Luciano Vittozzi

Newborn screening programmes in Europe; arguments and efforts regarding harmonization. Part 1 - From blood spot to screening result

In many European countries neonatal screening has been introduced over the last 50xa0years as an important public health programme. Depending on health care structure, available funds, local politics, input from professional groups, parent groups, and the general public this introduction has led to different approaches in the way the screening programmes have been set up, financed and governed. To get some insight about the current situation, in 2009 the European Union, via its EAHC agency, put out a call for a tender that was acquired by our project group. An online survey was compiled in which the whole screening programme was covered by a questionnaire. This survey covered the EU member states, (potential) candidate member states and EFTA countries, in total 40 countries. Results showed little consensus concerning 1. information of parents including informed consent; 2. which conditions are screened for, ranging from 1 to around 30 conditions; 3. sampling time post partum; 4. screening methodology including cut-offs values even between screening laboratories within countries.; 5. storage of residual specimens, varying from 3xa0months to 1000 years. In addition, confirmatory diagnostics and follow-up also show large discrepancies (Burgard et al. http://www.iss.it/cnmr/prog/cont.php?id=1621&lang=1&tipo=64 2011). In addition to the current practices report an expert opinion document has been produced with recommendations to the EU Commission for future improvements, e.g. in parallel to the way the USA has harmonized its practices based on recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics (Watson et al., Pediatrics 117: S296-S307, 2006).

Newborn screening programmes in Europe; arguments and efforts regarding harmonization. Part 2. From screening laboratory results to treatment, follow-up and quality assurance

In a survey conducted in 2010/2011 data from the 28 EU member states, four EU candidate states (Croatia, FYROM, Iceland, Turkey), three potential EU candidate states (Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia), and two EFTA states (Norway and Switzerland) were collected. The status and function of newborn screening (NBS) programmes were investigated from the information to prospective parents and the public via confirmation of a positive screening result up to decisions on treatment. This article summarises the results from screening laboratory findings to start of treatment. In addition we asked about the existence of feedback loops reporting the conclusions of confirmation of screening results to the screening laboratory and communication of long-term outcome to diagnostic units and possibly existing central registries. Parallel to the description of actual practices of where, how and by whom the different steps of the programmes are executed, we also asked for the existence of guidelines or directives regulating the screening programmes, material to support information of parents about diagnoses and treatment and training facilities for professionals involved in the programmes. This survey gives a first comprehensive overview of the steps following a positive screening result in European NBS programmes. The 37 data sets reveal substantial variation of national screening panels, but also a lot of similarities. Analysis across all countries revealed that actual practice is often organised but not regulated by guidelines. Material to inform patients is available more often for explaining treatment (69xa0%) than explaining the necessity of confirmatory diagnostics (41xa0%). Training of professionals is rarely regulated by a guideline (2xa0%), but is offered for paediatricians (40xa0%) and dieticians (29xa0%) and only rarely for other professions (e.g. geneticists, clinical nurse specialists, psychologists). Registry-based evaluation of long-term outcome is as yet almost nonexistent (3xa0%).

A framework to start the debate on neonatal screening policies in the EU: an Expert Opinion Document.

The European Union (EU) Council Recommendation on rare diseases urged the member states to implement national and EU collaborative actions to improve the health care of rare disease patients. Following this recommendation, the European Commission launched a tender on newborn screening (NBS) to report on current practices of laboratory testing, form a network of experts and provide guidance on how to further implement NBS screening in a responsible way, the latter of which was provided in an Expert Opinion document. After consultation of experts from EU member states, (potential) candidate member states and European Free Trade Association countries, in a consensus meeting in June 2011, 70 expert opinions were finalized. They included the need to develop case definitions for all disorders screened for to facilitate assessment and international outcome studies. Decision whether a screening program should be performed can be based on screening criteria updated from the traditional Wilson and Jungner (1968) criteria, relating to disease, treatment, test and cost. The interest of the child should be central in the assessment of pros and cons. A European NBS body should assess evidence on (new) screening candidate disorders. For rare conditions, best level evidence should be used. The health system should ensure treatment to cases diagnosed by screening, controlled and revised by follow-up outcome studies. Screening methodology should aim to avoid unintended findings, such as mild forms and carrier status information, as much as possible. Activities to improve NBS in Europe, such as training and scientific evaluation, could benefit from collaboration at EU level and beyond.

The current situation and needs of rare disease registries in Europe.

Background: Registries are considered key instruments for developing rare disease (RD) clinical research, enhancing patient care and health planning, and improving social, economic and quality-of-life outcomes. Indeed, it is usually the case that no single institution, and in many cases no single country, has sufficient data to provide results that can be applied broadly to clinical and translational research. However, the fragmentation and heterogeneity of the registries, which are often the result of spontaneous initiatives, limit the general applicability of their observations. Methods: An inquiry has been carried out by the EPIRARE, a European Union (EU)-funded project (‘Building Consensus and Synergies for the EU Registration of Rare Disease Patients) aiming at paving the way to the creation of a European Platform for RD Registries, by means of an on-line questionnaire among European RD registries on their main activities and needs, the way they deal with methodological, technical and regulatory issues and the way they find resources to carry on their activities. Results: In spite of the heterogeneity of the European registries, some elements of relevance for an action to improve the situation of patient registries in the EU are apparent. The needs more frequently indicated by registry holders were financial support, motivation of data providers, data quality assessment, improvement of communication and visibility, and extension of collaborations. Moreover, the registry holders were in favor of a common EU platform providing services for RD registries. Conclusion: It appears that the current situation of the European registries provides the transition towards a more uniform, higher quality and better coordinated approach.

The EPIRARE proposal of a set of indicators and common data elements for the European platform for rare disease registration

BackgroundThe European Union acknowledges the relevance of registries as key instruments for developing rare disease (RD) clinical research, improving patient care and health service (HS) planning and funded the EPIRARE project to improve standardization and data comparability among patient registries and to support new registries and data collections.MethodsA reference list of patient registry-based indicators has been prepared building on the work of previous EU projects and on the platform stakeholders’ information needs resulting from the EPIRARE surveys and consultations. The variables necessary to compute these indicators have been analysed for their scope and use and then organized in data domains.ResultsThe reference indicators span from disease surveillance, to socio-economic burden, HS monitoring, research and product development, policy equity and effectiveness. The variables necessary to compute these reference indicators have been selected and, with the exception of more sophisticated indicators for research and clinical care quality, they can be collected as data elements common (CDE) to all rare diseases. They have been organized in data domains characterized by their contents and main goal and a limited set of mandatory data elements has been defined, which allows case notification independently of the physician or the health service.ConclusionsThe definition of a set of CDE for the European platform for RD patient registration is the first step in the promotion of the use of common tools for the collection of comparable data. The proposed organization of the CDE contributes to the completeness of case ascertainment, with the possible involvement of patients and patient associations in the registration process.

National Registries of Rare Diseases in Europe: An Overview of the Current Situation and Experiences

The European Union (EU) policy for healthcare requires the establishment of a system of European Reference Networks, union-wide information databases, and registries for rare diseases (RDs) based on shared criteria. In pursuing its goals, the ‘Building Consensus and Synergies for the EU Registration of RD Patients in Europe (EPIRARE) project convened a meeting with experts of the competent health authorities to discuss the role of national institutional RD patient registries in supporting EU patient registration and the room for international cooperation. With this aim, this paper comparatively analyses the current situation of national institutional RD registries in the EU.

A Model for the European Platform for Rare Disease Registries

Background: The current situation of rare disease (RD) registries is rather heterogeneous, and new ways to support the registration of RD patients are being sought in the European Union (EU) and the US. The project ‘Building Consensus and Synergies for the EU Registration of RD Patients, funded by the EU, aimed to define a model platform for EU RD registries. Methods: A number of surveys and extensive consultations among registry stakeholders have been carried out to study how the platform can best fulfill their needs. Results: This web-based, multidisease and multipurpose platform is intended to provide a number of functions: a metadata and data repository function supporting the planning of research studies and the production of predefined outputs for the funding organizations and the public, provision of tools and resources of use to registries, promotion of registration and networking among patients and professionals. Conclusion: Its main impact is expected to be on data and procedures standardization, on the establishment of new registries, on the sustainability of the smaller ones, and on the registration of those RDs for which a dedicated registry is not sustainable, e.g. ultra-rare diseases or diseases for which there is no special research, clinical or economic interest. It will also impact on the production of sounder information on RD and RD-dedicated health systems, by promoting registry data comparability and quality.

EUROPLAN: A Project to Support the Development of National Plans on Rare Diseases in Europe

Background/Aims: National Plans for Rare Diseases (RDs) are the common denominator of current public health policy concerns on RDs across the EU. With the aim of a better distribution of the available resources, they conjugate the European objective that aims at ensuring that patients with RDs have access to high-quality care - including diagnostics, treatment and rehabilitation - with the national priorities of selecting specific measures for adoption and implementation. Methods: The European Project for Rare Diseases National Plans Development (EUROPLAN, www.europlanproject.eu) is cofunded by the EU Commission (DG-SANCO) and is coordinated by the Italian National Center for Rare Diseases of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS). The EUROPLAN goal is to promote the implementation of National Plans or Strategies to tackle RDs and share relevant experiences within countries, linking national efforts, through a common strategy at a European level. In order to fulfill these objectives, EUROPLAN involved health authorities, clinicians, scientists, the European Organisation for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS), and many other patient groups as associated and collaborating partners from several European countries. Results: The project was launched in 2008 and foresaw 2 implementation phases: phase 1 (2008-2011) to build the consensus definition of operational tools (recommendations and indicators), and the ongoing phase 2 (2012-2015), mainly aimed at capacity building with the proactive involvement of multilevel stakeholders. EUROPLAN is facilitating and accelerating the implementation of National Plans in almost all EU and several non-EU Countries. Conclusions: EUROPLAN is a European and an international process more than a project, and it could be defined as a ‘litmus test demonstrating how the collaboration between institutions and patients associations can accelerate the process of awareness and development of policies and actions.

Rare Disease Registries Classification and Characterization: A Data Mining Approach

Background: The European Commission and Patients Organizations identify rare disease registries (RDRs) as strategic instruments to develop research and improve knowledge in the field of rare diseases. Interoperability between RDRs is needed for research activities, validation of therapeutic treatments, and public health actions. Sharing and comparing information requires a uniform and standardized way of data collection, so levels of interconnection between RDRs with similar aims and/or nature of data should be identified. The objective of this study is to define a classification and characterization of RDRs in order to identify different profiles and informative needs. Methods: Exploratory statistical analyses (cluster analysis and random forest) were applied to data derived from the EPIRARE project (‘Building Consensus and Synergies for the EU Rare Disease Patient Registration) survey on the activities and needs of RDRs. Results: The cluster analysis identified 3 main typologies of RDRs: public health, clinical and genetic research, and treatment registries. The analysis of the most informative variables, identified by the random forest method, led to the characterization of 3 types of RDRs and the definition of different profiles and informative needs. Conclusions: These results represent a useful source of information to facilitate the harmonization and interconnection of RDRs in accordance with the different profiles identified. It could help sharing the information between RDRs with similar profiles and, whenever possible, interconnections between registries with different profiles.

Current status of Italian Registries on inherited bleeding disorders.

Inherited bleeding disorders are a group of congenital coagulopathies resulting when deficiencies of the proteins responsible for coagulation, platelet function or fibrinolysis occur. Haemophilia A (HA, deficiency of factor VIII), Haemophilia B (HB, deficiency of factor IX) and von Willebrand Disease (vWD) are the most frequent, being >90% of all inherited bleeding disorders with a prevalence of 0.5, 0.1 and 1–5/10,000 respectively1–3. Other rare inherited bleeding disorders are represented by deficiencies of factor I, II, V, VII, X, XI, XII, XIII, combined V+VIII, combined vitamin K-dependent factors, with a general population prevalence between 1/500,000 and 1/2,000,0004. Inherited bleeding disorders require wide-ranging care and effective management within a multidisciplinary team setting. The modern treatments of inherited bleeding disorders are now remarkably effective, although expensive. n nIn Italy the epidemiological data on inherited bleeding disorders derive from three registries: n n nThe Italian National Registry for Rare Diseases (RNMR); n n nThe National Registry of Congenital Coagulopathies (RNCC); n n nThe Haemophilia Database of the Italian Association of Haemophilia Centres (AICE). n n n nThese registries differ in terms of organisation, purpose and data collection process. A general description and results for each registry is reported as follow.