology and description

Sanfilippo syndrome, like the more than 50 other LSDs, is caused by a gene mutation that leads to an enzyme deficiency in the lysosome.¹ In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, also known as mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS III), there are hundreds of mutations that can lead to Sanfilippo by altering the function of one of the four genes essential to degradation of heparan sulfate.² Lysosomal accumulation of heparan sulfate drives a broad spectrum of progressive and largely irreversible symptoms that typically begin with somatic manifestations, such as bowel dysfunction and recurrent ear and upper respiratory infections.

ONeill_ Cara_Columbia_SC_web.jpg

Impairment of the central nervous system (CNS) usually occurs early in life, halting physical and mental development. As it progresses, accumulation of heparan sulfate in a variety of cells leads to a cascade of abnormal cellular signaling and dysfunction. Disruption of these processes, which are critical for normal neurodevelopment, result in loss of the developmental skills already gained and eventually loss of brain tissue.³ Although life expectancy has improved with supportive care, survival into adulthood is typically limited to milder forms.⁴

Over the past several years, progress in this and other LSDs has yielded therapeutic targets, including those involving gene repair and enzyme replacement. Already approved for use in some LSDs, these therapies have also shown promise in the experimental setting for Sanfilippo syndrome, leading to several completed clinical trials.⁵

So far, none of these treatments has advanced beyond clinical trials in Sanfilippo syndrome, but there have been favorable changes in the markers of disease, suggesting that better methods of treatment delivery and/or more sensitive tools to measure clinical change might lead to evidence of disease attenuation. However, the promise of treatment in all cases has been to prevent, slow, or halt progression, not to reverse it. This point is important, because it indicates that degree of benefit will depend on enrolling patients early in life. Even if effective therapies are identified, few patients will benefit without strategies to accelerate diagnosis.

In fact, “one study⁶ reported that the average age of diagnosis for Sanfilippo syndrome has not improved over the past 30 years,” according to Dr. O’Neill. She indicated that this has been frustrating, given the availability of clinical trials on which progress is dependent. There is no widely accepted protocol for who and when to test for Sanfilippo syndrome or other LSDs, but Dr. O’Neill’s organization is among those advocating for strategies to detect these diseases earlier, including screening at birth.

Almost by definition, the clinical diagnosis of rare diseases poses a challenge. With nonspecific symptoms and a broad range of potential diagnoses, diseases with a low incidence are not the first ones that are typically considered. In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, published studies indicate incidence rates at or below 1 per 70,000 live births.⁷ However, the incidence rates have been highly variable not only by geographical regions but even across neighboring countries where genetic risk would be expected to be similar.

In Europe, for example, epidemiologic studies suggest the lifetime risk of MPS IIIA is approximately two times greater in Germany and the Netherlands relative to France and Sweden.⁷ It is possible that the methodology for identifying cases might be a more important factor than differences in genetic risk to explain this variability. Many experts, including Dr. O’Neill, believe that prevalence figures for Sanfilippo syndrome are typically underestimates because of the frequency with which LSDs are attributed to other pathology.

“For these types of rare disorders, a clinician might only see a single case over a career, and the symptoms can vary in presentation and severity with many alternatives to consider in the differential diagnosis,” Dr. O’Neill explained. She cited case reports in which symptoms of Sanfilippo syndrome after a period of initial normal development has been initially attributed to autism, which is a comorbid feature of the disease, idiopathic developmental delay, or other nonprogressive disorders until further clinical deterioration leads to additional testing. The implication is that LSDs must be considered far earlier despite their rarity.

For the least common of the four clinical subtypes, MPS IIIC and MPS IIID, the median ages of diagnosis have ranged from 4.5 to 19 years of age.⁷ This is likely a reflection of a slower progression and a later onset of clinical manifestations.

For the more rapidly progressing and typically more severe subtypes, MPS IIIA and MPS IIIB, the diagnosis is typically made earlier. In one review of epidemiologic studies in different countries, the earliest reported median age at diagnosis was 2.5 years,⁷ a point at which significant disease progression is likely to have already occurred. If the promise of treatments in development is prevention of disease progression, disability in many patients might be substantial if the time to diagnosis is not reduced.

Screening and testing

Independent of the potential to enroll children in clinical trials, early diagnosis also advances the opportunities for supportive care to lessen the burden of the disease on patients and families. Perhaps even more important, early diagnosis is vital to family planning. Since the American pediatrician Sylvester Sanfilippo, MD, first described this syndrome in 1963,⁷ the genetic profile and many of the features of the disease have become well characterized.⁸

ONeill_Glenn_Columbia_SC_WEB.jpg

Sanfilippo facial phonotype_WEB.jpg

Diagnosis: Signs and symptoms

Despite the differences in progression of the MPS III subtypes, the clinical characteristics are more similar than different. In all patients, prenatal and infant development are typically normal. The initial signs of disease can be found in the newborn, such as neonatal tachypnea, through the early infancy period, such as macrocephaly. However, these are not commonly recognized until about age 1 or soon after in those with MPS IIIA and IIIB.³ Speech delay is the first developmental delay seen in most patients. In those with MPS IIIC, initial symptoms are typically detected at age 3 or later and progress more slowly.^10,11 The same is likely to be true of MPS IIID, although this subtype is less well characterized than the other three.⁷

Although many organs can be involved, degeneration of the CNS is regarded as the most characteristic.³ In aggressive disease, this includes slower acquisition of and failure to meet developmental milestones with progressive intellectual disability, while behavioral difficulties are a more common initial compliant in children with milder disease.^13,14 These behavioral changes include hyperactivity, inattention, autistic behaviors, worsening safety awareness, and in some cases aggressive behavior that can be destructive. Sleep disturbances are common.¹⁵Because of variability inherent in descriptions of relatively small numbers of patients, the characterization of each of the MPS III subgroups is based on a limited number of small studies, but most patients demonstrate behavior disorders, have coarse facial features, and develop speech delay, according to a survey conducted of published studies.⁷ Collectively, abnormal behavior was identified as an early symptom in 77% of those with MPS IIIA, 69% of those with IIIB, and 77% of those with IIIC.

For MPS IIIA, loss of speech was observed at a median age of 3.8 years and loss of walking ability at 10.4 years. The median survival has been reported to range between 13 and 18 years. In children with MPS IIIB, the median age of speech loss was reported to about the same age, while loss of walking ability occurred at 11 years. In one study of MPS IIIB, 24% of patients had developed dementia by age 6 years, and the reported median survival has ranged between 17 and 19 years. For MPS IIIC, the onset of clinical symptoms has been observed at a median age of 3.5 years with evidence of cognitive loss observed in 33% of children by the age of 6 years. The median survival has ranged from 19 to 34 years in three studies tracing the natural history of this MPS III subtype.

The differential diagnosis reasonably includes other types of mucopolysaccharidosis disorders with cognitive impairment, including Hurler, Hunter, or Sly syndromes, other neurodevelopmental disorders, and inborn errors of metabolism. The heterogeneity of the features makes definitive laboratory or genetic testing, rather than the effort to differentiate clinical features, appropriate for a definitive diagnosis.

Once the diagnosis is made, other examinations for the common complications of Sanfilippo syndrome are appropriate. Abdominal imaging is appropriate for detecting complications in the gastrointestinal tract, including hepatomegaly, which has been reported in more than half of patients with MPS IIIA and IIIB and in 39% of patients with IIIC.⁷ In patients with breathing concerns at night and/or sleep disturbance, polysomnography can be useful for identifying sleep apnea and nocturnal seizure activity. In children suspected of seizures, EEG is appropriate. In one study, 66% of patients with MPS IIIA developed seizure activity.¹⁶ This has been less commonly reported in MPS IIIB and IIIC, ranging from 8% to 13%.¹⁵

Formal hearing evaluation is indicated for any child with speech delays. Hearing loss typically develops after the newborn period in Sanfilippo and may affect peak language acquisition if not treated, according to Dr. O’Neill.

Radiographic studies for dysostosis multiplex or other skeletal abnormalities are also appropriate based on clinical presentation.

Treatment: Present and future

In the absence of treatments to improve the prognosis of Sanfilippo syndrome, current management is based on supportive care and managing organ-specific complications. However, several strategies have proven viable in experimental models and led to clinical trials. None of these therapies has reached approval yet, but several have been associated with attenuation of biomarkers of MPS III disease activity.

Of nearly 30 Sanfilippo clinical trials conducted over the past 20 years, at least 9 have now been completed.⁵ In addition to studying gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy, these trials have included stem cell transplantation and substrate reduction therapy, for which the goal is to reduce synthesis of the heparan sulfate GAG to prevent accumulation.⁵ Of this latter approach, promising initial results with genistein, an isoflavone that breaks down heparan sulfate, reached a phase 3 evaluation.¹⁸ Although heparan sulfate levels in the CNS were non-significantly reduced over the course of the trial, the reduction was not sufficient to attenuate cognitive decline.

In other LSDs, several forms of enzyme replacement therapy are now approved. In Fabry disease, for example, recombinant alpha-galactosidase A has now been used for more than 15 years.¹⁹ Clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome because of the difficulty of delivering these therapies past the blood-brain barrier. Several strategies have been pursued. For example, intrathecal delivery of recombinant heparan-N-sulfatase reduced CNS levels of GAG heparan sulfate in one phase 2B study, but it approached but fell short of the statistical significance for the primary endpoint of predefined cognitive stabilization.²⁰ The signal of activity and generally acceptable tolerability has encouraged further study, including an ongoing study with promising interim results of intracerebroventricular enzyme replacement in MPS IIIB, according to Dr. O’Neill.

Acceptable safety and promising activity on disease biomarkers have also been seen with gene therapy in clinical trials. In one study that showed attenuation of brain atrophy, there was moderate improvement in behavior and sleep in three of the four patients enrolled.²¹ Other studies using various strategies for gene delivery have also produced signals of activity against the underlying pathology, generating persistent interest in ongoing and planned clinical studies with this form of treatment.²²Unmodified hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), an approach that has demonstrated efficacy when delivered early in the course of other LSDs, such as Hurler syndrome,²³ has not yet been associated with significant activity in clinical studies of MPS III, including those that initiated treatment prior to the onset of neurological symptoms.²⁴ However, promising early results have been reported in a study of gene-modified HSCT, which overexpresses the MPS IIIA enzyme.

“The clinical trial landscape fluctuates quite a bit, so I always encourage clinicians and families to check back often for updates. Patient organizations can also be helpful for understanding the most up-to-date and emerging trial options,” Dr. O’Neill reported.

Although it is expected that the greatest benefit would be derived from treatments initiated before or very early after the onset of symptoms, based on the limited potential for reversing cognitive loss, Dr. O’Neill said that she and others are also striving to offer treatments for individuals now living with Sanfilippo syndrome.

“We have to be willing to test treatments that are symptomatic in nature. To that aim, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation has sponsored a study of a CNS-penetrating anti-inflammatory agent in advanced-disease patients more than 4 years of age,” Dr. O’Neill said. This group of patients typically been ineligible for clinical trials in the past. Dr. O’Neill hopes to change this orientation.

“It is important to highlight that all patients deserve our efforts to improve their quality of life and alleviate suffering, regardless of how old they are or how progressed in the disease they happen to be,” she said.

However, whether the goal is enrollment before or early in disease or later in disease progression, the challenge of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to confirm clinical activity has been and continues to be a hurdle to progress.

“Clinical studies in Sanfilippo enroll relatively small numbers of patients, often 20 or less,” said Dr. O’Neill, explaining one of the reasons why her organization has been so active in raising awareness and funding such studies. For patients and families, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation can offer a variety of guidance and support, but information about opportunities for clinical trial participation is a key resource they provide for families and their physicians.
 

Conclusion

For most children with Sanfilippo syndrome, life expectancy is limited. However, the characterization of the genetic causes and the biochemistry of the subtypes has led to several viable therapeutic approaches under development. There has been progress in delivery of therapeutic enzymes to the CNS, and there is substantial optimism that more progress is coming. One issue for treatment development, is the last of a clear regulatory pathway addressing important biomarkers of pathology, such as heparan sulfate burden. Developing treatments that address this issue or impaired enzyme activity levels have promise for preventing progression, particularly if started in infancy. However, the effort to draw awareness to this disease is the first step toward accelerating the time to an early diagnosis and subsequent opportunities to enroll in clinical trials.

References

1. Sun A. Lysosomal storage disease overview. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Dec;6(24):476. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.11.39.

2. Andrade F et al. Sanfilippo syndrome: Overall review. Pediatr Int. 2015 Jun;57(3):331-8. doi: 10.1111/ped.12636.

3. Fedele AO. Sanfilippo syndrome: Causes, consequences, and treatments. Appl Clin Genet. 2015 Nov 25;8:269-81. doi: 10.2147/TACG.S57672.

4. Lavery C et al. Mortality in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Oct 23;12(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0717-y.

5. Pearse Y et al. A cure for Sanfilippo syndrome? A summary of current therapeutic approaches and their promise. Med Res Arch. 2020 Feb 1;8(2). doi: 10.18103/mra.v8i2.2045.

6. Kuiper GA et al. Failure to shorten the diagnostic delay in two ultrao-rphan diseases (mucopolysaccharidosis types I and III): potential causes and implication. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:2. Doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0733-y.

7. Zelei T et al. Epidemiology of Sanfilippo syndrome: Results of a systematic literature review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Apr 10;13(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0796-4.

8. Wagner VF, Northrup H. Mucopolysaccaharidosis type III. Gene Reviews. 2019 Sep 19. University of Washington, Seattle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546574/8.

9. O’Neill C et al. Natural history of facial features observed in Sanfilippo syndrome (MPS IIIB) using a next generation phenotyping tool. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126:S112.

10. Ruijter GJ et al. Clinical and genetic spectrum of Sanfilippo type C (MPS IIIC) disease in the Netherlands. Mol Genet Metab. 2008 Feb;93(2):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.09.011.

11. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIID: 12 new patients and 15 novel mutations. Hum Mutat. 2010 May;31(5):E1348-60. doi: 10.1002/humu.21234.

12. Nijmeijer SCM. The attenuated end of phenotypic spectrum in MPS III: from late-onset stable cognitive impairment to non-neuronopathic phenotype. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14:249. Doi10.1186/s13023-019-1232-0.

13. Nidiffer FD, Kelly TE. Developmental and degenerative patterns associated with cognitive, behavioural and motor difficulties in the Sanfilippo syndrome: An epidemiological study. J Ment Defic Res. 1983 Sep;27 (Pt 3):185-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1983.tb00291.x.

14. Bax MC, Colville GA. Behaviour in mucopolysaccharide disorders. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jul;73(1):77-81. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.77.

15. Fraser J et al. Sleep disturbance in mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A survey of managing clinicians. Clin Genet. 2002 Nov;62(5):418-21. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.620512.x.

16. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: Clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations. Ann Neurol. 2010 Dec;68(6):876-87. doi: 10.1002/ana.22092.

17. Heron B et al. Incidence and natural history of mucopolysaccharidosis type III in France and comparison with United Kingdom and Greece. Am J Med Genet A. 2011 Jan;155A(1):58-68. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33779.

18. Delgadillo V et al. Genistein supplementation in patients affected by Sanfilippo disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2011 Oct;34(5):1039-44. doi: 10.1007/s10545-011-9342-4.

19. van der Veen SJ et al. Developments in the treatment of Fabry disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2020 Sep;43(5):908-21. doi: 10.1002/jimd.12228.

20. Wijburg FA et al. Intrathecal heparan-N-sulfatase in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome type A: A phase IIb randomized trial. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126(2):121-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.10.006.

21. Tardieu M et al. Intracerebral administration of adeno-associated viral vector serotype rh.10 carrying human SGSH and SUMF1 cDNAs in children with mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA disease: Results of a phase I/II trial. Hum Gene Ther. 2014 Jun;25(6):506-16. doi: 10.1089/hum.2013.238.

22. Marco S et al. In vivo gene therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A new treatment horizon. Hum Gene Ther. 2019 Oct;30(10):1211-1121. doi: 10.1089/hum.2019.217.

23. Taylor M et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for mucopolysaccharidoses: Past, present, and future. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Jul;25(7):e226-e246. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.02.012.

24. Sivakumur P, Wraith JE. Bone marrow transplantation in mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: A comparison of an early treated patient with his untreated sibling. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1999 Oct;22(7):849-50. doi: 10.1023/a:1005526628598.

Sanfilippo syndrome is a rare inherited neurodegenerative metabolic disorder for which there are no approved therapies. Symptoms of the more severe subtypes typically begin within the first years of life, rapidly producing serious and progressive physical and cognitive deficits. The underlying pathophysiology is targetable, but the delay in diagnosis of this as well as other lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) is slowing progress toward effective therapies.

“Lack of awareness and the delays to diagnosis have been a real challenge for us. There is reason for cautious optimism about treatments now in or approaching clinical studies, but to evaluate efficacy on cognitive outcomes we need to enroll more children at a very young age, before loss of milestones,” according to Cara O’Neill, MD, a co-founder and chief science officer of Cure Sanfilippo Foundation.

Epidemiology and description

Sanfilippo syndrome, like the more than 50 other LSDs, is caused by a gene mutation that leads to an enzyme deficiency in the lysosome.¹ In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, also known as mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS III), there are hundreds of mutations that can lead to Sanfilippo by altering the function of one of the four genes essential to degradation of heparan sulfate.² Lysosomal accumulation of heparan sulfate drives a broad spectrum of progressive and largely irreversible symptoms that typically begin with somatic manifestations, such as bowel dysfunction and recurrent ear and upper respiratory infections.

ONeill_ Cara_Columbia_SC_web.jpg

Impairment of the central nervous system (CNS) usually occurs early in life, halting physical and mental development. As it progresses, accumulation of heparan sulfate in a variety of cells leads to a cascade of abnormal cellular signaling and dysfunction. Disruption of these processes, which are critical for normal neurodevelopment, result in loss of the developmental skills already gained and eventually loss of brain tissue.³ Although life expectancy has improved with supportive care, survival into adulthood is typically limited to milder forms.⁴

Over the past several years, progress in this and other LSDs has yielded therapeutic targets, including those involving gene repair and enzyme replacement. Already approved for use in some LSDs, these therapies have also shown promise in the experimental setting for Sanfilippo syndrome, leading to several completed clinical trials.⁵

So far, none of these treatments has advanced beyond clinical trials in Sanfilippo syndrome, but there have been favorable changes in the markers of disease, suggesting that better methods of treatment delivery and/or more sensitive tools to measure clinical change might lead to evidence of disease attenuation. However, the promise of treatment in all cases has been to prevent, slow, or halt progression, not to reverse it. This point is important, because it indicates that degree of benefit will depend on enrolling patients early in life. Even if effective therapies are identified, few patients will benefit without strategies to accelerate diagnosis.

In fact, “one study⁶ reported that the average age of diagnosis for Sanfilippo syndrome has not improved over the past 30 years,” according to Dr. O’Neill. She indicated that this has been frustrating, given the availability of clinical trials on which progress is dependent. There is no widely accepted protocol for who and when to test for Sanfilippo syndrome or other LSDs, but Dr. O’Neill’s organization is among those advocating for strategies to detect these diseases earlier, including screening at birth.

Almost by definition, the clinical diagnosis of rare diseases poses a challenge. With nonspecific symptoms and a broad range of potential diagnoses, diseases with a low incidence are not the first ones that are typically considered. In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, published studies indicate incidence rates at or below 1 per 70,000 live births.⁷ However, the incidence rates have been highly variable not only by geographical regions but even across neighboring countries where genetic risk would be expected to be similar.

In Europe, for example, epidemiologic studies suggest the lifetime risk of MPS IIIA is approximately two times greater in Germany and the Netherlands relative to France and Sweden.⁷ It is possible that the methodology for identifying cases might be a more important factor than differences in genetic risk to explain this variability. Many experts, including Dr. O’Neill, believe that prevalence figures for Sanfilippo syndrome are typically underestimates because of the frequency with which LSDs are attributed to other pathology.

“For these types of rare disorders, a clinician might only see a single case over a career, and the symptoms can vary in presentation and severity with many alternatives to consider in the differential diagnosis,” Dr. O’Neill explained. She cited case reports in which symptoms of Sanfilippo syndrome after a period of initial normal development has been initially attributed to autism, which is a comorbid feature of the disease, idiopathic developmental delay, or other nonprogressive disorders until further clinical deterioration leads to additional testing. The implication is that LSDs must be considered far earlier despite their rarity.

For the least common of the four clinical subtypes, MPS IIIC and MPS IIID, the median ages of diagnosis have ranged from 4.5 to 19 years of age.⁷ This is likely a reflection of a slower progression and a later onset of clinical manifestations.

For the more rapidly progressing and typically more severe subtypes, MPS IIIA and MPS IIIB, the diagnosis is typically made earlier. In one review of epidemiologic studies in different countries, the earliest reported median age at diagnosis was 2.5 years,⁷ a point at which significant disease progression is likely to have already occurred. If the promise of treatments in development is prevention of disease progression, disability in many patients might be substantial if the time to diagnosis is not reduced.

Screening and testing

Independent of the potential to enroll children in clinical trials, early diagnosis also advances the opportunities for supportive care to lessen the burden of the disease on patients and families. Perhaps even more important, early diagnosis is vital to family planning. Since the American pediatrician Sylvester Sanfilippo, MD, first described this syndrome in 1963,⁷ the genetic profile and many of the features of the disease have become well characterized.⁸

ONeill_Glenn_Columbia_SC_WEB.jpg

Sanfilippo facial phonotype_WEB.jpg

Diagnosis: Signs and symptoms

Despite the differences in progression of the MPS III subtypes, the clinical characteristics are more similar than different. In all patients, prenatal and infant development are typically normal. The initial signs of disease can be found in the newborn, such as neonatal tachypnea, through the early infancy period, such as macrocephaly. However, these are not commonly recognized until about age 1 or soon after in those with MPS IIIA and IIIB.³ Speech delay is the first developmental delay seen in most patients. In those with MPS IIIC, initial symptoms are typically detected at age 3 or later and progress more slowly.^10,11 The same is likely to be true of MPS IIID, although this subtype is less well characterized than the other three.⁷

Although many organs can be involved, degeneration of the CNS is regarded as the most characteristic.³ In aggressive disease, this includes slower acquisition of and failure to meet developmental milestones with progressive intellectual disability, while behavioral difficulties are a more common initial compliant in children with milder disease.^13,14 These behavioral changes include hyperactivity, inattention, autistic behaviors, worsening safety awareness, and in some cases aggressive behavior that can be destructive. Sleep disturbances are common.¹⁵Because of variability inherent in descriptions of relatively small numbers of patients, the characterization of each of the MPS III subgroups is based on a limited number of small studies, but most patients demonstrate behavior disorders, have coarse facial features, and develop speech delay, according to a survey conducted of published studies.⁷ Collectively, abnormal behavior was identified as an early symptom in 77% of those with MPS IIIA, 69% of those with IIIB, and 77% of those with IIIC.

For MPS IIIA, loss of speech was observed at a median age of 3.8 years and loss of walking ability at 10.4 years. The median survival has been reported to range between 13 and 18 years. In children with MPS IIIB, the median age of speech loss was reported to about the same age, while loss of walking ability occurred at 11 years. In one study of MPS IIIB, 24% of patients had developed dementia by age 6 years, and the reported median survival has ranged between 17 and 19 years. For MPS IIIC, the onset of clinical symptoms has been observed at a median age of 3.5 years with evidence of cognitive loss observed in 33% of children by the age of 6 years. The median survival has ranged from 19 to 34 years in three studies tracing the natural history of this MPS III subtype.

The differential diagnosis reasonably includes other types of mucopolysaccharidosis disorders with cognitive impairment, including Hurler, Hunter, or Sly syndromes, other neurodevelopmental disorders, and inborn errors of metabolism. The heterogeneity of the features makes definitive laboratory or genetic testing, rather than the effort to differentiate clinical features, appropriate for a definitive diagnosis.

Once the diagnosis is made, other examinations for the common complications of Sanfilippo syndrome are appropriate. Abdominal imaging is appropriate for detecting complications in the gastrointestinal tract, including hepatomegaly, which has been reported in more than half of patients with MPS IIIA and IIIB and in 39% of patients with IIIC.⁷ In patients with breathing concerns at night and/or sleep disturbance, polysomnography can be useful for identifying sleep apnea and nocturnal seizure activity. In children suspected of seizures, EEG is appropriate. In one study, 66% of patients with MPS IIIA developed seizure activity.¹⁶ This has been less commonly reported in MPS IIIB and IIIC, ranging from 8% to 13%.¹⁵

Formal hearing evaluation is indicated for any child with speech delays. Hearing loss typically develops after the newborn period in Sanfilippo and may affect peak language acquisition if not treated, according to Dr. O’Neill.

Radiographic studies for dysostosis multiplex or other skeletal abnormalities are also appropriate based on clinical presentation.

Treatment: Present and future

In the absence of treatments to improve the prognosis of Sanfilippo syndrome, current management is based on supportive care and managing organ-specific complications. However, several strategies have proven viable in experimental models and led to clinical trials. None of these therapies has reached approval yet, but several have been associated with attenuation of biomarkers of MPS III disease activity.

Of nearly 30 Sanfilippo clinical trials conducted over the past 20 years, at least 9 have now been completed.⁵ In addition to studying gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy, these trials have included stem cell transplantation and substrate reduction therapy, for which the goal is to reduce synthesis of the heparan sulfate GAG to prevent accumulation.⁵ Of this latter approach, promising initial results with genistein, an isoflavone that breaks down heparan sulfate, reached a phase 3 evaluation.¹⁸ Although heparan sulfate levels in the CNS were non-significantly reduced over the course of the trial, the reduction was not sufficient to attenuate cognitive decline.

In other LSDs, several forms of enzyme replacement therapy are now approved. In Fabry disease, for example, recombinant alpha-galactosidase A has now been used for more than 15 years.¹⁹ Clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome because of the difficulty of delivering these therapies past the blood-brain barrier. Several strategies have been pursued. For example, intrathecal delivery of recombinant heparan-N-sulfatase reduced CNS levels of GAG heparan sulfate in one phase 2B study, but it approached but fell short of the statistical significance for the primary endpoint of predefined cognitive stabilization.²⁰ The signal of activity and generally acceptable tolerability has encouraged further study, including an ongoing study with promising interim results of intracerebroventricular enzyme replacement in MPS IIIB, according to Dr. O’Neill.

Acceptable safety and promising activity on disease biomarkers have also been seen with gene therapy in clinical trials. In one study that showed attenuation of brain atrophy, there was moderate improvement in behavior and sleep in three of the four patients enrolled.²¹ Other studies using various strategies for gene delivery have also produced signals of activity against the underlying pathology, generating persistent interest in ongoing and planned clinical studies with this form of treatment.²²Unmodified hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), an approach that has demonstrated efficacy when delivered early in the course of other LSDs, such as Hurler syndrome,²³ has not yet been associated with significant activity in clinical studies of MPS III, including those that initiated treatment prior to the onset of neurological symptoms.²⁴ However, promising early results have been reported in a study of gene-modified HSCT, which overexpresses the MPS IIIA enzyme.

“The clinical trial landscape fluctuates quite a bit, so I always encourage clinicians and families to check back often for updates. Patient organizations can also be helpful for understanding the most up-to-date and emerging trial options,” Dr. O’Neill reported.

Although it is expected that the greatest benefit would be derived from treatments initiated before or very early after the onset of symptoms, based on the limited potential for reversing cognitive loss, Dr. O’Neill said that she and others are also striving to offer treatments for individuals now living with Sanfilippo syndrome.

“We have to be willing to test treatments that are symptomatic in nature. To that aim, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation has sponsored a study of a CNS-penetrating anti-inflammatory agent in advanced-disease patients more than 4 years of age,” Dr. O’Neill said. This group of patients typically been ineligible for clinical trials in the past. Dr. O’Neill hopes to change this orientation.

“It is important to highlight that all patients deserve our efforts to improve their quality of life and alleviate suffering, regardless of how old they are or how progressed in the disease they happen to be,” she said.

However, whether the goal is enrollment before or early in disease or later in disease progression, the challenge of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to confirm clinical activity has been and continues to be a hurdle to progress.

“Clinical studies in Sanfilippo enroll relatively small numbers of patients, often 20 or less,” said Dr. O’Neill, explaining one of the reasons why her organization has been so active in raising awareness and funding such studies. For patients and families, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation can offer a variety of guidance and support, but information about opportunities for clinical trial participation is a key resource they provide for families and their physicians.
 

Conclusion

For most children with Sanfilippo syndrome, life expectancy is limited. However, the characterization of the genetic causes and the biochemistry of the subtypes has led to several viable therapeutic approaches under development. There has been progress in delivery of therapeutic enzymes to the CNS, and there is substantial optimism that more progress is coming. One issue for treatment development, is the last of a clear regulatory pathway addressing important biomarkers of pathology, such as heparan sulfate burden. Developing treatments that address this issue or impaired enzyme activity levels have promise for preventing progression, particularly if started in infancy. However, the effort to draw awareness to this disease is the first step toward accelerating the time to an early diagnosis and subsequent opportunities to enroll in clinical trials.

References

1. Sun A. Lysosomal storage disease overview. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Dec;6(24):476. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.11.39.

2. Andrade F et al. Sanfilippo syndrome: Overall review. Pediatr Int. 2015 Jun;57(3):331-8. doi: 10.1111/ped.12636.

3. Fedele AO. Sanfilippo syndrome: Causes, consequences, and treatments. Appl Clin Genet. 2015 Nov 25;8:269-81. doi: 10.2147/TACG.S57672.

4. Lavery C et al. Mortality in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Oct 23;12(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0717-y.

5. Pearse Y et al. A cure for Sanfilippo syndrome? A summary of current therapeutic approaches and their promise. Med Res Arch. 2020 Feb 1;8(2). doi: 10.18103/mra.v8i2.2045.

6. Kuiper GA et al. Failure to shorten the diagnostic delay in two ultrao-rphan diseases (mucopolysaccharidosis types I and III): potential causes and implication. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:2. Doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0733-y.

7. Zelei T et al. Epidemiology of Sanfilippo syndrome: Results of a systematic literature review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Apr 10;13(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0796-4.

8. Wagner VF, Northrup H. Mucopolysaccaharidosis type III. Gene Reviews. 2019 Sep 19. University of Washington, Seattle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546574/8.

9. O’Neill C et al. Natural history of facial features observed in Sanfilippo syndrome (MPS IIIB) using a next generation phenotyping tool. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126:S112.

10. Ruijter GJ et al. Clinical and genetic spectrum of Sanfilippo type C (MPS IIIC) disease in the Netherlands. Mol Genet Metab. 2008 Feb;93(2):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.09.011.

11. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIID: 12 new patients and 15 novel mutations. Hum Mutat. 2010 May;31(5):E1348-60. doi: 10.1002/humu.21234.

12. Nijmeijer SCM. The attenuated end of phenotypic spectrum in MPS III: from late-onset stable cognitive impairment to non-neuronopathic phenotype. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14:249. Doi10.1186/s13023-019-1232-0.

13. Nidiffer FD, Kelly TE. Developmental and degenerative patterns associated with cognitive, behavioural and motor difficulties in the Sanfilippo syndrome: An epidemiological study. J Ment Defic Res. 1983 Sep;27 (Pt 3):185-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1983.tb00291.x.

14. Bax MC, Colville GA. Behaviour in mucopolysaccharide disorders. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jul;73(1):77-81. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.77.

15. Fraser J et al. Sleep disturbance in mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A survey of managing clinicians. Clin Genet. 2002 Nov;62(5):418-21. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.620512.x.

16. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: Clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations. Ann Neurol. 2010 Dec;68(6):876-87. doi: 10.1002/ana.22092.

17. Heron B et al. Incidence and natural history of mucopolysaccharidosis type III in France and comparison with United Kingdom and Greece. Am J Med Genet A. 2011 Jan;155A(1):58-68. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33779.

18. Delgadillo V et al. Genistein supplementation in patients affected by Sanfilippo disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2011 Oct;34(5):1039-44. doi: 10.1007/s10545-011-9342-4.

19. van der Veen SJ et al. Developments in the treatment of Fabry disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2020 Sep;43(5):908-21. doi: 10.1002/jimd.12228.

20. Wijburg FA et al. Intrathecal heparan-N-sulfatase in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome type A: A phase IIb randomized trial. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126(2):121-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.10.006.

21. Tardieu M et al. Intracerebral administration of adeno-associated viral vector serotype rh.10 carrying human SGSH and SUMF1 cDNAs in children with mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA disease: Results of a phase I/II trial. Hum Gene Ther. 2014 Jun;25(6):506-16. doi: 10.1089/hum.2013.238.

22. Marco S et al. In vivo gene therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A new treatment horizon. Hum Gene Ther. 2019 Oct;30(10):1211-1121. doi: 10.1089/hum.2019.217.

23. Taylor M et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for mucopolysaccharidoses: Past, present, and future. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Jul;25(7):e226-e246. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.02.012.

24. Sivakumur P, Wraith JE. Bone marrow transplantation in mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: A comparison of an early treated patient with his untreated sibling. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1999 Oct;22(7):849-50. doi: 10.1023/a:1005526628598.

Sanfilippo syndrome is a rare inherited neurodegenerative metabolic disorder for which there are no approved therapies. Symptoms of the more severe subtypes typically begin within the first years of life, rapidly producing serious and progressive physical and cognitive deficits. The underlying pathophysiology is targetable, but the delay in diagnosis of this as well as other lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) is slowing progress toward effective therapies.

“Lack of awareness and the delays to diagnosis have been a real challenge for us. There is reason for cautious optimism about treatments now in or approaching clinical studies, but to evaluate efficacy on cognitive outcomes we need to enroll more children at a very young age, before loss of milestones,” according to Cara O’Neill, MD, a co-founder and chief science officer of Cure Sanfilippo Foundation.

Epidemiology and description

Sanfilippo syndrome, like the more than 50 other LSDs, is caused by a gene mutation that leads to an enzyme deficiency in the lysosome.¹ In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, also known as mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS III), there are hundreds of mutations that can lead to Sanfilippo by altering the function of one of the four genes essential to degradation of heparan sulfate.² Lysosomal accumulation of heparan sulfate drives a broad spectrum of progressive and largely irreversible symptoms that typically begin with somatic manifestations, such as bowel dysfunction and recurrent ear and upper respiratory infections.

ONeill_ Cara_Columbia_SC_web.jpg

Impairment of the central nervous system (CNS) usually occurs early in life, halting physical and mental development. As it progresses, accumulation of heparan sulfate in a variety of cells leads to a cascade of abnormal cellular signaling and dysfunction. Disruption of these processes, which are critical for normal neurodevelopment, result in loss of the developmental skills already gained and eventually loss of brain tissue.³ Although life expectancy has improved with supportive care, survival into adulthood is typically limited to milder forms.⁴

Over the past several years, progress in this and other LSDs has yielded therapeutic targets, including those involving gene repair and enzyme replacement. Already approved for use in some LSDs, these therapies have also shown promise in the experimental setting for Sanfilippo syndrome, leading to several completed clinical trials.⁵

So far, none of these treatments has advanced beyond clinical trials in Sanfilippo syndrome, but there have been favorable changes in the markers of disease, suggesting that better methods of treatment delivery and/or more sensitive tools to measure clinical change might lead to evidence of disease attenuation. However, the promise of treatment in all cases has been to prevent, slow, or halt progression, not to reverse it. This point is important, because it indicates that degree of benefit will depend on enrolling patients early in life. Even if effective therapies are identified, few patients will benefit without strategies to accelerate diagnosis.

In fact, “one study⁶ reported that the average age of diagnosis for Sanfilippo syndrome has not improved over the past 30 years,” according to Dr. O’Neill. She indicated that this has been frustrating, given the availability of clinical trials on which progress is dependent. There is no widely accepted protocol for who and when to test for Sanfilippo syndrome or other LSDs, but Dr. O’Neill’s organization is among those advocating for strategies to detect these diseases earlier, including screening at birth.

Almost by definition, the clinical diagnosis of rare diseases poses a challenge. With nonspecific symptoms and a broad range of potential diagnoses, diseases with a low incidence are not the first ones that are typically considered. In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, published studies indicate incidence rates at or below 1 per 70,000 live births.⁷ However, the incidence rates have been highly variable not only by geographical regions but even across neighboring countries where genetic risk would be expected to be similar.

In Europe, for example, epidemiologic studies suggest the lifetime risk of MPS IIIA is approximately two times greater in Germany and the Netherlands relative to France and Sweden.⁷ It is possible that the methodology for identifying cases might be a more important factor than differences in genetic risk to explain this variability. Many experts, including Dr. O’Neill, believe that prevalence figures for Sanfilippo syndrome are typically underestimates because of the frequency with which LSDs are attributed to other pathology.

“For these types of rare disorders, a clinician might only see a single case over a career, and the symptoms can vary in presentation and severity with many alternatives to consider in the differential diagnosis,” Dr. O’Neill explained. She cited case reports in which symptoms of Sanfilippo syndrome after a period of initial normal development has been initially attributed to autism, which is a comorbid feature of the disease, idiopathic developmental delay, or other nonprogressive disorders until further clinical deterioration leads to additional testing. The implication is that LSDs must be considered far earlier despite their rarity.

For the least common of the four clinical subtypes, MPS IIIC and MPS IIID, the median ages of diagnosis have ranged from 4.5 to 19 years of age.⁷ This is likely a reflection of a slower progression and a later onset of clinical manifestations.

For the more rapidly progressing and typically more severe subtypes, MPS IIIA and MPS IIIB, the diagnosis is typically made earlier. In one review of epidemiologic studies in different countries, the earliest reported median age at diagnosis was 2.5 years,⁷ a point at which significant disease progression is likely to have already occurred. If the promise of treatments in development is prevention of disease progression, disability in many patients might be substantial if the time to diagnosis is not reduced.

Screening and testing

Independent of the potential to enroll children in clinical trials, early diagnosis also advances the opportunities for supportive care to lessen the burden of the disease on patients and families. Perhaps even more important, early diagnosis is vital to family planning. Since the American pediatrician Sylvester Sanfilippo, MD, first described this syndrome in 1963,⁷ the genetic profile and many of the features of the disease have become well characterized.⁸

ONeill_Glenn_Columbia_SC_WEB.jpg

Sanfilippo facial phonotype_WEB.jpg

Diagnosis: Signs and symptoms

Despite the differences in progression of the MPS III subtypes, the clinical characteristics are more similar than different. In all patients, prenatal and infant development are typically normal. The initial signs of disease can be found in the newborn, such as neonatal tachypnea, through the early infancy period, such as macrocephaly. However, these are not commonly recognized until about age 1 or soon after in those with MPS IIIA and IIIB.³ Speech delay is the first developmental delay seen in most patients. In those with MPS IIIC, initial symptoms are typically detected at age 3 or later and progress more slowly.^10,11 The same is likely to be true of MPS IIID, although this subtype is less well characterized than the other three.⁷

Although many organs can be involved, degeneration of the CNS is regarded as the most characteristic.³ In aggressive disease, this includes slower acquisition of and failure to meet developmental milestones with progressive intellectual disability, while behavioral difficulties are a more common initial compliant in children with milder disease.^13,14 These behavioral changes include hyperactivity, inattention, autistic behaviors, worsening safety awareness, and in some cases aggressive behavior that can be destructive. Sleep disturbances are common.¹⁵Because of variability inherent in descriptions of relatively small numbers of patients, the characterization of each of the MPS III subgroups is based on a limited number of small studies, but most patients demonstrate behavior disorders, have coarse facial features, and develop speech delay, according to a survey conducted of published studies.⁷ Collectively, abnormal behavior was identified as an early symptom in 77% of those with MPS IIIA, 69% of those with IIIB, and 77% of those with IIIC.

For MPS IIIA, loss of speech was observed at a median age of 3.8 years and loss of walking ability at 10.4 years. The median survival has been reported to range between 13 and 18 years. In children with MPS IIIB, the median age of speech loss was reported to about the same age, while loss of walking ability occurred at 11 years. In one study of MPS IIIB, 24% of patients had developed dementia by age 6 years, and the reported median survival has ranged between 17 and 19 years. For MPS IIIC, the onset of clinical symptoms has been observed at a median age of 3.5 years with evidence of cognitive loss observed in 33% of children by the age of 6 years. The median survival has ranged from 19 to 34 years in three studies tracing the natural history of this MPS III subtype.

The differential diagnosis reasonably includes other types of mucopolysaccharidosis disorders with cognitive impairment, including Hurler, Hunter, or Sly syndromes, other neurodevelopmental disorders, and inborn errors of metabolism. The heterogeneity of the features makes definitive laboratory or genetic testing, rather than the effort to differentiate clinical features, appropriate for a definitive diagnosis.

Once the diagnosis is made, other examinations for the common complications of Sanfilippo syndrome are appropriate. Abdominal imaging is appropriate for detecting complications in the gastrointestinal tract, including hepatomegaly, which has been reported in more than half of patients with MPS IIIA and IIIB and in 39% of patients with IIIC.⁷ In patients with breathing concerns at night and/or sleep disturbance, polysomnography can be useful for identifying sleep apnea and nocturnal seizure activity. In children suspected of seizures, EEG is appropriate. In one study, 66% of patients with MPS IIIA developed seizure activity.¹⁶ This has been less commonly reported in MPS IIIB and IIIC, ranging from 8% to 13%.¹⁵

Formal hearing evaluation is indicated for any child with speech delays. Hearing loss typically develops after the newborn period in Sanfilippo and may affect peak language acquisition if not treated, according to Dr. O’Neill.

Radiographic studies for dysostosis multiplex or other skeletal abnormalities are also appropriate based on clinical presentation.

Treatment: Present and future

In the absence of treatments to improve the prognosis of Sanfilippo syndrome, current management is based on supportive care and managing organ-specific complications. However, several strategies have proven viable in experimental models and led to clinical trials. None of these therapies has reached approval yet, but several have been associated with attenuation of biomarkers of MPS III disease activity.

Of nearly 30 Sanfilippo clinical trials conducted over the past 20 years, at least 9 have now been completed.⁵ In addition to studying gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy, these trials have included stem cell transplantation and substrate reduction therapy, for which the goal is to reduce synthesis of the heparan sulfate GAG to prevent accumulation.⁵ Of this latter approach, promising initial results with genistein, an isoflavone that breaks down heparan sulfate, reached a phase 3 evaluation.¹⁸ Although heparan sulfate levels in the CNS were non-significantly reduced over the course of the trial, the reduction was not sufficient to attenuate cognitive decline.

In other LSDs, several forms of enzyme replacement therapy are now approved. In Fabry disease, for example, recombinant alpha-galactosidase A has now been used for more than 15 years.¹⁹ Clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome because of the difficulty of delivering these therapies past the blood-brain barrier. Several strategies have been pursued. For example, intrathecal delivery of recombinant heparan-N-sulfatase reduced CNS levels of GAG heparan sulfate in one phase 2B study, but it approached but fell short of the statistical significance for the primary endpoint of predefined cognitive stabilization.²⁰ The signal of activity and generally acceptable tolerability has encouraged further study, including an ongoing study with promising interim results of intracerebroventricular enzyme replacement in MPS IIIB, according to Dr. O’Neill.

Acceptable safety and promising activity on disease biomarkers have also been seen with gene therapy in clinical trials. In one study that showed attenuation of brain atrophy, there was moderate improvement in behavior and sleep in three of the four patients enrolled.²¹ Other studies using various strategies for gene delivery have also produced signals of activity against the underlying pathology, generating persistent interest in ongoing and planned clinical studies with this form of treatment.²²Unmodified hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), an approach that has demonstrated efficacy when delivered early in the course of other LSDs, such as Hurler syndrome,²³ has not yet been associated with significant activity in clinical studies of MPS III, including those that initiated treatment prior to the onset of neurological symptoms.²⁴ However, promising early results have been reported in a study of gene-modified HSCT, which overexpresses the MPS IIIA enzyme.

“The clinical trial landscape fluctuates quite a bit, so I always encourage clinicians and families to check back often for updates. Patient organizations can also be helpful for understanding the most up-to-date and emerging trial options,” Dr. O’Neill reported.

Although it is expected that the greatest benefit would be derived from treatments initiated before or very early after the onset of symptoms, based on the limited potential for reversing cognitive loss, Dr. O’Neill said that she and others are also striving to offer treatments for individuals now living with Sanfilippo syndrome.

“We have to be willing to test treatments that are symptomatic in nature. To that aim, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation has sponsored a study of a CNS-penetrating anti-inflammatory agent in advanced-disease patients more than 4 years of age,” Dr. O’Neill said. This group of patients typically been ineligible for clinical trials in the past. Dr. O’Neill hopes to change this orientation.

“It is important to highlight that all patients deserve our efforts to improve their quality of life and alleviate suffering, regardless of how old they are or how progressed in the disease they happen to be,” she said.

However, whether the goal is enrollment before or early in disease or later in disease progression, the challenge of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to confirm clinical activity has been and continues to be a hurdle to progress.

“Clinical studies in Sanfilippo enroll relatively small numbers of patients, often 20 or less,” said Dr. O’Neill, explaining one of the reasons why her organization has been so active in raising awareness and funding such studies. For patients and families, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation can offer a variety of guidance and support, but information about opportunities for clinical trial participation is a key resource they provide for families and their physicians.
 

Conclusion

For most children with Sanfilippo syndrome, life expectancy is limited. However, the characterization of the genetic causes and the biochemistry of the subtypes has led to several viable therapeutic approaches under development. There has been progress in delivery of therapeutic enzymes to the CNS, and there is substantial optimism that more progress is coming. One issue for treatment development, is the last of a clear regulatory pathway addressing important biomarkers of pathology, such as heparan sulfate burden. Developing treatments that address this issue or impaired enzyme activity levels have promise for preventing progression, particularly if started in infancy. However, the effort to draw awareness to this disease is the first step toward accelerating the time to an early diagnosis and subsequent opportunities to enroll in clinical trials.

References

1. Sun A. Lysosomal storage disease overview. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Dec;6(24):476. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.11.39.

2. Andrade F et al. Sanfilippo syndrome: Overall review. Pediatr Int. 2015 Jun;57(3):331-8. doi: 10.1111/ped.12636.

3. Fedele AO. Sanfilippo syndrome: Causes, consequences, and treatments. Appl Clin Genet. 2015 Nov 25;8:269-81. doi: 10.2147/TACG.S57672.

4. Lavery C et al. Mortality in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Oct 23;12(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0717-y.

5. Pearse Y et al. A cure for Sanfilippo syndrome? A summary of current therapeutic approaches and their promise. Med Res Arch. 2020 Feb 1;8(2). doi: 10.18103/mra.v8i2.2045.

6. Kuiper GA et al. Failure to shorten the diagnostic delay in two ultrao-rphan diseases (mucopolysaccharidosis types I and III): potential causes and implication. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:2. Doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0733-y.

7. Zelei T et al. Epidemiology of Sanfilippo syndrome: Results of a systematic literature review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Apr 10;13(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0796-4.

8. Wagner VF, Northrup H. Mucopolysaccaharidosis type III. Gene Reviews. 2019 Sep 19. University of Washington, Seattle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546574/8.

9. O’Neill C et al. Natural history of facial features observed in Sanfilippo syndrome (MPS IIIB) using a next generation phenotyping tool. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126:S112.

10. Ruijter GJ et al. Clinical and genetic spectrum of Sanfilippo type C (MPS IIIC) disease in the Netherlands. Mol Genet Metab. 2008 Feb;93(2):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.09.011.

11. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIID: 12 new patients and 15 novel mutations. Hum Mutat. 2010 May;31(5):E1348-60. doi: 10.1002/humu.21234.

12. Nijmeijer SCM. The attenuated end of phenotypic spectrum in MPS III: from late-onset stable cognitive impairment to non-neuronopathic phenotype. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14:249. Doi10.1186/s13023-019-1232-0.

13. Nidiffer FD, Kelly TE. Developmental and degenerative patterns associated with cognitive, behavioural and motor difficulties in the Sanfilippo syndrome: An epidemiological study. J Ment Defic Res. 1983 Sep;27 (Pt 3):185-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1983.tb00291.x.

14. Bax MC, Colville GA. Behaviour in mucopolysaccharide disorders. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jul;73(1):77-81. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.77.

15. Fraser J et al. Sleep disturbance in mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A survey of managing clinicians. Clin Genet. 2002 Nov;62(5):418-21. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.620512.x.

16. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: Clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations. Ann Neurol. 2010 Dec;68(6):876-87. doi: 10.1002/ana.22092.

17. Heron B et al. Incidence and natural history of mucopolysaccharidosis type III in France and comparison with United Kingdom and Greece. Am J Med Genet A. 2011 Jan;155A(1):58-68. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33779.

18. Delgadillo V et al. Genistein supplementation in patients affected by Sanfilippo disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2011 Oct;34(5):1039-44. doi: 10.1007/s10545-011-9342-4.

19. van der Veen SJ et al. Developments in the treatment of Fabry disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2020 Sep;43(5):908-21. doi: 10.1002/jimd.12228.

20. Wijburg FA et al. Intrathecal heparan-N-sulfatase in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome type A: A phase IIb randomized trial. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126(2):121-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.10.006.

21. Tardieu M et al. Intracerebral administration of adeno-associated viral vector serotype rh.10 carrying human SGSH and SUMF1 cDNAs in children with mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA disease: Results of a phase I/II trial. Hum Gene Ther. 2014 Jun;25(6):506-16. doi: 10.1089/hum.2013.238.

22. Marco S et al. In vivo gene therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A new treatment horizon. Hum Gene Ther. 2019 Oct;30(10):1211-1121. doi: 10.1089/hum.2019.217.

23. Taylor M et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for mucopolysaccharidoses: Past, present, and future. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Jul;25(7):e226-e246. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.02.012.

24. Sivakumur P, Wraith JE. Bone marrow transplantation in mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: A comparison of an early treated patient with his untreated sibling. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1999 Oct;22(7):849-50. doi: 10.1023/a:1005526628598.

With the goal of advancing treatment of rare neurological diseases – or rare diseases of any type – the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) has launched innovative new research initiatives in recent years to help patient advocacy organizations develop a precious asset: data to support better understanding of diseases and research that might lead to life-altering diagnostics or treatments.

Fink_Aliza_DC_web.jpg

Data empowers research

While NORD helps groups through the IAMRARE program to become research-ready and guides them in developing research protocols and goals, the data are ultimately owned by the patient advocacy groups themselves. This helps to ensure that the patient voice is heard. By controlling data collection and dissemination, the advocacy groups can take a leading role in defining the goals of research, including what outcome measures are important to them and what they agree are the most promising avenues for research to achieve those goals.

“By collecting the data to understand the disease, it sets the stage for the next steps in research,” explained Debbie Drell, the director of membership for NORD. She noted that IAMRARE has grown steadily since its inception in 2014 and that there are now close to 40 advocacy groups participating.

The value of this initiative is not difficult to grasp. Even though direct participation in research was not generally part of the agenda for some advocacy groups when IAMRARE was conceived, Ms. Drell said that this initiative is a compelling perk of becoming involved with NORD. Groups that elect to become research-ready in order to participate in IAMRARE fall into a category of membership that requires specific organizational structures – such as a medical advisory board – and NORD provides templates and guidance to help them meet these qualifications to successfully become research-ready.
 

Collaboration leads to progress

NORD was founded by an ad hoc committee of patient organizations that played a key role in enactment of the Orphan Drug Act nearly 40 years ago. Shortly after the Orphan Drug Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, the ad hoc committee formally united to create NORD to continue the momentum of this initial collaboration and support the rare disease community. According to Mary Dunkle, a senior advisor at NORD, passage of the Orphan Drug Act, which is widely considered a major driver of progress in development of treatments for rare diseases, made the advantages of their cooperation clear.

“The groups had so many issues in common across the spectrum of diseases that they decided to continue their collaboration,” she explained. ”They realized that, while each disease is rare, the challenges they present to patients, families, clinicians, and researchers have many similarities.”

The definition of rare disease, according to the National Institutes of Health, is a disorder that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. More than 7,000 such disorders have been identified. Approximately one-third of rare diseases are neurological. Whether neurological or affecting different or multiple organ systems, most – perhaps 75%-80% – involve a genetic component, according to Ms. Dunkle.
 

Research reaps rewards

Altogether, today there are more than 1,000 patient organizations that provide various types of support and services for patients and caregivers affected by rare diseases. Approximately one-third of these organizations are members of NORD. For organizations that don’t yet meet the membership criteria or for other reasons have not yet formally joined NORD, there are still many opportunities to get involved and to learn best practices to strengthen their governance, infrastructure, and capacity to support their members.

Of these, the IAMRARE program is one of the best examples of ways to get involved. Beyond the many other ways these groups help patients and families cope with challenging diseases, participation in research takes rare disorder advocacy to a different level. Objective data can attract the attention of those with the resources to further study the disease, while also giving advocacy groups a seat at the table when researchers or industry become interested.

“Why create a registry? It removes competition between academic centers or industry working on their own. It creates one central source for data-sharing, and the advantage is that advocacy groups have a trusted relationship with the patient community because they are not-for-profit, community-run, and patient-driven,” Ms. Drell explained.

The registry platforms developed for IAMRARE are customizable. With guidance from NORD, the advocacy groups themselves decide what data to collect and what questions they wish to answer, according to Dr. Fink. Once the registries are created, patients and caregivers participate by responding to survey questions on disease onset, progression over time, types and severity of symptoms, and other topics. The data can be de-identified for research purposes. The advocacy groups decide how and when to share the data, including whether to publish findings.

“Some of the groups have been very successful in getting the data published and leveraging their results to drive research forward, but there is variability in the extent of dissemination across the groups,” said Dr. Fink. She noted that many of the registries that NORD has helped set up involve groups whose officers have had little or no prior research experience.

“We have advocacy groups that have had biomedical researchers on staff and other groups that are coming to research completely new,” Dr. Fink said. In trying to get them up to speed on quality data collection, “We try to meet them where they are,” she added, indicating that leading groups to a research-ready status is not just about logistics but can sometimes involve an organizational reorientation.

The examples of peer-reviewed publications that can be directly traced to IAMRARE registries are growing. One example is a registry on Prader-Willi syndrome, which is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by failure to thrive and by multiple endocrine abnormalities. The registry was developed in NORD’s IAMRARE program by the Foundation for Prader-Willi Research, a nonprofit created in 2003 by parents of children with this disorder.

By 2019, when the first data from the Global Prader-Willi Syndrome Registry were published, they drew from 23,550 surveys completed for 1,696 separate cases of the disorder in 37 countries. The surveys provided some preliminary findings on demographics and on the genetic subtypes most commonly encountered, as well as simply proof that the registry was viable. From its inception in 2015, a significant proportion of the Prader-Willi population in the United States had been enrolled, according to the study authors. With time, the serial accumulation of more data on more cases will be invaluable for documenting disease characteristics. It will be a constantly maturing resource even after fundamental questions on disease impact and prognosis are addressed.
 

Data accumulation

Only about 10% of rare diseases currently have approved treatments, but there is widespread belief in the rare community that collecting and analyzing the data that can promote understanding of the biology of the disease and identify therapeutic targets could accelerate the development of treatments for diseases that currently have none.

Therefore, data accumulation has become central to the mission of NORD. In addition to IAMRARE, the organization has embarked on several other important initiatives in data accumulation for rare diseases. One is the Rare Disease Cures Accelerator – Data and Analytics Platform (RDCA-DAP), an initiative in which NORD is partnering with the Critical Path Institute. The goal of this program is to gather disparate pools of existing data in a standardized format to increase their power.

“With funding from the Food and Drug Administration, we have helped to support this platform, which is designed specifically to provide a centralized structure for combining and sharing of data,” according to Dr. Fink. In RDCA-DAP, patient-level data is being assembled from a variety of resources, including academic centers, industry, registries, observational studies, and clinical trials. The program was launched in September 2021. In some cases, gaining access to data includes resolving privacy issues or addressing the proprietary concerns of those who currently have the data, but the value of the combined data is a compelling argument for participation.

“What we are trying to do is pull together the data from their current silos into one platform, and then make it generally available,” said Dr. Fink. As with IAMRARE, RDCA-DAP offers enormous potential.

“The primary challenge for those studying rare diseases is the small numbers of patients. Randomized clinical trials for some of these diseases are simply not feasible because there are not enough subjects to power two study arms,” said Dr. Fink in explaining why NORD has turned to novel strategies for data generation. One strategy for maximizing the potential value of data from these small populations of patients is data-sharing. For RDCA-DAP, data access will be open to all stakeholders after scientific review and approval.

“Anyone can get an account and request data from the platform,” said Dr. Fink, who expects this to spur more and novel types of research in rare disorders.

Another example of recent NORD initiatives to advance research and understanding of rare diseases is a study of metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) that is now enrolling patients, which also represents a partnership with the FDA. For this study, which is known as the HOME study, NORD hosts a platform where patients and caregivers enter data to capture the natural history of this disease. All MLD patients, even if they are already participating in a clinical trial or another registry, are invited. As with the IAMRARE registries, surveys capture patient or caregiver responses entered from a computer or smart device.

“We have always believed that the fact that so many rare diseases don’t have treatments or are not even being studied by researchers doesn’t reflect a lack of interest among academic or industry researchers. Rather, it reflects a lack of data to support research and to provide a fundamental understanding of the disease,” Dr. Fink said. “If NORD’s expanded research programs can draw the patient community together to provide that crucially needed data, we will have provided an important and essential service to patients, patient organizations, and researchers alike.”

Theodore Bosworth is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.

With the goal of advancing treatment of rare neurological diseases – or rare diseases of any type – the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) has launched innovative new research initiatives in recent years to help patient advocacy organizations develop a precious asset: data to support better understanding of diseases and research that might lead to life-altering diagnostics or treatments.

Fink_Aliza_DC_web.jpg

Data empowers research

While NORD helps groups through the IAMRARE program to become research-ready and guides them in developing research protocols and goals, the data are ultimately owned by the patient advocacy groups themselves. This helps to ensure that the patient voice is heard. By controlling data collection and dissemination, the advocacy groups can take a leading role in defining the goals of research, including what outcome measures are important to them and what they agree are the most promising avenues for research to achieve those goals.

“By collecting the data to understand the disease, it sets the stage for the next steps in research,” explained Debbie Drell, the director of membership for NORD. She noted that IAMRARE has grown steadily since its inception in 2014 and that there are now close to 40 advocacy groups participating.

The value of this initiative is not difficult to grasp. Even though direct participation in research was not generally part of the agenda for some advocacy groups when IAMRARE was conceived, Ms. Drell said that this initiative is a compelling perk of becoming involved with NORD. Groups that elect to become research-ready in order to participate in IAMRARE fall into a category of membership that requires specific organizational structures – such as a medical advisory board – and NORD provides templates and guidance to help them meet these qualifications to successfully become research-ready.
 

Collaboration leads to progress

NORD was founded by an ad hoc committee of patient organizations that played a key role in enactment of the Orphan Drug Act nearly 40 years ago. Shortly after the Orphan Drug Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, the ad hoc committee formally united to create NORD to continue the momentum of this initial collaboration and support the rare disease community. According to Mary Dunkle, a senior advisor at NORD, passage of the Orphan Drug Act, which is widely considered a major driver of progress in development of treatments for rare diseases, made the advantages of their cooperation clear.

“The groups had so many issues in common across the spectrum of diseases that they decided to continue their collaboration,” she explained. ”They realized that, while each disease is rare, the challenges they present to patients, families, clinicians, and researchers have many similarities.”

The definition of rare disease, according to the National Institutes of Health, is a disorder that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. More than 7,000 such disorders have been identified. Approximately one-third of rare diseases are neurological. Whether neurological or affecting different or multiple organ systems, most – perhaps 75%-80% – involve a genetic component, according to Ms. Dunkle.
 

Research reaps rewards

Altogether, today there are more than 1,000 patient organizations that provide various types of support and services for patients and caregivers affected by rare diseases. Approximately one-third of these organizations are members of NORD. For organizations that don’t yet meet the membership criteria or for other reasons have not yet formally joined NORD, there are still many opportunities to get involved and to learn best practices to strengthen their governance, infrastructure, and capacity to support their members.

Of these, the IAMRARE program is one of the best examples of ways to get involved. Beyond the many other ways these groups help patients and families cope with challenging diseases, participation in research takes rare disorder advocacy to a different level. Objective data can attract the attention of those with the resources to further study the disease, while also giving advocacy groups a seat at the table when researchers or industry become interested.

“Why create a registry? It removes competition between academic centers or industry working on their own. It creates one central source for data-sharing, and the advantage is that advocacy groups have a trusted relationship with the patient community because they are not-for-profit, community-run, and patient-driven,” Ms. Drell explained.

The registry platforms developed for IAMRARE are customizable. With guidance from NORD, the advocacy groups themselves decide what data to collect and what questions they wish to answer, according to Dr. Fink. Once the registries are created, patients and caregivers participate by responding to survey questions on disease onset, progression over time, types and severity of symptoms, and other topics. The data can be de-identified for research purposes. The advocacy groups decide how and when to share the data, including whether to publish findings.

“Some of the groups have been very successful in getting the data published and leveraging their results to drive research forward, but there is variability in the extent of dissemination across the groups,” said Dr. Fink. She noted that many of the registries that NORD has helped set up involve groups whose officers have had little or no prior research experience.

“We have advocacy groups that have had biomedical researchers on staff and other groups that are coming to research completely new,” Dr. Fink said. In trying to get them up to speed on quality data collection, “We try to meet them where they are,” she added, indicating that leading groups to a research-ready status is not just about logistics but can sometimes involve an organizational reorientation.

The examples of peer-reviewed publications that can be directly traced to IAMRARE registries are growing. One example is a registry on Prader-Willi syndrome, which is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by failure to thrive and by multiple endocrine abnormalities. The registry was developed in NORD’s IAMRARE program by the Foundation for Prader-Willi Research, a nonprofit created in 2003 by parents of children with this disorder.

By 2019, when the first data from the Global Prader-Willi Syndrome Registry were published, they drew from 23,550 surveys completed for 1,696 separate cases of the disorder in 37 countries. The surveys provided some preliminary findings on demographics and on the genetic subtypes most commonly encountered, as well as simply proof that the registry was viable. From its inception in 2015, a significant proportion of the Prader-Willi population in the United States had been enrolled, according to the study authors. With time, the serial accumulation of more data on more cases will be invaluable for documenting disease characteristics. It will be a constantly maturing resource even after fundamental questions on disease impact and prognosis are addressed.
 

Data accumulation

Only about 10% of rare diseases currently have approved treatments, but there is widespread belief in the rare community that collecting and analyzing the data that can promote understanding of the biology of the disease and identify therapeutic targets could accelerate the development of treatments for diseases that currently have none.

Therefore, data accumulation has become central to the mission of NORD. In addition to IAMRARE, the organization has embarked on several other important initiatives in data accumulation for rare diseases. One is the Rare Disease Cures Accelerator – Data and Analytics Platform (RDCA-DAP), an initiative in which NORD is partnering with the Critical Path Institute. The goal of this program is to gather disparate pools of existing data in a standardized format to increase their power.

“With funding from the Food and Drug Administration, we have helped to support this platform, which is designed specifically to provide a centralized structure for combining and sharing of data,” according to Dr. Fink. In RDCA-DAP, patient-level data is being assembled from a variety of resources, including academic centers, industry, registries, observational studies, and clinical trials. The program was launched in September 2021. In some cases, gaining access to data includes resolving privacy issues or addressing the proprietary concerns of those who currently have the data, but the value of the combined data is a compelling argument for participation.

“What we are trying to do is pull together the data from their current silos into one platform, and then make it generally available,” said Dr. Fink. As with IAMRARE, RDCA-DAP offers enormous potential.

“The primary challenge for those studying rare diseases is the small numbers of patients. Randomized clinical trials for some of these diseases are simply not feasible because there are not enough subjects to power two study arms,” said Dr. Fink in explaining why NORD has turned to novel strategies for data generation. One strategy for maximizing the potential value of data from these small populations of patients is data-sharing. For RDCA-DAP, data access will be open to all stakeholders after scientific review and approval.

“Anyone can get an account and request data from the platform,” said Dr. Fink, who expects this to spur more and novel types of research in rare disorders.

Another example of recent NORD initiatives to advance research and understanding of rare diseases is a study of metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) that is now enrolling patients, which also represents a partnership with the FDA. For this study, which is known as the HOME study, NORD hosts a platform where patients and caregivers enter data to capture the natural history of this disease. All MLD patients, even if they are already participating in a clinical trial or another registry, are invited. As with the IAMRARE registries, surveys capture patient or caregiver responses entered from a computer or smart device.

“We have always believed that the fact that so many rare diseases don’t have treatments or are not even being studied by researchers doesn’t reflect a lack of interest among academic or industry researchers. Rather, it reflects a lack of data to support research and to provide a fundamental understanding of the disease,” Dr. Fink said. “If NORD’s expanded research programs can draw the patient community together to provide that crucially needed data, we will have provided an important and essential service to patients, patient organizations, and researchers alike.”

Theodore Bosworth is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.

With the goal of advancing treatment of rare neurological diseases – or rare diseases of any type – the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) has launched innovative new research initiatives in recent years to help patient advocacy organizations develop a precious asset: data to support better understanding of diseases and research that might lead to life-altering diagnostics or treatments.

Fink_Aliza_DC_web.jpg

Data empowers research

While NORD helps groups through the IAMRARE program to become research-ready and guides them in developing research protocols and goals, the data are ultimately owned by the patient advocacy groups themselves. This helps to ensure that the patient voice is heard. By controlling data collection and dissemination, the advocacy groups can take a leading role in defining the goals of research, including what outcome measures are important to them and what they agree are the most promising avenues for research to achieve those goals.

“By collecting the data to understand the disease, it sets the stage for the next steps in research,” explained Debbie Drell, the director of membership for NORD. She noted that IAMRARE has grown steadily since its inception in 2014 and that there are now close to 40 advocacy groups participating.

The value of this initiative is not difficult to grasp. Even though direct participation in research was not generally part of the agenda for some advocacy groups when IAMRARE was conceived, Ms. Drell said that this initiative is a compelling perk of becoming involved with NORD. Groups that elect to become research-ready in order to participate in IAMRARE fall into a category of membership that requires specific organizational structures – such as a medical advisory board – and NORD provides templates and guidance to help them meet these qualifications to successfully become research-ready.
 

Collaboration leads to progress

NORD was founded by an ad hoc committee of patient organizations that played a key role in enactment of the Orphan Drug Act nearly 40 years ago. Shortly after the Orphan Drug Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, the ad hoc committee formally united to create NORD to continue the momentum of this initial collaboration and support the rare disease community. According to Mary Dunkle, a senior advisor at NORD, passage of the Orphan Drug Act, which is widely considered a major driver of progress in development of treatments for rare diseases, made the advantages of their cooperation clear.

“The groups had so many issues in common across the spectrum of diseases that they decided to continue their collaboration,” she explained. ”They realized that, while each disease is rare, the challenges they present to patients, families, clinicians, and researchers have many similarities.”

The definition of rare disease, according to the National Institutes of Health, is a disorder that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. More than 7,000 such disorders have been identified. Approximately one-third of rare diseases are neurological. Whether neurological or affecting different or multiple organ systems, most – perhaps 75%-80% – involve a genetic component, according to Ms. Dunkle.
 

Research reaps rewards

Altogether, today there are more than 1,000 patient organizations that provide various types of support and services for patients and caregivers affected by rare diseases. Approximately one-third of these organizations are members of NORD. For organizations that don’t yet meet the membership criteria or for other reasons have not yet formally joined NORD, there are still many opportunities to get involved and to learn best practices to strengthen their governance, infrastructure, and capacity to support their members.

Of these, the IAMRARE program is one of the best examples of ways to get involved. Beyond the many other ways these groups help patients and families cope with challenging diseases, participation in research takes rare disorder advocacy to a different level. Objective data can attract the attention of those with the resources to further study the disease, while also giving advocacy groups a seat at the table when researchers or industry become interested.

“Why create a registry? It removes competition between academic centers or industry working on their own. It creates one central source for data-sharing, and the advantage is that advocacy groups have a trusted relationship with the patient community because they are not-for-profit, community-run, and patient-driven,” Ms. Drell explained.

The registry platforms developed for IAMRARE are customizable. With guidance from NORD, the advocacy groups themselves decide what data to collect and what questions they wish to answer, according to Dr. Fink. Once the registries are created, patients and caregivers participate by responding to survey questions on disease onset, progression over time, types and severity of symptoms, and other topics. The data can be de-identified for research purposes. The advocacy groups decide how and when to share the data, including whether to publish findings.

“Some of the groups have been very successful in getting the data published and leveraging their results to drive research forward, but there is variability in the extent of dissemination across the groups,” said Dr. Fink. She noted that many of the registries that NORD has helped set up involve groups whose officers have had little or no prior research experience.

“We have advocacy groups that have had biomedical researchers on staff and other groups that are coming to research completely new,” Dr. Fink said. In trying to get them up to speed on quality data collection, “We try to meet them where they are,” she added, indicating that leading groups to a research-ready status is not just about logistics but can sometimes involve an organizational reorientation.

The examples of peer-reviewed publications that can be directly traced to IAMRARE registries are growing. One example is a registry on Prader-Willi syndrome, which is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by failure to thrive and by multiple endocrine abnormalities. The registry was developed in NORD’s IAMRARE program by the Foundation for Prader-Willi Research, a nonprofit created in 2003 by parents of children with this disorder.

By 2019, when the first data from the Global Prader-Willi Syndrome Registry were published, they drew from 23,550 surveys completed for 1,696 separate cases of the disorder in 37 countries. The surveys provided some preliminary findings on demographics and on the genetic subtypes most commonly encountered, as well as simply proof that the registry was viable. From its inception in 2015, a significant proportion of the Prader-Willi population in the United States had been enrolled, according to the study authors. With time, the serial accumulation of more data on more cases will be invaluable for documenting disease characteristics. It will be a constantly maturing resource even after fundamental questions on disease impact and prognosis are addressed.
 

Data accumulation

Only about 10% of rare diseases currently have approved treatments, but there is widespread belief in the rare community that collecting and analyzing the data that can promote understanding of the biology of the disease and identify therapeutic targets could accelerate the development of treatments for diseases that currently have none.

Therefore, data accumulation has become central to the mission of NORD. In addition to IAMRARE, the organization has embarked on several other important initiatives in data accumulation for rare diseases. One is the Rare Disease Cures Accelerator – Data and Analytics Platform (RDCA-DAP), an initiative in which NORD is partnering with the Critical Path Institute. The goal of this program is to gather disparate pools of existing data in a standardized format to increase their power.

“With funding from the Food and Drug Administration, we have helped to support this platform, which is designed specifically to provide a centralized structure for combining and sharing of data,” according to Dr. Fink. In RDCA-DAP, patient-level data is being assembled from a variety of resources, including academic centers, industry, registries, observational studies, and clinical trials. The program was launched in September 2021. In some cases, gaining access to data includes resolving privacy issues or addressing the proprietary concerns of those who currently have the data, but the value of the combined data is a compelling argument for participation.

“What we are trying to do is pull together the data from their current silos into one platform, and then make it generally available,” said Dr. Fink. As with IAMRARE, RDCA-DAP offers enormous potential.

“The primary challenge for those studying rare diseases is the small numbers of patients. Randomized clinical trials for some of these diseases are simply not feasible because there are not enough subjects to power two study arms,” said Dr. Fink in explaining why NORD has turned to novel strategies for data generation. One strategy for maximizing the potential value of data from these small populations of patients is data-sharing. For RDCA-DAP, data access will be open to all stakeholders after scientific review and approval.

“Anyone can get an account and request data from the platform,” said Dr. Fink, who expects this to spur more and novel types of research in rare disorders.

Another example of recent NORD initiatives to advance research and understanding of rare diseases is a study of metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) that is now enrolling patients, which also represents a partnership with the FDA. For this study, which is known as the HOME study, NORD hosts a platform where patients and caregivers enter data to capture the natural history of this disease. All MLD patients, even if they are already participating in a clinical trial or another registry, are invited. As with the IAMRARE registries, surveys capture patient or caregiver responses entered from a computer or smart device.

“We have always believed that the fact that so many rare diseases don’t have treatments or are not even being studied by researchers doesn’t reflect a lack of interest among academic or industry researchers. Rather, it reflects a lack of data to support research and to provide a fundamental understanding of the disease,” Dr. Fink said. “If NORD’s expanded research programs can draw the patient community together to provide that crucially needed data, we will have provided an important and essential service to patients, patient organizations, and researchers alike.”

Theodore Bosworth is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.