Background: Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy (VIPN) is difficult to quantify in children. Objective: The study objective was to examine the reliability, validity, and clinical feasibility of several VIPN measures for use in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Interventions/Methods: Children (n = 65) aged 1 to 18 years receiving vincristine at 4 academic centers participated in the study. Baseline and pre–vincristine administration VIPN assessments were obtained using the Total Neuropathy Score–Pediatric Vincristine (TNS©-PV), the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, the Balis grading scale, and the FACES Pain Scale. The TNS-PV scores (n = 806) were obtained over 15 weeks. Blood was obtained at several time points to quantify pharmacokinetic parameters. Results: Cronbach’s α for a reduced TNS-PV scale was .84. The TNS-PV scores correlated with cumulative vincristine dosage (r = 0.53, P = 0.01), pharmacokinetic parameters (r = 0.41, P = 0.05), and grading scale scores (r range = 0.46–0.52, P = .01). FACES scores correlated with the TNS-PV neuropathic pain item (r = 0.48; P = .01) and were attainable in all ages. A 2-item V-Rex score (vibration and reflex items) was the most responsive to change (effect size = 0.65, P < 0.001). The TNS-PV scores were attainable in 95% of children 6 years or older. Conclusions: The TNS-PV is reliable and valid for measuring VIPN. It is sensitive to change over time (15 weeks) and feasible for use in children 6 years or older. Implications for Practice: The TNS-PV may be a useful tool for assessing vincristine toxicity in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Trials in rare diseases have many challenges, among which are the need to set up multiple sites in different countries to achieve recruitment targets and the divergent landscape of clinical trial regulations in those countries. Over the past years, there have been initiatives to facilitate the process of international study set-up, but the fruits of these deliberations require time to be operationally in place. FOR-DMD (Finding the Optimum Steroid Regimen for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy) is an academic-led clinical trial which aims to find the optimum steroid regimen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for 5 years (July 2010 to June 2015), anticipating that all sites (40 across the USA, Canada, the UK, Germany and Italy) would be open to recruitment from July 2011. However, study start-up was significantly delayed and recruitment did not start until January 2013. The FOR-DMD study is used as an example to identify systematic problems in the set-up of international, multi-centre clinical trials. The full timeline of the FOR-DMD study, from funding approval to site activation, was collated and reviewed. Systematic issues were identified and grouped into (1) study set-up, e.g. drug procurement; (2) country set-up, e.g. competent authority applications; and (3) site set-up, e.g. contracts, to identify the main causes of delay and suggest areas where anticipatory action could overcome these obstacles in future studies. Time from the first contact to site activation across countries ranged from 6 to 24 months. Reasons of delay were universal (sponsor agreement, drug procurement, budgetary constraints), country specific (complexity and diversity of regulatory processes, indemnity requirements) and site specific (contracting and approvals). The main identified obstacles included (1) issues related to drug supply, (2) NIH requirements regarding contracting with non-US sites, (3) differing regulatory requirements in the five participating countries, (4) lack of national harmonisation with contracting and the requirement to negotiate terms and contract individually with each site and (5) diversity of languages needed for study materials. Additionally, as with many academic-led studies, the FOR-DMD study did not have access to the infrastructure and expertise that a contracted research organisation could provide, organisations often employed in pharmaceutical-sponsored studies. This delay impacted recruitment, challenged the clinical relevance of the study outcomes and potentially delayed the delivery of the best treatment to patients. Based on the FOR-DMD experience, and as an interim solution, we have devised a checklist of steps to not only anticipate and minimise delays in academic international trial initiation but also identify obstacles that will require a concerted effort on the part of many stakeholders to mitigate.

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is an autosomal recessive disorder caused by biallelic variants of the Survival Motor Neuron 1 gene (SMN1) that affects approximately 1 in 15,000 live births. Availability of 3 SMN-enhancing treatments for SMA has led to urgency to review how clinicians and patients use these treatments for SMA, while additional research and real-world data and experience are being collected. This work describes important factors to assist with decision-making for SMN-enhancing treatments. A systematic literature review was conducted on SMN-enhancing treatments for SMA and related studies. A working group of American and European health care providers with expertise in SMA care identified barriers and developed recommendations through a modified Delphi technique with serial surveys and feedback through virtual meetings to fill gaps for information where evidence is limited. A community working group of an individual living with SMA and caregivers provided insight and perspective on SMA treatments and support through a virtual meeting to guide recommendations. The health care provider working group and the community working group agreed that when determining whether to start, change, add, or discontinue a treatment, essential considerations include patient and family/caregiver perspective, and treatment safety and side effects. When initiating treatment for patients newly diagnosed with SMA, important patient characteristics are age and Survival Motor Neuron 2 gene (SMN2) copy number. Furthermore, when initiating, changing, or adding treatment, current clinical status and comorbidities drive decision-making. When considering a medication or treatment plan change, unless there is an urgent indication, a treatment and associated patient outcomes should be monitored for a minimum of 6–12 months. When determining a treatment plan with an adolescent or adult with SMA, consider factors such as quality of life, burden vs benefit of treatment, and reproductive issues. Access to care coordination and interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary care are essential to treatment success. Sharing information about current knowledge of treatments and shared decision-making between health care providers and patients living with SMA and caregivers are essential to overcoming barriers to providing SMN-enhancing treatments.