User login
Sanfilippo syndrome is a rare inherited neurodegenerative metabolic disorder for which there are no approved therapies. Symptoms of the more severe subtypes typically begin within the first years of life, rapidly producing serious and progressive physical and cognitive deficits. The underlying pathophysiology is targetable, but the delay in diagnosis of this as well as other lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) is slowing progress toward effective therapies.
“Lack of awareness and the delays to diagnosis have been a real challenge for us. There is reason for cautious optimism about treatments now in or approaching clinical studies, but to evaluate efficacy on cognitive outcomes we need to enroll more children at a very young age, before loss of milestones,” according to Cara O’Neill, MD, a co-founder and chief science officer of Cure Sanfilippo Foundation.
Epidemiology and description
Sanfilippo syndrome, like the more than 50 other LSDs, is caused by a gene mutation that leads to an enzyme deficiency in the lysosome.1 In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, also known as mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS III), there are hundreds of mutations that can lead to Sanfilippo by altering the function of one of the four genes essential to degradation of heparan sulfate.2 Lysosomal accumulation of heparan sulfate drives a broad spectrum of progressive and largely irreversible symptoms that typically begin with somatic manifestations, such as bowel dysfunction and recurrent ear and upper respiratory infections.
Impairment of the central nervous system (CNS) usually occurs early in life, halting physical and mental development. As it progresses, accumulation of heparan sulfate in a variety of cells leads to a cascade of abnormal cellular signaling and dysfunction. Disruption of these processes, which are critical for normal neurodevelopment, result in loss of the developmental skills already gained and eventually loss of brain tissue.3 Although life expectancy has improved with supportive care, survival into adulthood is typically limited to milder forms.4
Over the past several years, progress in this and other LSDs has yielded therapeutic targets, including those involving gene repair and enzyme replacement. Already approved for use in some LSDs, these therapies have also shown promise in the experimental setting for Sanfilippo syndrome, leading to several completed clinical trials.5
So far, none of these treatments has advanced beyond clinical trials in Sanfilippo syndrome, but there have been favorable changes in the markers of disease, suggesting that better methods of treatment delivery and/or more sensitive tools to measure clinical change might lead to evidence of disease attenuation. However, the promise of treatment in all cases has been to prevent, slow, or halt progression, not to reverse it. This point is important, because it indicates that degree of benefit will depend on enrolling patients early in life. Even if effective therapies are identified, few patients will benefit without strategies to accelerate diagnosis.
In fact, “one study6 reported that the average age of diagnosis for Sanfilippo syndrome has not improved over the past 30 years,” according to Dr. O’Neill. She indicated that this has been frustrating, given the availability of clinical trials on which progress is dependent. There is no widely accepted protocol for who and when to test for Sanfilippo syndrome or other LSDs, but Dr. O’Neill’s organization is among those advocating for strategies to detect these diseases earlier, including screening at birth.
Almost by definition, the clinical diagnosis of rare diseases poses a challenge. With nonspecific symptoms and a broad range of potential diagnoses, diseases with a low incidence are not the first ones that are typically considered. In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, published studies indicate incidence rates at or below 1 per 70,000 live births.7 However, the incidence rates have been highly variable not only by geographical regions but even across neighboring countries where genetic risk would be expected to be similar.
In Europe, for example, epidemiologic studies suggest the lifetime risk of MPS IIIA is approximately two times greater in Germany and the Netherlands relative to France and Sweden.7 It is possible that the methodology for identifying cases might be a more important factor than differences in genetic risk to explain this variability. Many experts, including Dr. O’Neill, believe that prevalence figures for Sanfilippo syndrome are typically underestimates because of the frequency with which LSDs are attributed to other pathology.
“For these types of rare disorders, a clinician might only see a single case over a career, and the symptoms can vary in presentation and severity with many alternatives to consider in the differential diagnosis,” Dr. O’Neill explained. She cited case reports in which symptoms of Sanfilippo syndrome after a period of initial normal development has been initially attributed to autism, which is a comorbid feature of the disease, idiopathic developmental delay, or other nonprogressive disorders until further clinical deterioration leads to additional testing. The implication is that LSDs must be considered far earlier despite their rarity.
For the least common of the four clinical subtypes, MPS IIIC and MPS IIID, the median ages of diagnosis have ranged from 4.5 to 19 years of age.7 This is likely a reflection of a slower progression and a later onset of clinical manifestations.
For the more rapidly progressing and typically more severe subtypes, MPS IIIA and MPS IIIB, the diagnosis is typically made earlier. In one review of epidemiologic studies in different countries, the earliest reported median age at diagnosis was 2.5 years,7 a point at which significant disease progression is likely to have already occurred. If the promise of treatments in development is prevention of disease progression, disability in many patients might be substantial if the time to diagnosis is not reduced.
Screening and testing
Independent of the potential to enroll children in clinical trials, early diagnosis also advances the opportunities for supportive care to lessen the burden of the disease on patients and families. Perhaps even more important, early diagnosis is vital to family planning. Since the American pediatrician Sylvester Sanfilippo, MD, first described this syndrome in 1963,7 the genetic profile and many of the features of the disease have become well characterized.8
“One reason to emphasize the importance of early diagnosis is the heritability of this disorder. With prompt diagnosis, genetic counseling can be offered to families to provide them with critical information for future family planning and for cascade testing of other potentially affected siblings,” Dr. O’Neill reported. The inheritance pattern of Sanfilippo syndrome is autosomal recessive.3 In families with an affected child, the risk for any subsequent child to have the same disorder is 25%. The chance of a sibling to be unaffected and not a carrier is also 25%. There is a 50% chance of a sibling to be a carrier but asymptomatic. Of priorities, spreading awareness has been a critical mission of the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation since it was founded 8 years ago, according to Glenn O’Neill, the president. He and his wife, Dr. O’Neill, who is a pediatrician, founded the organization after their own child’s diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome. Creating awareness is fundamental to the mission of attracting funds for research, but support to patients and their families as well as early enrollment in clinical trials are among other initiatives being pursued by the foundation to improve care and prognosis.
These strategies include some novel ideas, including an algorithm based on artificial intelligence (AI) that can accelerate suspicion of Sanfilippo syndrome in advance of laboratory or genetic testing, according to Dr. O’Neill. She reported that the facial phenotype, which is observed in a high proportion of but not in all Sanfilippo patients, includes coarse facial features such as puffiness around the eyes, heavy eyebrows, full lips, and macrocephaly.9 Interpretation of photos for AI-based analysis is enhanced when combined with other clinical symptoms.
“The Foundation was involved in honing such a tool by submitting the photos that were used to teach the AI to recognize the Sanfilippo syndrome phenotype,” Dr. O’Neill said. The AI-based tool (Face2Gene.com) is available from FDNA, a company that has been involved in analyzing complex phenotypic and genomic information to guide diagnosis and therapeutic strategies for an array of diseases, not just Sanfilippo syndrome.
The preferred method for diagnosis is biochemical or genetic testing. Of these, urine testing for elevated levels of heparan sulfate glycosaminoglycans (GAG) can be useful for screening, although false-negative tests occur. Analysis of the blood can be performed to detect abnormal levels or activity of the enzymes that break down this GAG. In addition, genetic testing can be performed on blood, fibroblast, buccal swab, or saliva samples. Genetic testing of the blood is the most frequently performed.
For the four MPS III subtypes – MPS IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID – the presence of two pathogenic mutations in the SGSH (17q25.3), NAGLU (17q21.2), HGSNAT (8p11.21), and GNS (12q14.3) genes, respectively, are likely diagnostic, but enzymatic testing or GAG analysis should be performed to confirm disease status, according to Dr. O’Neill, who said that global consensus based clinical care guidelines led by the Foundation were recently accepted for publication and also include a section on the approach to diagnosis.
While laboratory testing is sensitive, urinary excretion of GAG can be variable, with the potential for ambiguous results. Typically, biochemical and genetic testing provide more reliable results for the diagnosis. They can be readily performed in utero or at the time of birth. In addition, gene panels can permit the diagnosis of multiple types of LSDs, not just Sanfilippo, making screening a cost-effective strategy to consider multiple diseases with overlapping symptoms when an LSD is suspected. Dr. O’Neill said clinical guidelines recommend confirmation of enzyme deficiency or evidence of GAG substrate accumulation as confirmatory tests when genetic testing is positive.
“Ultimately, our goal is to promote universal screening at birth for these serious genetic disorders affecting children,” Dr. O’Neill said.
“We are in a catch-22 when it comes to newborn screening. Currently our federal system requires there be an available treatment before recommending routine screening for a disease. However, it is extremely difficult to power trials with patients who are most likely to show benefit in a trial setting without that very early diagnosis. Universal newborn screening would pave the way for accelerated drug development for children,” she added.
In the meantime, Dr. O’Neill suggests that clinicians should employ a low threshold of suspicion to pursue diagnostic studies of LSDs in infants and children with developmental delays or otherwise unexplained progressive disorders.
Importantly, clinicians can now act quickly on their suspicions and order testing without concern for delays or denial by insurers through a special program, according to Dr. O’Neill. Free genetic testing, offered by the Invitae Corporation, evaluates a panel of 58 genes associated with lysosomal disorders, permitting detection of Sanfilippo syndrome and other LSDs, according to Dr. O’Neill. The Invitae testing is typically performed on 3 mL of whole blood delivered to a central testing facility.
“Results can be obtained within a few weeks or sooner. This can seem like a long wait for families, but it is much more efficient than ordering tests sequentially,” Dr. O’Neill said.
Diagnosis: Signs and symptoms
Despite the differences in progression of the MPS III subtypes, the clinical characteristics are more similar than different. In all patients, prenatal and infant development are typically normal. The initial signs of disease can be found in the newborn, such as neonatal tachypnea, through the early infancy period, such as macrocephaly. However, these are not commonly recognized until about age 1 or soon after in those with MPS IIIA and IIIB.3 Speech delay is the first developmental delay seen in most patients. In those with MPS IIIC, initial symptoms are typically detected at age 3 or later and progress more slowly.10,11 The same is likely to be true of MPS IIID, although this subtype is less well characterized than the other three.7
Although many organs can be involved, degeneration of the CNS is regarded as the most characteristic.3 In aggressive disease, this includes slower acquisition of and failure to meet developmental milestones with progressive intellectual disability, while behavioral difficulties are a more common initial compliant in children with milder disease.13,14 These behavioral changes include hyperactivity, inattention, autistic behaviors, worsening safety awareness, and in some cases aggressive behavior that can be destructive. Sleep disturbances are common.15Because of variability inherent in descriptions of relatively small numbers of patients, the characterization of each of the MPS III subgroups is based on a limited number of small studies, but most patients demonstrate behavior disorders, have coarse facial features, and develop speech delay, according to a survey conducted of published studies.7 Collectively, abnormal behavior was identified as an early symptom in 77% of those with MPS IIIA, 69% of those with IIIB, and 77% of those with IIIC.
For MPS IIIA, loss of speech was observed at a median age of 3.8 years and loss of walking ability at 10.4 years. The median survival has been reported to range between 13 and 18 years. In children with MPS IIIB, the median age of speech loss was reported to about the same age, while loss of walking ability occurred at 11 years. In one study of MPS IIIB, 24% of patients had developed dementia by age 6 years, and the reported median survival has ranged between 17 and 19 years. For MPS IIIC, the onset of clinical symptoms has been observed at a median age of 3.5 years with evidence of cognitive loss observed in 33% of children by the age of 6 years. The median survival has ranged from 19 to 34 years in three studies tracing the natural history of this MPS III subtype.
The differential diagnosis reasonably includes other types of mucopolysaccharidosis disorders with cognitive impairment, including Hurler, Hunter, or Sly syndromes, other neurodevelopmental disorders, and inborn errors of metabolism. The heterogeneity of the features makes definitive laboratory or genetic testing, rather than the effort to differentiate clinical features, appropriate for a definitive diagnosis.
Once the diagnosis is made, other examinations for the common complications of Sanfilippo syndrome are appropriate. Abdominal imaging is appropriate for detecting complications in the gastrointestinal tract, including hepatomegaly, which has been reported in more than half of patients with MPS IIIA and IIIB and in 39% of patients with IIIC.7 In patients with breathing concerns at night and/or sleep disturbance, polysomnography can be useful for identifying sleep apnea and nocturnal seizure activity. In children suspected of seizures, EEG is appropriate. In one study, 66% of patients with MPS IIIA developed seizure activity.16 This has been less commonly reported in MPS IIIB and IIIC, ranging from 8% to 13%.15
Formal hearing evaluation is indicated for any child with speech delays. Hearing loss typically develops after the newborn period in Sanfilippo and may affect peak language acquisition if not treated, according to Dr. O’Neill.
Radiographic studies for dysostosis multiplex or other skeletal abnormalities are also appropriate based on clinical presentation.
Treatment: Present and future
In the absence of treatments to improve the prognosis of Sanfilippo syndrome, current management is based on supportive care and managing organ-specific complications. However, several strategies have proven viable in experimental models and led to clinical trials. None of these therapies has reached approval yet, but several have been associated with attenuation of biomarkers of MPS III disease activity.
Of nearly 30 Sanfilippo clinical trials conducted over the past 20 years, at least 9 have now been completed.5 In addition to studying gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy, these trials have included stem cell transplantation and substrate reduction therapy, for which the goal is to reduce synthesis of the heparan sulfate GAG to prevent accumulation.5 Of this latter approach, promising initial results with genistein, an isoflavone that breaks down heparan sulfate, reached a phase 3 evaluation.18 Although heparan sulfate levels in the CNS were non-significantly reduced over the course of the trial, the reduction was not sufficient to attenuate cognitive decline.
In other LSDs, several forms of enzyme replacement therapy are now approved. In Fabry disease, for example, recombinant alpha-galactosidase A has now been used for more than 15 years.19 Clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome because of the difficulty of delivering these therapies past the blood-brain barrier. Several strategies have been pursued. For example, intrathecal delivery of recombinant heparan-N-sulfatase reduced CNS levels of GAG heparan sulfate in one phase 2B study, but it approached but fell short of the statistical significance for the primary endpoint of predefined cognitive stabilization.20 The signal of activity and generally acceptable tolerability has encouraged further study, including an ongoing study with promising interim results of intracerebroventricular enzyme replacement in MPS IIIB, according to Dr. O’Neill.
Acceptable safety and promising activity on disease biomarkers have also been seen with gene therapy in clinical trials. In one study that showed attenuation of brain atrophy, there was moderate improvement in behavior and sleep in three of the four patients enrolled.21 Other studies using various strategies for gene delivery have also produced signals of activity against the underlying pathology, generating persistent interest in ongoing and planned clinical studies with this form of treatment.22Unmodified hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), an approach that has demonstrated efficacy when delivered early in the course of other LSDs, such as Hurler syndrome,23 has not yet been associated with significant activity in clinical studies of MPS III, including those that initiated treatment prior to the onset of neurological symptoms.24 However, promising early results have been reported in a study of gene-modified HSCT, which overexpresses the MPS IIIA enzyme.
“The clinical trial landscape fluctuates quite a bit, so I always encourage clinicians and families to check back often for updates. Patient organizations can also be helpful for understanding the most up-to-date and emerging trial options,” Dr. O’Neill reported.
Although it is expected that the greatest benefit would be derived from treatments initiated before or very early after the onset of symptoms, based on the limited potential for reversing cognitive loss, Dr. O’Neill said that she and others are also striving to offer treatments for individuals now living with Sanfilippo syndrome.
“We have to be willing to test treatments that are symptomatic in nature. To that aim, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation has sponsored a study of a CNS-penetrating anti-inflammatory agent in advanced-disease patients more than 4 years of age,” Dr. O’Neill said. This group of patients typically been ineligible for clinical trials in the past. Dr. O’Neill hopes to change this orientation.
“It is important to highlight that all patients deserve our efforts to improve their quality of life and alleviate suffering, regardless of how old they are or how progressed in the disease they happen to be,” she said.
However, whether the goal is enrollment before or early in disease or later in disease progression, the challenge of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to confirm clinical activity has been and continues to be a hurdle to progress.
“Clinical studies in Sanfilippo enroll relatively small numbers of patients, often 20 or less,” said Dr. O’Neill, explaining one of the reasons why her organization has been so active in raising awareness and funding such studies. For patients and families, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation can offer a variety of guidance and support, but information about opportunities for clinical trial participation is a key resource they provide for families and their physicians.
Conclusion
For most children with Sanfilippo syndrome, life expectancy is limited. However, the characterization of the genetic causes and the biochemistry of the subtypes has led to several viable therapeutic approaches under development. There has been progress in delivery of therapeutic enzymes to the CNS, and there is substantial optimism that more progress is coming. One issue for treatment development, is the last of a clear regulatory pathway addressing important biomarkers of pathology, such as heparan sulfate burden. Developing treatments that address this issue or impaired enzyme activity levels have promise for preventing progression, particularly if started in infancy. However, the effort to draw awareness to this disease is the first step toward accelerating the time to an early diagnosis and subsequent opportunities to enroll in clinical trials.
References
1. Sun A. Lysosomal storage disease overview. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Dec;6(24):476. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.11.39.
2. Andrade F et al. Sanfilippo syndrome: Overall review. Pediatr Int. 2015 Jun;57(3):331-8. doi: 10.1111/ped.12636.
3. Fedele AO. Sanfilippo syndrome: Causes, consequences, and treatments. Appl Clin Genet. 2015 Nov 25;8:269-81. doi: 10.2147/TACG.S57672.
4. Lavery C et al. Mortality in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Oct 23;12(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0717-y.
5. Pearse Y et al. A cure for Sanfilippo syndrome? A summary of current therapeutic approaches and their promise. Med Res Arch. 2020 Feb 1;8(2). doi: 10.18103/mra.v8i2.2045.
6. Kuiper GA et al. Failure to shorten the diagnostic delay in two ultrao-rphan diseases (mucopolysaccharidosis types I and III): potential causes and implication. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:2. Doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0733-y.
7. Zelei T et al. Epidemiology of Sanfilippo syndrome: Results of a systematic literature review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Apr 10;13(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0796-4.
8. Wagner VF, Northrup H. Mucopolysaccaharidosis type III. Gene Reviews. 2019 Sep 19. University of Washington, Seattle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546574/8.
9. O’Neill C et al. Natural history of facial features observed in Sanfilippo syndrome (MPS IIIB) using a next generation phenotyping tool. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126:S112.
10. Ruijter GJ et al. Clinical and genetic spectrum of Sanfilippo type C (MPS IIIC) disease in the Netherlands. Mol Genet Metab. 2008 Feb;93(2):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.09.011.
11. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIID: 12 new patients and 15 novel mutations. Hum Mutat. 2010 May;31(5):E1348-60. doi: 10.1002/humu.21234.
12. Nijmeijer SCM. The attenuated end of phenotypic spectrum in MPS III: from late-onset stable cognitive impairment to non-neuronopathic phenotype. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14:249. Doi10.1186/s13023-019-1232-0.
13. Nidiffer FD, Kelly TE. Developmental and degenerative patterns associated with cognitive, behavioural and motor difficulties in the Sanfilippo syndrome: An epidemiological study. J Ment Defic Res. 1983 Sep;27 (Pt 3):185-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1983.tb00291.x.
14. Bax MC, Colville GA. Behaviour in mucopolysaccharide disorders. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jul;73(1):77-81. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.77.
15. Fraser J et al. Sleep disturbance in mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A survey of managing clinicians. Clin Genet. 2002 Nov;62(5):418-21. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.620512.x.
16. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: Clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations. Ann Neurol. 2010 Dec;68(6):876-87. doi: 10.1002/ana.22092.
17. Heron B et al. Incidence and natural history of mucopolysaccharidosis type III in France and comparison with United Kingdom and Greece. Am J Med Genet A. 2011 Jan;155A(1):58-68. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33779.
18. Delgadillo V et al. Genistein supplementation in patients affected by Sanfilippo disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2011 Oct;34(5):1039-44. doi: 10.1007/s10545-011-9342-4.
19. van der Veen SJ et al. Developments in the treatment of Fabry disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2020 Sep;43(5):908-21. doi: 10.1002/jimd.12228.
20. Wijburg FA et al. Intrathecal heparan-N-sulfatase in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome type A: A phase IIb randomized trial. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126(2):121-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.10.006.
21. Tardieu M et al. Intracerebral administration of adeno-associated viral vector serotype rh.10 carrying human SGSH and SUMF1 cDNAs in children with mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA disease: Results of a phase I/II trial. Hum Gene Ther. 2014 Jun;25(6):506-16. doi: 10.1089/hum.2013.238.
22. Marco S et al. In vivo gene therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A new treatment horizon. Hum Gene Ther. 2019 Oct;30(10):1211-1121. doi: 10.1089/hum.2019.217.
23. Taylor M et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for mucopolysaccharidoses: Past, present, and future. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Jul;25(7):e226-e246. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.02.012.
24. Sivakumur P, Wraith JE. Bone marrow transplantation in mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: A comparison of an early treated patient with his untreated sibling. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1999 Oct;22(7):849-50. doi: 10.1023/a:1005526628598.
Sanfilippo syndrome is a rare inherited neurodegenerative metabolic disorder for which there are no approved therapies. Symptoms of the more severe subtypes typically begin within the first years of life, rapidly producing serious and progressive physical and cognitive deficits. The underlying pathophysiology is targetable, but the delay in diagnosis of this as well as other lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) is slowing progress toward effective therapies.
“Lack of awareness and the delays to diagnosis have been a real challenge for us. There is reason for cautious optimism about treatments now in or approaching clinical studies, but to evaluate efficacy on cognitive outcomes we need to enroll more children at a very young age, before loss of milestones,” according to Cara O’Neill, MD, a co-founder and chief science officer of Cure Sanfilippo Foundation.
Epidemiology and description
Sanfilippo syndrome, like the more than 50 other LSDs, is caused by a gene mutation that leads to an enzyme deficiency in the lysosome.1 In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, also known as mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS III), there are hundreds of mutations that can lead to Sanfilippo by altering the function of one of the four genes essential to degradation of heparan sulfate.2 Lysosomal accumulation of heparan sulfate drives a broad spectrum of progressive and largely irreversible symptoms that typically begin with somatic manifestations, such as bowel dysfunction and recurrent ear and upper respiratory infections.
Impairment of the central nervous system (CNS) usually occurs early in life, halting physical and mental development. As it progresses, accumulation of heparan sulfate in a variety of cells leads to a cascade of abnormal cellular signaling and dysfunction. Disruption of these processes, which are critical for normal neurodevelopment, result in loss of the developmental skills already gained and eventually loss of brain tissue.3 Although life expectancy has improved with supportive care, survival into adulthood is typically limited to milder forms.4
Over the past several years, progress in this and other LSDs has yielded therapeutic targets, including those involving gene repair and enzyme replacement. Already approved for use in some LSDs, these therapies have also shown promise in the experimental setting for Sanfilippo syndrome, leading to several completed clinical trials.5
So far, none of these treatments has advanced beyond clinical trials in Sanfilippo syndrome, but there have been favorable changes in the markers of disease, suggesting that better methods of treatment delivery and/or more sensitive tools to measure clinical change might lead to evidence of disease attenuation. However, the promise of treatment in all cases has been to prevent, slow, or halt progression, not to reverse it. This point is important, because it indicates that degree of benefit will depend on enrolling patients early in life. Even if effective therapies are identified, few patients will benefit without strategies to accelerate diagnosis.
In fact, “one study6 reported that the average age of diagnosis for Sanfilippo syndrome has not improved over the past 30 years,” according to Dr. O’Neill. She indicated that this has been frustrating, given the availability of clinical trials on which progress is dependent. There is no widely accepted protocol for who and when to test for Sanfilippo syndrome or other LSDs, but Dr. O’Neill’s organization is among those advocating for strategies to detect these diseases earlier, including screening at birth.
Almost by definition, the clinical diagnosis of rare diseases poses a challenge. With nonspecific symptoms and a broad range of potential diagnoses, diseases with a low incidence are not the first ones that are typically considered. In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, published studies indicate incidence rates at or below 1 per 70,000 live births.7 However, the incidence rates have been highly variable not only by geographical regions but even across neighboring countries where genetic risk would be expected to be similar.
In Europe, for example, epidemiologic studies suggest the lifetime risk of MPS IIIA is approximately two times greater in Germany and the Netherlands relative to France and Sweden.7 It is possible that the methodology for identifying cases might be a more important factor than differences in genetic risk to explain this variability. Many experts, including Dr. O’Neill, believe that prevalence figures for Sanfilippo syndrome are typically underestimates because of the frequency with which LSDs are attributed to other pathology.
“For these types of rare disorders, a clinician might only see a single case over a career, and the symptoms can vary in presentation and severity with many alternatives to consider in the differential diagnosis,” Dr. O’Neill explained. She cited case reports in which symptoms of Sanfilippo syndrome after a period of initial normal development has been initially attributed to autism, which is a comorbid feature of the disease, idiopathic developmental delay, or other nonprogressive disorders until further clinical deterioration leads to additional testing. The implication is that LSDs must be considered far earlier despite their rarity.
For the least common of the four clinical subtypes, MPS IIIC and MPS IIID, the median ages of diagnosis have ranged from 4.5 to 19 years of age.7 This is likely a reflection of a slower progression and a later onset of clinical manifestations.
For the more rapidly progressing and typically more severe subtypes, MPS IIIA and MPS IIIB, the diagnosis is typically made earlier. In one review of epidemiologic studies in different countries, the earliest reported median age at diagnosis was 2.5 years,7 a point at which significant disease progression is likely to have already occurred. If the promise of treatments in development is prevention of disease progression, disability in many patients might be substantial if the time to diagnosis is not reduced.
Screening and testing
Independent of the potential to enroll children in clinical trials, early diagnosis also advances the opportunities for supportive care to lessen the burden of the disease on patients and families. Perhaps even more important, early diagnosis is vital to family planning. Since the American pediatrician Sylvester Sanfilippo, MD, first described this syndrome in 1963,7 the genetic profile and many of the features of the disease have become well characterized.8
“One reason to emphasize the importance of early diagnosis is the heritability of this disorder. With prompt diagnosis, genetic counseling can be offered to families to provide them with critical information for future family planning and for cascade testing of other potentially affected siblings,” Dr. O’Neill reported. The inheritance pattern of Sanfilippo syndrome is autosomal recessive.3 In families with an affected child, the risk for any subsequent child to have the same disorder is 25%. The chance of a sibling to be unaffected and not a carrier is also 25%. There is a 50% chance of a sibling to be a carrier but asymptomatic. Of priorities, spreading awareness has been a critical mission of the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation since it was founded 8 years ago, according to Glenn O’Neill, the president. He and his wife, Dr. O’Neill, who is a pediatrician, founded the organization after their own child’s diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome. Creating awareness is fundamental to the mission of attracting funds for research, but support to patients and their families as well as early enrollment in clinical trials are among other initiatives being pursued by the foundation to improve care and prognosis.
These strategies include some novel ideas, including an algorithm based on artificial intelligence (AI) that can accelerate suspicion of Sanfilippo syndrome in advance of laboratory or genetic testing, according to Dr. O’Neill. She reported that the facial phenotype, which is observed in a high proportion of but not in all Sanfilippo patients, includes coarse facial features such as puffiness around the eyes, heavy eyebrows, full lips, and macrocephaly.9 Interpretation of photos for AI-based analysis is enhanced when combined with other clinical symptoms.
“The Foundation was involved in honing such a tool by submitting the photos that were used to teach the AI to recognize the Sanfilippo syndrome phenotype,” Dr. O’Neill said. The AI-based tool (Face2Gene.com) is available from FDNA, a company that has been involved in analyzing complex phenotypic and genomic information to guide diagnosis and therapeutic strategies for an array of diseases, not just Sanfilippo syndrome.
The preferred method for diagnosis is biochemical or genetic testing. Of these, urine testing for elevated levels of heparan sulfate glycosaminoglycans (GAG) can be useful for screening, although false-negative tests occur. Analysis of the blood can be performed to detect abnormal levels or activity of the enzymes that break down this GAG. In addition, genetic testing can be performed on blood, fibroblast, buccal swab, or saliva samples. Genetic testing of the blood is the most frequently performed.
For the four MPS III subtypes – MPS IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID – the presence of two pathogenic mutations in the SGSH (17q25.3), NAGLU (17q21.2), HGSNAT (8p11.21), and GNS (12q14.3) genes, respectively, are likely diagnostic, but enzymatic testing or GAG analysis should be performed to confirm disease status, according to Dr. O’Neill, who said that global consensus based clinical care guidelines led by the Foundation were recently accepted for publication and also include a section on the approach to diagnosis.
While laboratory testing is sensitive, urinary excretion of GAG can be variable, with the potential for ambiguous results. Typically, biochemical and genetic testing provide more reliable results for the diagnosis. They can be readily performed in utero or at the time of birth. In addition, gene panels can permit the diagnosis of multiple types of LSDs, not just Sanfilippo, making screening a cost-effective strategy to consider multiple diseases with overlapping symptoms when an LSD is suspected. Dr. O’Neill said clinical guidelines recommend confirmation of enzyme deficiency or evidence of GAG substrate accumulation as confirmatory tests when genetic testing is positive.
“Ultimately, our goal is to promote universal screening at birth for these serious genetic disorders affecting children,” Dr. O’Neill said.
“We are in a catch-22 when it comes to newborn screening. Currently our federal system requires there be an available treatment before recommending routine screening for a disease. However, it is extremely difficult to power trials with patients who are most likely to show benefit in a trial setting without that very early diagnosis. Universal newborn screening would pave the way for accelerated drug development for children,” she added.
In the meantime, Dr. O’Neill suggests that clinicians should employ a low threshold of suspicion to pursue diagnostic studies of LSDs in infants and children with developmental delays or otherwise unexplained progressive disorders.
Importantly, clinicians can now act quickly on their suspicions and order testing without concern for delays or denial by insurers through a special program, according to Dr. O’Neill. Free genetic testing, offered by the Invitae Corporation, evaluates a panel of 58 genes associated with lysosomal disorders, permitting detection of Sanfilippo syndrome and other LSDs, according to Dr. O’Neill. The Invitae testing is typically performed on 3 mL of whole blood delivered to a central testing facility.
“Results can be obtained within a few weeks or sooner. This can seem like a long wait for families, but it is much more efficient than ordering tests sequentially,” Dr. O’Neill said.
Diagnosis: Signs and symptoms
Despite the differences in progression of the MPS III subtypes, the clinical characteristics are more similar than different. In all patients, prenatal and infant development are typically normal. The initial signs of disease can be found in the newborn, such as neonatal tachypnea, through the early infancy period, such as macrocephaly. However, these are not commonly recognized until about age 1 or soon after in those with MPS IIIA and IIIB.3 Speech delay is the first developmental delay seen in most patients. In those with MPS IIIC, initial symptoms are typically detected at age 3 or later and progress more slowly.10,11 The same is likely to be true of MPS IIID, although this subtype is less well characterized than the other three.7
Although many organs can be involved, degeneration of the CNS is regarded as the most characteristic.3 In aggressive disease, this includes slower acquisition of and failure to meet developmental milestones with progressive intellectual disability, while behavioral difficulties are a more common initial compliant in children with milder disease.13,14 These behavioral changes include hyperactivity, inattention, autistic behaviors, worsening safety awareness, and in some cases aggressive behavior that can be destructive. Sleep disturbances are common.15Because of variability inherent in descriptions of relatively small numbers of patients, the characterization of each of the MPS III subgroups is based on a limited number of small studies, but most patients demonstrate behavior disorders, have coarse facial features, and develop speech delay, according to a survey conducted of published studies.7 Collectively, abnormal behavior was identified as an early symptom in 77% of those with MPS IIIA, 69% of those with IIIB, and 77% of those with IIIC.
For MPS IIIA, loss of speech was observed at a median age of 3.8 years and loss of walking ability at 10.4 years. The median survival has been reported to range between 13 and 18 years. In children with MPS IIIB, the median age of speech loss was reported to about the same age, while loss of walking ability occurred at 11 years. In one study of MPS IIIB, 24% of patients had developed dementia by age 6 years, and the reported median survival has ranged between 17 and 19 years. For MPS IIIC, the onset of clinical symptoms has been observed at a median age of 3.5 years with evidence of cognitive loss observed in 33% of children by the age of 6 years. The median survival has ranged from 19 to 34 years in three studies tracing the natural history of this MPS III subtype.
The differential diagnosis reasonably includes other types of mucopolysaccharidosis disorders with cognitive impairment, including Hurler, Hunter, or Sly syndromes, other neurodevelopmental disorders, and inborn errors of metabolism. The heterogeneity of the features makes definitive laboratory or genetic testing, rather than the effort to differentiate clinical features, appropriate for a definitive diagnosis.
Once the diagnosis is made, other examinations for the common complications of Sanfilippo syndrome are appropriate. Abdominal imaging is appropriate for detecting complications in the gastrointestinal tract, including hepatomegaly, which has been reported in more than half of patients with MPS IIIA and IIIB and in 39% of patients with IIIC.7 In patients with breathing concerns at night and/or sleep disturbance, polysomnography can be useful for identifying sleep apnea and nocturnal seizure activity. In children suspected of seizures, EEG is appropriate. In one study, 66% of patients with MPS IIIA developed seizure activity.16 This has been less commonly reported in MPS IIIB and IIIC, ranging from 8% to 13%.15
Formal hearing evaluation is indicated for any child with speech delays. Hearing loss typically develops after the newborn period in Sanfilippo and may affect peak language acquisition if not treated, according to Dr. O’Neill.
Radiographic studies for dysostosis multiplex or other skeletal abnormalities are also appropriate based on clinical presentation.
Treatment: Present and future
In the absence of treatments to improve the prognosis of Sanfilippo syndrome, current management is based on supportive care and managing organ-specific complications. However, several strategies have proven viable in experimental models and led to clinical trials. None of these therapies has reached approval yet, but several have been associated with attenuation of biomarkers of MPS III disease activity.
Of nearly 30 Sanfilippo clinical trials conducted over the past 20 years, at least 9 have now been completed.5 In addition to studying gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy, these trials have included stem cell transplantation and substrate reduction therapy, for which the goal is to reduce synthesis of the heparan sulfate GAG to prevent accumulation.5 Of this latter approach, promising initial results with genistein, an isoflavone that breaks down heparan sulfate, reached a phase 3 evaluation.18 Although heparan sulfate levels in the CNS were non-significantly reduced over the course of the trial, the reduction was not sufficient to attenuate cognitive decline.
In other LSDs, several forms of enzyme replacement therapy are now approved. In Fabry disease, for example, recombinant alpha-galactosidase A has now been used for more than 15 years.19 Clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome because of the difficulty of delivering these therapies past the blood-brain barrier. Several strategies have been pursued. For example, intrathecal delivery of recombinant heparan-N-sulfatase reduced CNS levels of GAG heparan sulfate in one phase 2B study, but it approached but fell short of the statistical significance for the primary endpoint of predefined cognitive stabilization.20 The signal of activity and generally acceptable tolerability has encouraged further study, including an ongoing study with promising interim results of intracerebroventricular enzyme replacement in MPS IIIB, according to Dr. O’Neill.
Acceptable safety and promising activity on disease biomarkers have also been seen with gene therapy in clinical trials. In one study that showed attenuation of brain atrophy, there was moderate improvement in behavior and sleep in three of the four patients enrolled.21 Other studies using various strategies for gene delivery have also produced signals of activity against the underlying pathology, generating persistent interest in ongoing and planned clinical studies with this form of treatment.22Unmodified hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), an approach that has demonstrated efficacy when delivered early in the course of other LSDs, such as Hurler syndrome,23 has not yet been associated with significant activity in clinical studies of MPS III, including those that initiated treatment prior to the onset of neurological symptoms.24 However, promising early results have been reported in a study of gene-modified HSCT, which overexpresses the MPS IIIA enzyme.
“The clinical trial landscape fluctuates quite a bit, so I always encourage clinicians and families to check back often for updates. Patient organizations can also be helpful for understanding the most up-to-date and emerging trial options,” Dr. O’Neill reported.
Although it is expected that the greatest benefit would be derived from treatments initiated before or very early after the onset of symptoms, based on the limited potential for reversing cognitive loss, Dr. O’Neill said that she and others are also striving to offer treatments for individuals now living with Sanfilippo syndrome.
“We have to be willing to test treatments that are symptomatic in nature. To that aim, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation has sponsored a study of a CNS-penetrating anti-inflammatory agent in advanced-disease patients more than 4 years of age,” Dr. O’Neill said. This group of patients typically been ineligible for clinical trials in the past. Dr. O’Neill hopes to change this orientation.
“It is important to highlight that all patients deserve our efforts to improve their quality of life and alleviate suffering, regardless of how old they are or how progressed in the disease they happen to be,” she said.
However, whether the goal is enrollment before or early in disease or later in disease progression, the challenge of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to confirm clinical activity has been and continues to be a hurdle to progress.
“Clinical studies in Sanfilippo enroll relatively small numbers of patients, often 20 or less,” said Dr. O’Neill, explaining one of the reasons why her organization has been so active in raising awareness and funding such studies. For patients and families, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation can offer a variety of guidance and support, but information about opportunities for clinical trial participation is a key resource they provide for families and their physicians.
Conclusion
For most children with Sanfilippo syndrome, life expectancy is limited. However, the characterization of the genetic causes and the biochemistry of the subtypes has led to several viable therapeutic approaches under development. There has been progress in delivery of therapeutic enzymes to the CNS, and there is substantial optimism that more progress is coming. One issue for treatment development, is the last of a clear regulatory pathway addressing important biomarkers of pathology, such as heparan sulfate burden. Developing treatments that address this issue or impaired enzyme activity levels have promise for preventing progression, particularly if started in infancy. However, the effort to draw awareness to this disease is the first step toward accelerating the time to an early diagnosis and subsequent opportunities to enroll in clinical trials.
References
1. Sun A. Lysosomal storage disease overview. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Dec;6(24):476. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.11.39.
2. Andrade F et al. Sanfilippo syndrome: Overall review. Pediatr Int. 2015 Jun;57(3):331-8. doi: 10.1111/ped.12636.
3. Fedele AO. Sanfilippo syndrome: Causes, consequences, and treatments. Appl Clin Genet. 2015 Nov 25;8:269-81. doi: 10.2147/TACG.S57672.
4. Lavery C et al. Mortality in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Oct 23;12(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0717-y.
5. Pearse Y et al. A cure for Sanfilippo syndrome? A summary of current therapeutic approaches and their promise. Med Res Arch. 2020 Feb 1;8(2). doi: 10.18103/mra.v8i2.2045.
6. Kuiper GA et al. Failure to shorten the diagnostic delay in two ultrao-rphan diseases (mucopolysaccharidosis types I and III): potential causes and implication. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:2. Doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0733-y.
7. Zelei T et al. Epidemiology of Sanfilippo syndrome: Results of a systematic literature review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Apr 10;13(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0796-4.
8. Wagner VF, Northrup H. Mucopolysaccaharidosis type III. Gene Reviews. 2019 Sep 19. University of Washington, Seattle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546574/8.
9. O’Neill C et al. Natural history of facial features observed in Sanfilippo syndrome (MPS IIIB) using a next generation phenotyping tool. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126:S112.
10. Ruijter GJ et al. Clinical and genetic spectrum of Sanfilippo type C (MPS IIIC) disease in the Netherlands. Mol Genet Metab. 2008 Feb;93(2):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.09.011.
11. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIID: 12 new patients and 15 novel mutations. Hum Mutat. 2010 May;31(5):E1348-60. doi: 10.1002/humu.21234.
12. Nijmeijer SCM. The attenuated end of phenotypic spectrum in MPS III: from late-onset stable cognitive impairment to non-neuronopathic phenotype. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14:249. Doi10.1186/s13023-019-1232-0.
13. Nidiffer FD, Kelly TE. Developmental and degenerative patterns associated with cognitive, behavioural and motor difficulties in the Sanfilippo syndrome: An epidemiological study. J Ment Defic Res. 1983 Sep;27 (Pt 3):185-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1983.tb00291.x.
14. Bax MC, Colville GA. Behaviour in mucopolysaccharide disorders. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jul;73(1):77-81. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.77.
15. Fraser J et al. Sleep disturbance in mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A survey of managing clinicians. Clin Genet. 2002 Nov;62(5):418-21. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.620512.x.
16. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: Clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations. Ann Neurol. 2010 Dec;68(6):876-87. doi: 10.1002/ana.22092.
17. Heron B et al. Incidence and natural history of mucopolysaccharidosis type III in France and comparison with United Kingdom and Greece. Am J Med Genet A. 2011 Jan;155A(1):58-68. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33779.
18. Delgadillo V et al. Genistein supplementation in patients affected by Sanfilippo disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2011 Oct;34(5):1039-44. doi: 10.1007/s10545-011-9342-4.
19. van der Veen SJ et al. Developments in the treatment of Fabry disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2020 Sep;43(5):908-21. doi: 10.1002/jimd.12228.
20. Wijburg FA et al. Intrathecal heparan-N-sulfatase in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome type A: A phase IIb randomized trial. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126(2):121-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.10.006.
21. Tardieu M et al. Intracerebral administration of adeno-associated viral vector serotype rh.10 carrying human SGSH and SUMF1 cDNAs in children with mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA disease: Results of a phase I/II trial. Hum Gene Ther. 2014 Jun;25(6):506-16. doi: 10.1089/hum.2013.238.
22. Marco S et al. In vivo gene therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A new treatment horizon. Hum Gene Ther. 2019 Oct;30(10):1211-1121. doi: 10.1089/hum.2019.217.
23. Taylor M et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for mucopolysaccharidoses: Past, present, and future. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Jul;25(7):e226-e246. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.02.012.
24. Sivakumur P, Wraith JE. Bone marrow transplantation in mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: A comparison of an early treated patient with his untreated sibling. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1999 Oct;22(7):849-50. doi: 10.1023/a:1005526628598.
Sanfilippo syndrome is a rare inherited neurodegenerative metabolic disorder for which there are no approved therapies. Symptoms of the more severe subtypes typically begin within the first years of life, rapidly producing serious and progressive physical and cognitive deficits. The underlying pathophysiology is targetable, but the delay in diagnosis of this as well as other lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) is slowing progress toward effective therapies.
“Lack of awareness and the delays to diagnosis have been a real challenge for us. There is reason for cautious optimism about treatments now in or approaching clinical studies, but to evaluate efficacy on cognitive outcomes we need to enroll more children at a very young age, before loss of milestones,” according to Cara O’Neill, MD, a co-founder and chief science officer of Cure Sanfilippo Foundation.
Epidemiology and description
Sanfilippo syndrome, like the more than 50 other LSDs, is caused by a gene mutation that leads to an enzyme deficiency in the lysosome.1 In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, also known as mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS III), there are hundreds of mutations that can lead to Sanfilippo by altering the function of one of the four genes essential to degradation of heparan sulfate.2 Lysosomal accumulation of heparan sulfate drives a broad spectrum of progressive and largely irreversible symptoms that typically begin with somatic manifestations, such as bowel dysfunction and recurrent ear and upper respiratory infections.
Impairment of the central nervous system (CNS) usually occurs early in life, halting physical and mental development. As it progresses, accumulation of heparan sulfate in a variety of cells leads to a cascade of abnormal cellular signaling and dysfunction. Disruption of these processes, which are critical for normal neurodevelopment, result in loss of the developmental skills already gained and eventually loss of brain tissue.3 Although life expectancy has improved with supportive care, survival into adulthood is typically limited to milder forms.4
Over the past several years, progress in this and other LSDs has yielded therapeutic targets, including those involving gene repair and enzyme replacement. Already approved for use in some LSDs, these therapies have also shown promise in the experimental setting for Sanfilippo syndrome, leading to several completed clinical trials.5
So far, none of these treatments has advanced beyond clinical trials in Sanfilippo syndrome, but there have been favorable changes in the markers of disease, suggesting that better methods of treatment delivery and/or more sensitive tools to measure clinical change might lead to evidence of disease attenuation. However, the promise of treatment in all cases has been to prevent, slow, or halt progression, not to reverse it. This point is important, because it indicates that degree of benefit will depend on enrolling patients early in life. Even if effective therapies are identified, few patients will benefit without strategies to accelerate diagnosis.
In fact, “one study6 reported that the average age of diagnosis for Sanfilippo syndrome has not improved over the past 30 years,” according to Dr. O’Neill. She indicated that this has been frustrating, given the availability of clinical trials on which progress is dependent. There is no widely accepted protocol for who and when to test for Sanfilippo syndrome or other LSDs, but Dr. O’Neill’s organization is among those advocating for strategies to detect these diseases earlier, including screening at birth.
Almost by definition, the clinical diagnosis of rare diseases poses a challenge. With nonspecific symptoms and a broad range of potential diagnoses, diseases with a low incidence are not the first ones that are typically considered. In the case of Sanfilippo syndrome, published studies indicate incidence rates at or below 1 per 70,000 live births.7 However, the incidence rates have been highly variable not only by geographical regions but even across neighboring countries where genetic risk would be expected to be similar.
In Europe, for example, epidemiologic studies suggest the lifetime risk of MPS IIIA is approximately two times greater in Germany and the Netherlands relative to France and Sweden.7 It is possible that the methodology for identifying cases might be a more important factor than differences in genetic risk to explain this variability. Many experts, including Dr. O’Neill, believe that prevalence figures for Sanfilippo syndrome are typically underestimates because of the frequency with which LSDs are attributed to other pathology.
“For these types of rare disorders, a clinician might only see a single case over a career, and the symptoms can vary in presentation and severity with many alternatives to consider in the differential diagnosis,” Dr. O’Neill explained. She cited case reports in which symptoms of Sanfilippo syndrome after a period of initial normal development has been initially attributed to autism, which is a comorbid feature of the disease, idiopathic developmental delay, or other nonprogressive disorders until further clinical deterioration leads to additional testing. The implication is that LSDs must be considered far earlier despite their rarity.
For the least common of the four clinical subtypes, MPS IIIC and MPS IIID, the median ages of diagnosis have ranged from 4.5 to 19 years of age.7 This is likely a reflection of a slower progression and a later onset of clinical manifestations.
For the more rapidly progressing and typically more severe subtypes, MPS IIIA and MPS IIIB, the diagnosis is typically made earlier. In one review of epidemiologic studies in different countries, the earliest reported median age at diagnosis was 2.5 years,7 a point at which significant disease progression is likely to have already occurred. If the promise of treatments in development is prevention of disease progression, disability in many patients might be substantial if the time to diagnosis is not reduced.
Screening and testing
Independent of the potential to enroll children in clinical trials, early diagnosis also advances the opportunities for supportive care to lessen the burden of the disease on patients and families. Perhaps even more important, early diagnosis is vital to family planning. Since the American pediatrician Sylvester Sanfilippo, MD, first described this syndrome in 1963,7 the genetic profile and many of the features of the disease have become well characterized.8
“One reason to emphasize the importance of early diagnosis is the heritability of this disorder. With prompt diagnosis, genetic counseling can be offered to families to provide them with critical information for future family planning and for cascade testing of other potentially affected siblings,” Dr. O’Neill reported. The inheritance pattern of Sanfilippo syndrome is autosomal recessive.3 In families with an affected child, the risk for any subsequent child to have the same disorder is 25%. The chance of a sibling to be unaffected and not a carrier is also 25%. There is a 50% chance of a sibling to be a carrier but asymptomatic. Of priorities, spreading awareness has been a critical mission of the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation since it was founded 8 years ago, according to Glenn O’Neill, the president. He and his wife, Dr. O’Neill, who is a pediatrician, founded the organization after their own child’s diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome. Creating awareness is fundamental to the mission of attracting funds for research, but support to patients and their families as well as early enrollment in clinical trials are among other initiatives being pursued by the foundation to improve care and prognosis.
These strategies include some novel ideas, including an algorithm based on artificial intelligence (AI) that can accelerate suspicion of Sanfilippo syndrome in advance of laboratory or genetic testing, according to Dr. O’Neill. She reported that the facial phenotype, which is observed in a high proportion of but not in all Sanfilippo patients, includes coarse facial features such as puffiness around the eyes, heavy eyebrows, full lips, and macrocephaly.9 Interpretation of photos for AI-based analysis is enhanced when combined with other clinical symptoms.
“The Foundation was involved in honing such a tool by submitting the photos that were used to teach the AI to recognize the Sanfilippo syndrome phenotype,” Dr. O’Neill said. The AI-based tool (Face2Gene.com) is available from FDNA, a company that has been involved in analyzing complex phenotypic and genomic information to guide diagnosis and therapeutic strategies for an array of diseases, not just Sanfilippo syndrome.
The preferred method for diagnosis is biochemical or genetic testing. Of these, urine testing for elevated levels of heparan sulfate glycosaminoglycans (GAG) can be useful for screening, although false-negative tests occur. Analysis of the blood can be performed to detect abnormal levels or activity of the enzymes that break down this GAG. In addition, genetic testing can be performed on blood, fibroblast, buccal swab, or saliva samples. Genetic testing of the blood is the most frequently performed.
For the four MPS III subtypes – MPS IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID – the presence of two pathogenic mutations in the SGSH (17q25.3), NAGLU (17q21.2), HGSNAT (8p11.21), and GNS (12q14.3) genes, respectively, are likely diagnostic, but enzymatic testing or GAG analysis should be performed to confirm disease status, according to Dr. O’Neill, who said that global consensus based clinical care guidelines led by the Foundation were recently accepted for publication and also include a section on the approach to diagnosis.
While laboratory testing is sensitive, urinary excretion of GAG can be variable, with the potential for ambiguous results. Typically, biochemical and genetic testing provide more reliable results for the diagnosis. They can be readily performed in utero or at the time of birth. In addition, gene panels can permit the diagnosis of multiple types of LSDs, not just Sanfilippo, making screening a cost-effective strategy to consider multiple diseases with overlapping symptoms when an LSD is suspected. Dr. O’Neill said clinical guidelines recommend confirmation of enzyme deficiency or evidence of GAG substrate accumulation as confirmatory tests when genetic testing is positive.
“Ultimately, our goal is to promote universal screening at birth for these serious genetic disorders affecting children,” Dr. O’Neill said.
“We are in a catch-22 when it comes to newborn screening. Currently our federal system requires there be an available treatment before recommending routine screening for a disease. However, it is extremely difficult to power trials with patients who are most likely to show benefit in a trial setting without that very early diagnosis. Universal newborn screening would pave the way for accelerated drug development for children,” she added.
In the meantime, Dr. O’Neill suggests that clinicians should employ a low threshold of suspicion to pursue diagnostic studies of LSDs in infants and children with developmental delays or otherwise unexplained progressive disorders.
Importantly, clinicians can now act quickly on their suspicions and order testing without concern for delays or denial by insurers through a special program, according to Dr. O’Neill. Free genetic testing, offered by the Invitae Corporation, evaluates a panel of 58 genes associated with lysosomal disorders, permitting detection of Sanfilippo syndrome and other LSDs, according to Dr. O’Neill. The Invitae testing is typically performed on 3 mL of whole blood delivered to a central testing facility.
“Results can be obtained within a few weeks or sooner. This can seem like a long wait for families, but it is much more efficient than ordering tests sequentially,” Dr. O’Neill said.
Diagnosis: Signs and symptoms
Despite the differences in progression of the MPS III subtypes, the clinical characteristics are more similar than different. In all patients, prenatal and infant development are typically normal. The initial signs of disease can be found in the newborn, such as neonatal tachypnea, through the early infancy period, such as macrocephaly. However, these are not commonly recognized until about age 1 or soon after in those with MPS IIIA and IIIB.3 Speech delay is the first developmental delay seen in most patients. In those with MPS IIIC, initial symptoms are typically detected at age 3 or later and progress more slowly.10,11 The same is likely to be true of MPS IIID, although this subtype is less well characterized than the other three.7
Although many organs can be involved, degeneration of the CNS is regarded as the most characteristic.3 In aggressive disease, this includes slower acquisition of and failure to meet developmental milestones with progressive intellectual disability, while behavioral difficulties are a more common initial compliant in children with milder disease.13,14 These behavioral changes include hyperactivity, inattention, autistic behaviors, worsening safety awareness, and in some cases aggressive behavior that can be destructive. Sleep disturbances are common.15Because of variability inherent in descriptions of relatively small numbers of patients, the characterization of each of the MPS III subgroups is based on a limited number of small studies, but most patients demonstrate behavior disorders, have coarse facial features, and develop speech delay, according to a survey conducted of published studies.7 Collectively, abnormal behavior was identified as an early symptom in 77% of those with MPS IIIA, 69% of those with IIIB, and 77% of those with IIIC.
For MPS IIIA, loss of speech was observed at a median age of 3.8 years and loss of walking ability at 10.4 years. The median survival has been reported to range between 13 and 18 years. In children with MPS IIIB, the median age of speech loss was reported to about the same age, while loss of walking ability occurred at 11 years. In one study of MPS IIIB, 24% of patients had developed dementia by age 6 years, and the reported median survival has ranged between 17 and 19 years. For MPS IIIC, the onset of clinical symptoms has been observed at a median age of 3.5 years with evidence of cognitive loss observed in 33% of children by the age of 6 years. The median survival has ranged from 19 to 34 years in three studies tracing the natural history of this MPS III subtype.
The differential diagnosis reasonably includes other types of mucopolysaccharidosis disorders with cognitive impairment, including Hurler, Hunter, or Sly syndromes, other neurodevelopmental disorders, and inborn errors of metabolism. The heterogeneity of the features makes definitive laboratory or genetic testing, rather than the effort to differentiate clinical features, appropriate for a definitive diagnosis.
Once the diagnosis is made, other examinations for the common complications of Sanfilippo syndrome are appropriate. Abdominal imaging is appropriate for detecting complications in the gastrointestinal tract, including hepatomegaly, which has been reported in more than half of patients with MPS IIIA and IIIB and in 39% of patients with IIIC.7 In patients with breathing concerns at night and/or sleep disturbance, polysomnography can be useful for identifying sleep apnea and nocturnal seizure activity. In children suspected of seizures, EEG is appropriate. In one study, 66% of patients with MPS IIIA developed seizure activity.16 This has been less commonly reported in MPS IIIB and IIIC, ranging from 8% to 13%.15
Formal hearing evaluation is indicated for any child with speech delays. Hearing loss typically develops after the newborn period in Sanfilippo and may affect peak language acquisition if not treated, according to Dr. O’Neill.
Radiographic studies for dysostosis multiplex or other skeletal abnormalities are also appropriate based on clinical presentation.
Treatment: Present and future
In the absence of treatments to improve the prognosis of Sanfilippo syndrome, current management is based on supportive care and managing organ-specific complications. However, several strategies have proven viable in experimental models and led to clinical trials. None of these therapies has reached approval yet, but several have been associated with attenuation of biomarkers of MPS III disease activity.
Of nearly 30 Sanfilippo clinical trials conducted over the past 20 years, at least 9 have now been completed.5 In addition to studying gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy, these trials have included stem cell transplantation and substrate reduction therapy, for which the goal is to reduce synthesis of the heparan sulfate GAG to prevent accumulation.5 Of this latter approach, promising initial results with genistein, an isoflavone that breaks down heparan sulfate, reached a phase 3 evaluation.18 Although heparan sulfate levels in the CNS were non-significantly reduced over the course of the trial, the reduction was not sufficient to attenuate cognitive decline.
In other LSDs, several forms of enzyme replacement therapy are now approved. In Fabry disease, for example, recombinant alpha-galactosidase A has now been used for more than 15 years.19 Clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome because of the difficulty of delivering these therapies past the blood-brain barrier. Several strategies have been pursued. For example, intrathecal delivery of recombinant heparan-N-sulfatase reduced CNS levels of GAG heparan sulfate in one phase 2B study, but it approached but fell short of the statistical significance for the primary endpoint of predefined cognitive stabilization.20 The signal of activity and generally acceptable tolerability has encouraged further study, including an ongoing study with promising interim results of intracerebroventricular enzyme replacement in MPS IIIB, according to Dr. O’Neill.
Acceptable safety and promising activity on disease biomarkers have also been seen with gene therapy in clinical trials. In one study that showed attenuation of brain atrophy, there was moderate improvement in behavior and sleep in three of the four patients enrolled.21 Other studies using various strategies for gene delivery have also produced signals of activity against the underlying pathology, generating persistent interest in ongoing and planned clinical studies with this form of treatment.22Unmodified hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), an approach that has demonstrated efficacy when delivered early in the course of other LSDs, such as Hurler syndrome,23 has not yet been associated with significant activity in clinical studies of MPS III, including those that initiated treatment prior to the onset of neurological symptoms.24 However, promising early results have been reported in a study of gene-modified HSCT, which overexpresses the MPS IIIA enzyme.
“The clinical trial landscape fluctuates quite a bit, so I always encourage clinicians and families to check back often for updates. Patient organizations can also be helpful for understanding the most up-to-date and emerging trial options,” Dr. O’Neill reported.
Although it is expected that the greatest benefit would be derived from treatments initiated before or very early after the onset of symptoms, based on the limited potential for reversing cognitive loss, Dr. O’Neill said that she and others are also striving to offer treatments for individuals now living with Sanfilippo syndrome.
“We have to be willing to test treatments that are symptomatic in nature. To that aim, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation has sponsored a study of a CNS-penetrating anti-inflammatory agent in advanced-disease patients more than 4 years of age,” Dr. O’Neill said. This group of patients typically been ineligible for clinical trials in the past. Dr. O’Neill hopes to change this orientation.
“It is important to highlight that all patients deserve our efforts to improve their quality of life and alleviate suffering, regardless of how old they are or how progressed in the disease they happen to be,” she said.
However, whether the goal is enrollment before or early in disease or later in disease progression, the challenge of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to confirm clinical activity has been and continues to be a hurdle to progress.
“Clinical studies in Sanfilippo enroll relatively small numbers of patients, often 20 or less,” said Dr. O’Neill, explaining one of the reasons why her organization has been so active in raising awareness and funding such studies. For patients and families, the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation can offer a variety of guidance and support, but information about opportunities for clinical trial participation is a key resource they provide for families and their physicians.
Conclusion
For most children with Sanfilippo syndrome, life expectancy is limited. However, the characterization of the genetic causes and the biochemistry of the subtypes has led to several viable therapeutic approaches under development. There has been progress in delivery of therapeutic enzymes to the CNS, and there is substantial optimism that more progress is coming. One issue for treatment development, is the last of a clear regulatory pathway addressing important biomarkers of pathology, such as heparan sulfate burden. Developing treatments that address this issue or impaired enzyme activity levels have promise for preventing progression, particularly if started in infancy. However, the effort to draw awareness to this disease is the first step toward accelerating the time to an early diagnosis and subsequent opportunities to enroll in clinical trials.
References
1. Sun A. Lysosomal storage disease overview. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Dec;6(24):476. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.11.39.
2. Andrade F et al. Sanfilippo syndrome: Overall review. Pediatr Int. 2015 Jun;57(3):331-8. doi: 10.1111/ped.12636.
3. Fedele AO. Sanfilippo syndrome: Causes, consequences, and treatments. Appl Clin Genet. 2015 Nov 25;8:269-81. doi: 10.2147/TACG.S57672.
4. Lavery C et al. Mortality in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Oct 23;12(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0717-y.
5. Pearse Y et al. A cure for Sanfilippo syndrome? A summary of current therapeutic approaches and their promise. Med Res Arch. 2020 Feb 1;8(2). doi: 10.18103/mra.v8i2.2045.
6. Kuiper GA et al. Failure to shorten the diagnostic delay in two ultrao-rphan diseases (mucopolysaccharidosis types I and III): potential causes and implication. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:2. Doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0733-y.
7. Zelei T et al. Epidemiology of Sanfilippo syndrome: Results of a systematic literature review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Apr 10;13(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0796-4.
8. Wagner VF, Northrup H. Mucopolysaccaharidosis type III. Gene Reviews. 2019 Sep 19. University of Washington, Seattle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546574/8.
9. O’Neill C et al. Natural history of facial features observed in Sanfilippo syndrome (MPS IIIB) using a next generation phenotyping tool. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126:S112.
10. Ruijter GJ et al. Clinical and genetic spectrum of Sanfilippo type C (MPS IIIC) disease in the Netherlands. Mol Genet Metab. 2008 Feb;93(2):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.09.011.
11. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIID: 12 new patients and 15 novel mutations. Hum Mutat. 2010 May;31(5):E1348-60. doi: 10.1002/humu.21234.
12. Nijmeijer SCM. The attenuated end of phenotypic spectrum in MPS III: from late-onset stable cognitive impairment to non-neuronopathic phenotype. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14:249. Doi10.1186/s13023-019-1232-0.
13. Nidiffer FD, Kelly TE. Developmental and degenerative patterns associated with cognitive, behavioural and motor difficulties in the Sanfilippo syndrome: An epidemiological study. J Ment Defic Res. 1983 Sep;27 (Pt 3):185-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1983.tb00291.x.
14. Bax MC, Colville GA. Behaviour in mucopolysaccharide disorders. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jul;73(1):77-81. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.77.
15. Fraser J et al. Sleep disturbance in mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A survey of managing clinicians. Clin Genet. 2002 Nov;62(5):418-21. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.620512.x.
16. Valstar MJ et al. Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: Clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations. Ann Neurol. 2010 Dec;68(6):876-87. doi: 10.1002/ana.22092.
17. Heron B et al. Incidence and natural history of mucopolysaccharidosis type III in France and comparison with United Kingdom and Greece. Am J Med Genet A. 2011 Jan;155A(1):58-68. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33779.
18. Delgadillo V et al. Genistein supplementation in patients affected by Sanfilippo disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2011 Oct;34(5):1039-44. doi: 10.1007/s10545-011-9342-4.
19. van der Veen SJ et al. Developments in the treatment of Fabry disease. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2020 Sep;43(5):908-21. doi: 10.1002/jimd.12228.
20. Wijburg FA et al. Intrathecal heparan-N-sulfatase in patients with Sanfilippo syndrome type A: A phase IIb randomized trial. Mol Genet Metab. 2019 Feb;126(2):121-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.10.006.
21. Tardieu M et al. Intracerebral administration of adeno-associated viral vector serotype rh.10 carrying human SGSH and SUMF1 cDNAs in children with mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA disease: Results of a phase I/II trial. Hum Gene Ther. 2014 Jun;25(6):506-16. doi: 10.1089/hum.2013.238.
22. Marco S et al. In vivo gene therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): A new treatment horizon. Hum Gene Ther. 2019 Oct;30(10):1211-1121. doi: 10.1089/hum.2019.217.
23. Taylor M et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for mucopolysaccharidoses: Past, present, and future. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Jul;25(7):e226-e246. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.02.012.
24. Sivakumur P, Wraith JE. Bone marrow transplantation in mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA: A comparison of an early treated patient with his untreated sibling. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1999 Oct;22(7):849-50. doi: 10.1023/a:1005526628598.
