Andrea Sodi1, Sandro Banfi2,3, Francesco Testa4, Michele Della Corte5, Ilaria Passerini6, Elisabetta Pelo6, Settimio Rossi5, Francesca Simonelli5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Careggi Teaching Hospital, Florence, Italy. 2. Medical Genetics, Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy. 3. Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine (TIGEM), Pozzuoli, NA, Italy. 4. Eye Clinic, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via S. Pansini, 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. francesco.testa@unicampania.it. 5. Eye Clinic, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via S. Pansini, 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. 6. Department of Genetic Diagnosis, Careggi Teaching Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This research aimed to establish recommendations on the clinical and genetic characteristics necessary to confirm patient eligibility for gene supplementation with voretigene neparvovec. METHODS: An expert steering committee comprising an interdisciplinary panel of Italian experts in the three fields of medical specialisation involved in the management of RPE65-associated inherited retinal disease (IRD) (medical retina, genetics, vitreoretinal surgery) proposed clinical questions necessary to determine the correct identification of patients with the disease, determine the fundamental clinical and genetics tests to reach the correct diagnosis and to evaluate the urgency to treat patients eligible to receive treatment with voretigene neparvovec. Supported by an extensive review of the literature, a series of statements were developed and refined to prepare precisely constructed questionnaires that were circulated among an external panel of experts comprising ophthalmologists (retina specialists, vitreoretinal surgeons) and geneticists with extensive experience in IRDs in Italy in a two-round Delphi process. RESULTS: The categories addressed in the questionnaires included clinical manifestations of RPE65-related IRD, IRD screening and diagnosis, gene testing and genotyping, ocular gene therapy for IRDs, patient eligibility and prioritisation and surgical issues. Response rates by the survey participants were over 90% for the majority of items in both Delphi rounds. The steering committee developed the key consensus recommendations on each category that came from the two Delphi rounds into a simple and linear diagnostic algorithm designed to illustrate the patient pathway leading from the patient's referral centre to the retinal specialist centre. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus guidelines were developed to guide paediatricians and general ophthalmologists to arrive at the correct diagnosis of RPE65-associated IRD and make informed clinical decisions regarding eligibility for a gene therapy approach to RPE65-associated IRD. The guidelines aim to ensure the best outcome for the patient, based on expert opinion, the published literature, and practical experience in the field of IRDs.
BACKGROUND: This research aimed to establish recommendations on the clinical and genetic characteristics necessary to confirm patient eligibility for gene supplementation with voretigene neparvovec. METHODS: An expert steering committee comprising an interdisciplinary panel of Italian experts in the three fields of medical specialisation involved in the management of RPE65-associated inherited retinal disease (IRD) (medical retina, genetics, vitreoretinal surgery) proposed clinical questions necessary to determine the correct identification of patients with the disease, determine the fundamental clinical and genetics tests to reach the correct diagnosis and to evaluate the urgency to treat patients eligible to receive treatment with voretigene neparvovec. Supported by an extensive review of the literature, a series of statements were developed and refined to prepare precisely constructed questionnaires that were circulated among an external panel of experts comprising ophthalmologists (retina specialists, vitreoretinal surgeons) and geneticists with extensive experience in IRDs in Italy in a two-round Delphi process. RESULTS: The categories addressed in the questionnaires included clinical manifestations of RPE65-related IRD, IRD screening and diagnosis, gene testing and genotyping, ocular gene therapy for IRDs, patient eligibility and prioritisation and surgical issues. Response rates by the survey participants were over 90% for the majority of items in both Delphi rounds. The steering committee developed the key consensus recommendations on each category that came from the two Delphi rounds into a simple and linear diagnostic algorithm designed to illustrate the patient pathway leading from the patient's referral centre to the retinal specialist centre. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus guidelines were developed to guide paediatricians and general ophthalmologists to arrive at the correct diagnosis of RPE65-associated IRD and make informed clinical decisions regarding eligibility for a gene therapy approach to RPE65-associated IRD. The guidelines aim to ensure the best outcome for the patient, based on expert opinion, the published literature, and practical experience in the field of IRDs.
Authors: D A Thompson; P Gyürüs; L L Fleischer; E L Bingham; C L McHenry; E Apfelstedt-Sylla; E Zrenner; B Lorenz; J E Richards; S G Jacobson; P A Sieving; A Gal Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: G M Acland; G D Aguirre; J Ray; Q Zhang; T S Aleman; A V Cideciyan; S E Pearce-Kelling; V Anand; Y Zeng; A M Maguire; S G Jacobson; W W Hauswirth; J Bennett Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Sarah Hull; Graham E Holder; Anthony G Robson; Rajarshi Mukherjee; Michel Michaelides; Andrew R Webster; Anthony T Moore Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Daniel C Chung; Mette Bertelsen; Birgit Lorenz; Mark E Pennesi; Bart P Leroy; Christian P Hamel; Eric Pierce; Juliana Sallum; Michael Larsen; Knut Stieger; Markus Preising; Richard Weleber; Paul Yang; Emily Place; Emily Liu; Grace Schaefer; Julie DiStefano-Pappas; Okan U Elci; Sarah McCague; Jennifer A Wellman; Katherine A High; Kathleen Z Reape Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Gregory M Acland; Gustavo D Aguirre; Jean Bennett; Tomas S Aleman; Artur V Cideciyan; Jeannette Bennicelli; Nadine S Dejneka; Susan E Pearce-Kelling; Albert M Maguire; Krzysztof Palczewski; William W Hauswirth; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2005-10-14 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Jeannette Bennicelli; John Fraser Wright; Andras Komaromy; Jonathan B Jacobs; Bernd Hauck; Olga Zelenaia; Federico Mingozzi; Daniel Hui; Daniel Chung; Tonia S Rex; Zhangyong Wei; Guang Qu; Shangzhen Zhou; Caroline Zeiss; Valder R Arruda; Gregory M Acland; Lou F Dell'Osso; Katherine A High; Albert M Maguire; Jean Bennett Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Gerard A Rodrigues; Evgenyi Shalaev; Thomas K Karami; James Cunningham; Nigel K H Slater; Hongwen M Rivers Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Giulio Poli; Ivana Barravecchia; Gian Carlo Demontis; Andrea Sodi; Alessandro Saba; Stanislao Rizzo; Marco Macchia; Tiziano Tuccinardi Journal: J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 5.756
Authors: Samagya Banskota; Aditya Raguram; Susie Suh; Samuel W Du; Jessie R Davis; Elliot H Choi; Xiao Wang; Sarah C Nielsen; Gregory A Newby; Peyton B Randolph; Mark J Osborn; Kiran Musunuru; Krzysztof Palczewski; David R Liu Journal: Cell Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 66.850
Authors: Julia Zhu; Kirk A J Stephenson; Adrian Dockery; Jacqueline Turner; James J O'Byrne; Susan Fitzsimon; G Jane Farrar; D Ian Flitcroft; David J Keegan Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 4.141