In the European Union (EU) and United States (US), specific regulations have been released to provide incentives to develop and sell orphan medicinal products. We analysed the status of orphan drugs designated that not yet received a marketing authorisation or already marketed for patients affected by rare diseases in the EU and US up to December 2015. For each drug, the following data were extracted: designation date, active substance(s), orphan condition and indication, trade name, approved therapeutic indication, approved ages, genetic nature of disease and if affects children. In the EU, 1264 Orphan Drug Designations have been granted and 133 medicinal products were approved covering a total of 179 indications and 122 rare conditions. Among these, 79 were approved under Regulation (EC)141/2000 (65 still listed in the Orphan Medicinal Products Register and 14 lost the orphan designation but still authorised) and 23 were approved centrally by the European Agency before the Orphan Regulation entered into force. On the other hand, in the US 3082 designations and 415 orphan products, covering a total of 521 indications and 300 rare conditions, were granted. As a result, the mean of designations per year is 79 in the EU and 93.4 in the US, while the mean of approved indications per year is 8.5 in the EU and 15.8 in the US. No orphan product is marketed in the EU for bone and connective tissue, ophthalmic, poisoning/overdose, renal, urinary and reproductive rare diseases. Among the marketed medicinal products, only 46.6% in the EU and 35.2% in the US are approved for children. If all the existing market approvals were merged, 362 additional therapeutic indications in the EU and 72 in the US would be covered. Our data show that notwithstanding the incentives issued, the number of medicines for rare diseases is still limited, and this is more evident in certain therapeutic areas. However, by merging all the existing approvals, patients would benefit of substantial advantages in both geographic areas. Efforts and cooperation between EU and US seem the only way to speed up the development and marketing of drugs for rare diseases.

Inherited neurometabolic disorders (iNMDs) represent a group of almost seven hundred rare diseases whose common manifestations are clinical neurologic or cognitive symptoms that can appear at any time, in the first months/years of age or even later in adulthood. Early diagnosis and timely treatments are often pivotal for the favorable course of the disease. Thus, the elaboration of new evidence-based recommendations for iNMD diagnosis and management is increasingly requested by health care professionals and patients, even though the methodological quality of existing guidelines is largely unclear. InNerMeD-I-Network is the first European network on iNMDs that was created with the aim of sharing and increasing validated information about diagnosis and management of neurometabolic disorders. One of the goals of the project was to determine the number and the methodological quality of existing guidelines and recommendations for iNMDs. We performed a systematic search on PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to identify all the published guidelines and recommendations for iNMDs from January 2000 to June 2015. The methodological quality of the selected documents was determined using the AGREE II instrument, an appraisal tool composed of 6 domains covering 23 key items. A total of 55 records met the inclusion criteria, 11 % were about groups of disorders, whereas the majority encompassed only one disorder. Lysosomal disorders, and in particular Fabry, Gaucher disease and mucopolysaccharidoses where the most studied. The overall methodological quality of the recommendation was acceptable and increased over time, with 25 % of the identified guidelines strongly recommended by the appraisers, 64 % recommended, and 11 % not recommended. However, heterogeneity in the obtained scores for each domain was observed among documents covering different groups of disorders and some domains like 'stakeholder involvement' and 'applicability' were generally scarcely addressed. Greater efforts should be devoted to improve the methodological quality of guidelines and recommendations for iNMDs and AGREE II instrument seems advisable for new guideline development. The elaboration of new guidelines encompassing still uncovered disorders is badly needed.

The need for performing clinical trials to develop well-studied and appropriate medicines for inherited neurometabolic disease patients faces ethical concerns mainly raising from four aspects: the diseases are rare; include young and very young patients; the neurological impairment may compromise the capability to provide ‘consent’; and the genetic nature of the disease leads to further ethical implications. This work is intended to identify the ethical provisions applicable to clinical research involving these patients and to evaluate if these cover the ethical issues. Three searches have been performed on the European regulatory/legal framework, the literature and European Union-funded projects. The European legal framework offers a number of ethical provisions ruling the clinical research on paediatric, rare, inherited diseases with neurological symptoms. In the literature, relevant publications deal with informed consent, newborn genetic screenings, gene therapy and rights/interests of research participants. Additional information raised from European projects on sharing patients’ data from different countries, the need to fill the gap of the regulatory framework and to improve information to stakeholders and patients/families. Conclusion: Several recommendations and guidelines on ethical aspects are applicable to the inherited neurometabolic disease research in Europe, even though they suffer from the lack of a common ethical approach. What is Known: • When planning and conducting clinical trials, sponsors and researchers know that clinical trials are to be performed according to well-established ethical rules, and patients should be aware about their rights. • In the cases of paediatric patients, vulnerable patients unable to provide consent, genetic diseases’ further rules apply. What is New: • This work discusses which ethical rules apply to ensure protection of patient’s rights if all the above-mentioned features coexist. • This work shows available data and information on how these rules have been applied.

Gabapentin has shown efficacy in the treatment of chronic neuropathic or mixed pain in adults. Although pediatric pain specialists have extensive experience with gabapentin for the treatment of neuropathic pain, its use is off-label. Its efficacy and safety in this context have never been shown. The aim of this trial is to compare gabapentin with placebo as add-on to morphine for the treatment of severe chronic mixed or neuropathic pain in children. This trial is part of the European Union Seventh Framework Programme project Gabapentin in Paediatric Pain (GAPP) to develop a pediatric use marketing authorization for a new gabapentin suspension. The GAPP-2 study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter superiority phase II study in children with severe chronic neuropathic or mixed pain. Its primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of a gabapentin liquid formulation as adjunctive therapy to morphine. Sixty-six eligible children 3 months to 18 years of age with severe pain (pain scores ≥ 7), stratified in three age groups, will be randomized to receive gabapentin (to an accumulating dose of 45 to 63 mg/kg/day, dependent on age) or placebo, both in addition to morphine, for 12 weeks. Randomization will be preceded by a short washout period, and treatment will be initiated by a titration period of 3 weeks. After the treatment period, medication will be tapered during 4 weeks. The primary endpoint is the average pain scores in the two treatment groups (average of two measures each day for 3 days before the end-of-study visit [V10] assessed by age-appropriate pain scales (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale; Faces Pain Scale–Revised; Numeric Rating Scale). Secondary outcomes include percentage responders to treatment (subjects with 30% reduction in pain scale), number of episodes of breakthrough pain, number of rescue interventions, number of pain-free days, participant dropouts, quality of life (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory), and acceptability of treatment. Outcomes will be measured at the end-of-study visit after 12 weeks of treatment at the optimal gabapentin dose. Groups will be compared on an intention-to-treat basis. We hope to provide evidence that the combination of morphine and gabapentin will provide better analgesia than morphine alone and will be safe. We also aim to obtain confirmation of the recommended pediatric dose. EudractCT, 2014-004897-40 . Registered on 7 September 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275012 . Registered on 7 September 2017.

Background: We describe our experience from a multi-national application of a European Union-funded research-driven paediatric trial (DEEP-2, EudraCT 2012-000353-31; NCT01825512). This paper aims to evaluate the impact of the local and national rules on the trial authorisation process in European and non-European countries. National/local provisions and procedures, number of Ethics Committees and Competent Authorities to be addressed, documentation required, special provisions for the paediatric population, timelines for completing the authorisation process and queries received were collected; compliance with the European provisions were evaluated. Descriptive analysis, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test and General Linear Model analysis were used to determine factors potentially influencing the timelines. The Cluster Analysis procedure was used to identify homogenous groups of cases. Result: The authorisation process was completed in 7.7 to 53.8 months in European countries and in 17.1 to 27.1 months in non-European countries. The main factors influencing these timelines were the requests for changes/clarifications in European countries and the different national legislations in non-European countries. Conclusion: This work confirms that the procedures and requirements for the clinical trial application of a paediatric trial are different. In the European Union, the timeframes for submission were generally harmonised but longer. In non-European countries, delays were caused by national dispositions but the entire authorisation process resulted faster with less requests from ECs/CAs. The upcoming application of Regulation (EU) 536/2014 is expected to harmonise practices in Europe and possibly outside. Networks on paediatric research acting at international level will be crucial in this effort.

Validated diagnostic tools to diagnose chronic neuropathic and mixed pain in children are missing. Therapeutic options are often derived from therapeutics for adults. To investigate the international practice amongst practitioners for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain in children and adolescents, we performed a survey study among members of learned societies or groups whose members are known to treat pediatric pain. The survey included questions concerning practitioners and practice characteristics, assessment and diagnosis, treatment and medication. We analyzed 117 returned questionnaires, of which 41 (35%) were fully completed and 76 (65%) were partially completed. Most respondents based the diagnosis of neuropathic pain on physical examination (68 (58.1%)), patient history (67 (57.3%)), and underlying disease (59 (50.4%)) combined. Gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin were the first-choice treatments for moderate neuropathic pain. Tramadol, ibuprofen, amitriptyline, and paracetamol were the first-choice treatments for moderate mixed pain. Consensus on the diagnostic process of neuropathic pain in children and adolescents is lacking. Drug treatment varies widely for moderate, severe neuropathic, and mixed pain. Hence, diagnostic tools and therapy need to be harmonized and validated for use in children.