unsubscribe
19th October 2011
 
Poster and speaker abstracts now available
on TREAT-NMD conference website

With less than three weeks before the conference begins, final preparations for the TREAT-NMD conference are now almost complete. We have been delighted with the quality of the poster abstracts that we have received and all abstracts are now available to view on the conference website.

The final programme is now also complemented by a complete list of speaker abstracts that demonstrate not only the strength of the programme but the high calibre of speakers at the conference. Click each speaker's name to view the abstract of their talk.

Final places are still available for those wishing to attend, and we would recommend interested parties to visit the registration section.

 
 
 
The challenges of systemic delivery of AAV for neuromuscular
gene therapy: workshop report
back to top    

Meeting report

As part of their preclinical work within TREAT-NMD, TREAT-NMD partner Généthon arranged a one-day meeting of experts to discuss issues surrounding the preclinical evaluation of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors as a mechanism for systemic delivery of neuromuscular disease therapies. This is a critical step when moving from the research and development phase towards clinical studies. The many challenging questions surrounding mode of administration, animal models, biosafety issues and immune responses have meant there is still a lack of consensus between experts, and the primary goal of the meeting was an attempt to establish common ground. The meeting was split into four round-table sessions:

  • Round-table 1: Non-regulatory preclinical studies: route and dose rationales, safety pharmacology studies. What should be covered before toxicology studies? Moderator: Yves Fromes (Généthon, F). Panel: Jerry Mendell (Ohio State Univ., USA), George DICKSON (Royal Holloway – Univ. London UK), Patrick AUBOURG (Inserm, F), Amit Nathwani (UCL Cancer Institute, UK), Sophie LUCAS (Afssaps, F)
  • Round-table 2: Regulatory toxicology and biodistribution of the product: How to choose the best model(s) and protocol(s) in animals to forecast worst-case tox effects? (in the frame of the guidelines). This may include the AAV serotype issue (species tropism per serotype) Moderator: Valder Arruda (UPenn, USA). Panel: Patrick Gonin (IGR, F), Serge RICHARD (CERB, F), Didier CAIZERGUES (Généthon, F), Sophie LUCAS (Afssaps, F), Marc SONNEMANS (AMT, NL)
  • Round-table 3: Surgical (isolated limb local perfusion) potential side-effects and local toxicity: What is the best animal setting for a pertinent surgical model? Moderator: Jerry Mendell (Ohio State Univ., USA). Panel: Thomas Voit (Inst. de Myologie, F), Yves Fromes (Généthon, F), Jude SAMULSKI (UNC, USA), Louis CHICOINE (Ohio State Univ., USA), Kevin FLANIGAN (Ohio State Univ., F), Sumio Fukui (Paris, F)
  • Round-table 4: Immune response / immunotoxicology. What do we know about the potential immune-related side effects on efficacy and safety? Immune suppression? Moderator: Maria Cristina Galli (Inst. Sup. di Sanita, EMA). Panel: Jean DAVOUST (INSERM, F), Anne GALY (Généthon, F), Olivier Boyer (CHU, Rouen/F), Florence salmon (AMT, NL), Luk Vandenberghe (UPenn, USA)

Conclusions from the meeting

Animal models: The consensus is that regulatory toxicology studies should be performed in rodents, whereas other preclinical animal studies may be performed in other animal models. A summary of the relevance of different models (mdx mouse, grmd dog, non-human primate and pig) was provided.

Proof of concept/functionality data/evaluation of oncogenicity: Although proof of concept has to be based on the detection of a functional improvement in the animal model, this needs to be evaluated in the context of the drug in question. In some cases gene expression may be adequate for proof of concept, but functional improvement will have to be seen in a subsequent step. Questions over the percentage of dystrophin expression required, the lack of criteria for the evaluation of efficacy, and how to define the length of follow-up required to prove absence of oncogenicity were also discussed.

Route of administration (intramuscular, intravenous, loco-regional) - choice / immune reactions: Overall, the choice of the intramuscular (im) versus intravenous (iv) route of administration should be decided in light of the disease to be treated. In view of the necessity to treat the whole body and potential immunological problems associated with an im approach, the loco-regional /systemic administration approach should usually be the route of choice. Patients/parents and patient organisations should also be involved in this discussion as there is the possibility that an early phase im trial could prevent a patient being eligible for a later trial as they may have been ‘immunised’ against the AAV by the im trial. It was noted that immune response is a very serious issue and there is therefore much to justify planning of gene therapy treatments combined with immunosuppressive treatment.

Toxicology issues: Due to problems meeting all criteria for in vivo toxicology testing in cases where e.g. species-specific vectors would be required, toxicology testing is very challenging, and there are a number of highly controversial issues that even the regulators (EMA/FDA) may not completely coincide on. The EMA reflection paper GTWP/125459/2006 appears to support the following interpretations:

  • Same route and method of administration – unless otherwise justified.
  • The dosing should mimic the clinical use with appropriate safety margins
  • Only one species used: the most relevant one for expected toxicological effects, choice scientifically justified.
  • Single or repeated dose toxicity studies: depending on the prolonged functionality?
  • Use of a serotype specific for the animal model, in pivotal non-clinical studies, rather than the human serotype that will be used in clinical trial, could be acceptable.

However, these are still controversial areas, and the recommendation is therefore to discuss these issues as early as possible with the regulatory agencies and propose scientifically solid testing protocols which can be easily defended.

For full details of the meeting outcomes and the meeting report, please contact Otto Merten of Généthon.

 
 
 
 
CARE-NMD European DMD patient survey underway
back to top    

The CARE-NMD survey of patients and families living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is now underway in all seven of the project's partner countries.

If you are living with DMD in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Poland or the United Kingdom, and are registered in your National Patient Registry, you should have received an invitation to take part in the survey. If you are registered but have not yet received an invitation, please get in touch with your National Patient Registry directly.

CARE-NMD aims to improve the quality of care for DMD, and is surveying both those living with the condition and healthcare professionals with a view to identifying and tackling barriers faced by healthcare professionals in adopting the DMD Standards of Care.

 
 
 
 
EVELAM 2011
back to top    

EVELAM, the Escuela de Verano Latino-Americana de Miologia or Latin American Summer School in Myology is an annual short course in myology modelled on the Paris summer school that rotates through the countries of South America. Led by Andoni Urtizberea (Paris Summer School), Norma Romero (Institut de Myologie), Alberto Rosa (University of Cordoba) and Jorge Bevilacqua (University of Chile), each course is arranged with the active support of local organizers in its host country and draws in 100-120 participants on average.

This year's course will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, from 8-10 December 2011 and the local organiser is Dr Edmar Zanoteli.

 
 
 
 
Upcoming meetings
 
Past newsletters
 
TREAT-NMD conference 2011
 
19th October 2011
TREAT-NMD newsletter - 19th October 2011
unsubscribe