Clinical Trials for Rare Diseases are More Effective than Clinical Trials for Common Diseases

In June, 2014, my book, entitled Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: Keys to Understanding and Treating the Common Diseases was published by Elsevier. The book builds the argument that our best chance of curing the common diseases will come from studying and curing the rare diseases.

For a variety of reasons, clinical trials for rare diseases tend to have much greater likelihood of success than clinical trials on common diseases. Moreover, treatments developed for the rare diseases will almost always find some value in the treatment of one or more common diseases [a major theme discussed developed in the book]. Here is a short excerpt from Chapter 14.

It can be difficult or impossible to enroll all the patients required for a clinical trial. In an analysis of 500 planned cancer trials, 40% of trials failed to accrue the minimum necessary number of patients. Of cancer trials that have passed through preclinical, phase I clinical, and phase II clinical trials, three out of five failed to achieve the necessary patient enrollment to move into the final phase III clinical trial [12]. Most clinical trials for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or depression are designed to be even larger than cancer trials [12].

Overall, about 95% of drugs that move through the clinical trial gauntlet will fail [13]. Of the 5% of drugs that pass, their value may be minimal. To pass a clinical trial, a drug must have proven efficacy. It need not be curative; only effective. Of the drugs that pass clinical trials, some will have negligible or incremental benefits. After a drug has reached market, its value to the general population might be less than anyone had anticipated. Clinical trials, like any human endeavor, are subject to error [14–16]. Like any human endeavor, clinical trials need to be validated in clinical practice [10]. It may take years or decades to determine whether a treatment that demonstrated a small but statistically significant effect in a clinical trial will have equivalent value in everyday practice.

Funders of medical research are slowly learning that there simply is not enough money or time to conduct all of the clinical trials that are needed to advance medical science at a pace that is remotely comparable to the pace of medical progress in the first half of the twentieth century.

14.2.2 Rule—Clinical trials for common diseases have limited value if the test population is heterogeneous; as is often the case.
Brief Rationale—Abundant evidence suggests that most common diseases are heterogeneous, composed of genotypically and phenotypically distinct disease populations, with each population responding differently with the clinical trial.

The population affected by a common disease often consists of many distinct genetic and phenotypic subtypes of the disease; essentially many different diseases. A successful clinical trial for a common disease would require a drug that is effective against different diseases that happen to have a somewhat similar phenotype. One-size-fits-all therapies seldom work as well as anticipated, and more than 95% of the clinical trials for common diseases fail [13].

14.2.3 Rule—Clinical trials for the rare diseases are less expensive, can be performed with less money, and provide more definitive results than clinical trials on common diseases. Brief Rationale—Common diseases are heterogeneous and produce a mixed set of results on subpopulations. This in turn dilutes the effect of a treatment and enlarges the required number of trial participants. Rare diseases are homogeneous, thus producing a uniform effect in the trial population, and thus lowering the number of trial participants required to produce a statistically convincing result.

Rare diseases often have a single genetic aberration, driving a single metabolic pathway that results in the expression of a rather uniform clinical phenotype. This means that a drug that succeeds in one patient will likely succeed in every patient who has the same disease. Likewise, a drug that fails in one patient will fail in all the other patients. This phenomenon has enormous consequences for the design of clinical trials. When the effects of drugs are consistent, the number of patients enrolled in clinical trials can be reduced, compared with the size of clinical trials wherein the effects of drugs are highly variable among the treated population. In general, clinical trials targeted on rare diseases or on genotypically distinct subsets of common diseases require fewer enrolled participants than trials conducted on heterogeneous populations that have a common disease [13].

It is wrong to assume that because rare diseases affect fewer individuals than do the common diseases, it would be difficult to recruit a sufficient number of patients into an orphan drug trial. Due to the energetic and successful activities of rare disease organizations, registries of patients have been collected for hundreds of different conditions. For the most part, patients with rare diseases are eager to enroll in clinical trials. The rare disease registries, made available to clinical trialists, eliminate the hit-or-miss accrual activities that characterize clinical trials for common diseases.

I urge you to read more about my book. There's a good preview of the book at the Google Books site. If you like the book, please request your librarian to purchase a copy of this book for your library or reading room.

- Jules J. Berman, Ph.D., M.D. tags: rare disease, common disease, orphan disease, orphan drugs, clinical trials, complex disease, ancillary studies, trial design, statistical significance, reproducibility,

Disease Causality: Unexpected Complexity from Simple Gene Defects

In June, 2014, my book, entitled Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: Keys to Understanding and Treating the Common Diseases was published by Elsevier. The book builds the argument that our best chance of curing the common diseases will come from studying and curing the rare diseases.

One of the points discussed in the book is disease causation, and how we often fool ourselves into thinking that we understand how a disease develops, simply because we can name the gene or agent that precipitates the disease.

A gene may code for a single protein, but complex genetic and epigenetic conditions will effect the individual's response to a specific gene defect. Hence, different individuals, each with their own unique genome and epigenome, will respond differently to the same genetic aberration. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 9:

If a disease were truly caused by an aberration of a single gene, then all of the consequences of the genetic aberration would be identical in every person with the gene. In fact, some monogenic diseases have remarkably uniform clinical phenotypes in affected populations (e.g., sickle cell disease). What would happen if the same genetic aberration were recapitulated in a mouse? If the mouse homologue served the same purpose as the human gene, and if the gene were the sole cause of the disease, then you might expect the disease to be the same in man and mouse.

Lesch–Nyhan disease is a rare syndrome caused by a deficiency of HGPRT (hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase), an enzyme involved in purine metabolism. In humans, HGPRT deficiency results in high levels of uric acid, with resultant renal disease and gout. A vast array of neurologic and psychologic signs accompanies the syndrome, including self-mutilation. Neurologic features tend to increase as the affected child ages. The same HGPRT deficiency of humans can be produced in mice. Mice with HGPRT deficiency do not have disease. As far as anyone can tell, mice with HGPRT deficiency are totally normal [18]. How can this be?

A single gene cannot cause a disease all by itself. Every monogenic disease is expressed in a complex system wherein the defective gene is a participant in various pathways that eventually lead to a disease. The mouse, evidently, has a set of pathways that compensates for the deficiency in HGPRT.

Diabetes is usually a common polygenic disease. There are rare subtypes of type 2 diabetes that have a monogenic origin. As you would expect, these rare subtypes arise in children, and have a Mendelian pattern of inheritance. One such monogenic form of diabetes is MODY-8 (maturity-onset diabetes of the young), caused by a mutation in the carboxyl-ester lipase gene. This same mutation was delivered to a transgenic mouse, intended as an animal model for MODY (see Glossary item, Transgenic). Mice carrying the same altered gene as the human failed to develop any signs of diabetes, or pancreatic damage, or any dysfunction caused by the mutated gene [19].

I urge you to read more about my book. There's a good preview of the book at the Google Books site. If you like the book, please request your librarian to purchase a copy of this book for your library or reading room.

- Jules J. Berman, Ph.D., M.D. tags: rare disease, common disease, orphan disease, orphan drugs, monogenic disease, complex disease, causality, disease causation, cause of disease, pathogenesis

Acquired Diseases that Replicate the Defect of Genetic Diseases

In June, 2014, my book, entitled Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: Keys to Understanding and Treating the Common Diseases was published by Elsevier. The book builds the argument that our best chance of curing the common diseases will come from studying and curing the rare diseases.

Phenocopy diseases are medical conditions that closely mimic a genetic disease, but are caused or triggered by an environmental factor. In many cases, phenocopy diseases are non-hereditary and acute. In some cases, the phenocopy disease is reversible when the environmental trigger is removed or when an appropriate treatment is applied.

Here is just one example of phenocopy disease (from my book):

Acquired conduction defect [the phenocopy disease] and inherited conduction defect [the rare, genetic disease that is copied by the phenocopy disease]

Disorders of the electrical systems in humans that defects of ion flux across membranes are known as channelopathies. The inherited cardiac conduction channelopathies were discussed in Section 5.3.

Because the anti-arrhythmogenic and anti-epileptic drugs typically target ion channels, they are the drugs most likely to produce, as an adverse side effect, disorders of cardiac conduction. For example, rufinamide, an oral antiepileptic drug, has been reported to cause QT-interval shortening [44]. Quinidine, disopyramide, and procainamide have been reported to produce QT prolongation [45].

Several channelopathies can be acquired as autoimmune diseases, in which antibodies react with ion channels, or related cellular components upon which the ion channels depend (e.g., myasthenia gravis, Lambert–Eaton myasthenic syndrome, cerebellar ataxia associated with VGCC antibodies, acquired neuromyotonia, Morvan fibrillary chorea, limbic encephalitis) [46].

Progressive familial heart block type IA is a genetic disorder of the cardiac conduction system. Clinically similar conditions can be acquired when the tissues of the conduction systems are damaged, as in: myocardial infarct, conduction system ischemia (i.e., lack of blood flow to components of the conduction system, particularly the His–Purkinje conduction tissue), age-related degeneration of conduction system, and complications of procedures (i.e., insertion of wires or lines into the heart chambers) [47].

In a similar fashion, there are some types of cancer that can have a genetic cause or an environmental cause (or both). For example, most lung cancer occurring in humans has an an acquired, environmental cause (i.e., smoking). Some cases of lung cancers are genetic (i.e., inherited NUT gene mutation in midline lung carcinoma of the young). The importance of the phenocopy diseases (acquired near-equivalents of rare genetic diseases) to our general understanding of cancer, and to the successful treatment of rare cancers and common cancers, is discussed in my book.

I urge you to read more about this book. There's a good preview of the book at the Google Books site. If you like the book, please request your librarian to purchase a copy of this book for your library or reading room.

- Jules J. Berman, Ph.D., M.D. tags: rare disease, common disease, orphan disease, orphan drugs, phenocopy disease, complex disease, heart block, arrhythmia, disease biology, cancer, carcinogenesis, acquired cancer, environmental cancer, rare cancer, common cancer