Empowering Rare Disease Patients with their Own Health Records

June 11, 2021

Health records can be a rich source of data that can help provide an understanding of a rare disease and drive the development of therapies to treat them. But the siloing of this data, the use of inconsistent terminology, and the unstructured nature of aspects of these records all stand as barriers to harnessing their potential. The consumer health technology company Ciitizen is working to give patients greater control over their own health data and enable its sharing with researchers and providers. We spoke to Nasha Fitter, vice president of rare disease for Ciitizen, about her own experience as a mother of a child with a rare neurologic condition, her work as a rare disease advocate, and a collaboration between a group of rare neurologic disease advocacy organizations to build a natural history study on the Ciitizen platform.



Daniel Levine: Nasha. Thanks for joining us.

Nasha Fitter: Thank you for having me.

Daniel Levine: We’re going to talk about Ciitizen, its healthcare technology platform, and the potential to leverage the data available in electronic health records to drive faster diagnoses and new treatments for rare diseases. Listeners may know you through your work with the FoxG1 Research Foundation, which you co-founded. You became involved in the world of rare disease after your daughter began having seizures. What happened and how was she diagnosed?

Nasha Fitter: Luckily, the fact that she started having seizures got her a diagnosis much faster. She was diagnosed through the epilepsy panel from GeneDx and we found that she had a FoxG1 mutation about three months after she started having seizures. We always think that if she hadn’t had those seizures, it would have taken us years to get to a diagnosis because she would have just had an intellectual disability and we wouldn’t have been offered the ability to get genetic testing.

Daniel Levine: What were you told about FoxG1 at the time she was diagnosed?

Nasha Fitter: Interestingly, I was told not to go online because it would scare me. What I was told is that it affects gross motor, fine motor, communication, most children don’t walk or talk, they eat with a feeding tube, they have hundreds of seizures a day, and movement disorders. This was my first, kind of, information overload and I thought, God, life is over. What can I even do here? I learned going forward that there is a spectrum and there are many things that we can do. That was my first information overload and I think is what most parents receive.

Daniel Levine: How well understood is the condition today and how does it manifest itself and progress?

Nasha Fitter: It’s not understood. That’s why I’ve become so incredibly passionate about the need for data and making that data accessible. There’s not much known about FoxG1 syndrome. There are a limited number of patients. There has been a few research reports published, but it’s always a very small number. It’s a spectrum, like most diseases, and we need more data. We need more information on more patients to get a sense of how this disease manifests change over time.

Daniel Levine: What was the decision you made when you decided to launch the FoxG1 Research Foundation?

Nasha Fitter: It was simply that we need to accelerate finding a cure. Everything I learned is that if you want something done in a rare disease, you’ve got to get together with a group of other parents or patients and do it yourself. No one will care unless you care. It really wasn’t even a decision. I don’t think I even had a choice. It was just something we had to do.

Daniel Levine: The FoxG1 Research Foundation, in my mind, has a very clear strategy and is rather methodical in the way it goes about things. What’s the approach it’s been taking?

Nasha Fitter: That has actually been our number one approach, to be very strategic and very clear on what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. We get flooded with research requests from different scientists. Unless we really know what is absolutely necessary, you can start funding projects that may not necessarily help you get to your end goal. What we did is speak to biotechnology companies and biopharma to understand what it takes to get a drug developed in our children in a way that’s safe. With that understanding, we were able to work backwards on what are the different steps that are necessary for us to get to that point. We’re very ruthless with that. We don’t do anything if it doesn’t fit in that paradigm.

Daniel Levine: It seems to me, a lot of the thinking that’s driven your approach has been to de-risk drug development, so that companies would come into the space. How have you gone about doing that?

Nasha Fitter: That’s what it’s all about. It’s hard and it’s expensive. De-risking means understanding the disease. Companies don’t want to spend endless amounts of money on a disease that is not well understood. To understand a disease, you look at it in a forked approach. One is, to understand it from a biological pathways perspective, and that’s where you need to know the non-human ways that you can model a disease, animal models, stem cell models, et cetera. Then on the flip side is, how we can document what children or patients are going through in a very systematic way. With that combination, and with some proof of concepts, you’ve hopefully de-risked it enough for someone to invest millions of dollars to develop a drug.

Daniel Levine: In that context, how did you come to view the need to gather data and the role it would play in the process?

Nasha Fitter: I was very lucky that early on one of our SAB members, who runs a biotech company, told me if there’s one thing you do, conduct a natural history study. That is something that is really difficult for biopharma to do. It’s hard for biotech companies to access patients and contact patients but as an advocacy group we can do that. I took that to heart and plunged into how we collect good data. There were mistakes we made along the way. We started a registry and we created our own survey, and then later I learned that if it’s not an FDA validated survey, that information is useful internally but won’t be taken seriously. We, kind of, had to start over and get validated surveys, and we’re lucky to be on the Ciitizen platform where we can get rich clinical data, which is really what moves the needle.

Daniel Levine: In addition to your role as CEO of FoxG1, you also serve as the director of rare neurological diseases for Ciitizen. The FoxG1 Research Foundation received a $500,000 grant from Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative to allow groups like yours to use machine learning to accelerate rare disease drug development. This has funded a digital natural history program that FoxG1 syndrome launched with three other rare neurological disease groups in partnership with Ciitizen. Let’s start with Ciitizen. What is Ciitizen for people who are not familiar with the company? What’s the problem it’s trying to solve?

Nasha Fitter: The problem Ciitizen is trying to solve is, can we create an accessible platform where patients can access their own medical records, your raw medical records or your MRIs, and then can share it easily with whomever they want, it’s totally in the patient’s control. Then, can we use those raw medical records to extract relevant information to create natural histories that can then be shared freely and easily with researchers, academic or biotech. That’s kind of what it does. Then, I would say the problems we’re trying to solve are getting second opinions quickly for patients, getting matched to clinical trials, and further developing natural history studies for rare groups and larger groups.

Daniel Levine: How are the various organizations working together on the digital natural history study and what does it ultimately seek to do?

Nasha Fitter: I could not have done this without our pilot groups, the SynGAP Research Fund and TESS Research Foundation. We came together to figure out how we could utilize this platform. Ciitizen started in the oncology space due to our founder’s own personal story of losing his sister to metastatic breast cancer. I really felt that this platform is the future for rare diseases because we need this deep clinical data and we need it fast. We can’t wait three to five years to collect rich natural history data from in-person studies. It was perfect for the problem that we have in rare diseases. It was really TESS Research Foundation and SynGAP that joined us, FoxG1 Research, and, thankfully, CZI believed in us and gave us the grant to do this work. To actually have the first cohorts come onto the platform, sign up, have patients trust us, we’ve collected their medical records, and we’re now in the process of extracting information and creating these rich studies. SynGAP research fund will have data from a rich natural history study on a hundred patients in six months. That’s never been done before in the rare disease space. There’s already a plethora of researchers that are utilizing this data. I’m excited that this year we can showcase how this platform is a game changer for groups like ours.

Daniel Levine: Have you learned anything in the process of doing this about gathering data and improving the way it’s done?

Nasha Fitter: I think Ciitizen has completely gotten down how to collect data quickly. The most challenging part, I learned, is getting patients to come onto the platform. You have your early adopters who are invested in research and will come on. We have a chance with platforms like this to get our entire communities on. All caregivers and patients have to understand that this is a community effort. In rare diseases, you cannot hope that someone else is going to come and solve your problem. This isn’t breast cancer. Everyone has to do their bit. That means joining studies such as these, so we can collect a large cohort of data, as large as possible, to do a really rich study.

Daniel Levine: Is there any insight you’ve gotten into the resistance of patients to participate?

Nasha Fitter: I think this is a new innovative method. People haven’t heard about it before. So, there is a lot of education that’s necessary. Then, rare disease families are busy, they’re exhausted, and they think, is this one more study that I have to do? Will it go anywhere? Will it result in anything? There’s a lot of apathy to do things, which is completely understandable. Unfortunately, we have to work through that apathy to get something done. That’s what we’re hearing and seeing.

Daniel Levine: Because Ciitizen is actually pulling data from electronic health records, how is the burden of participation compared to a more typical natural history study?

Nasha Fitter: It’s a night and day difference. Here, all patients have to do is come onto a platform, get some of their documentation like their child’s birth certificates, et cetera, and take a picture of them so we have it. [This is] versus an in-person study where you’re having to get your special needs child in a car, drive to an academic center, spend half a day there, you may not live near a center and have to fly there, and you have to take days off work. It’s a huge difference in terms of time burden. But I think, many people are wary of technology. They’re wary of data privacy. These are important questions and there’s a lot of education that’s necessary.

Daniel Levine: How was the quality of the information that can be gleaned from electronic health records relative to the typical surveys that make up a natural history study?

Nasha Fitter: That’s a great question. One of the benefits of a platform like Ciitizen is that we can go back and collect 10 years of the data. You’re looking at 10 years of really rich natural history data because everything is collected, every progress report, every clinical note, every MRI, every EEG report. So, we’re able to piece together what is the continuum and true natural history of these patients. There’s not a lot of holes in the data because most patients have been seeing their neurologist or specialists in a consecutive way in order to get services. We’re able to actually pull a very large and deep amount of data. Also, we can normalize it because a physician in one institution may term something differently. I learned myself that there’s 40 different ways you can say heart attack. That normalization is also something that’s very valuable. Our goal is to look at data at the aggregate level. There is still a role for in-person studies and in-person visits because you can ask further questions. I’m really excited about, if there’s things that we want to further ask patients, can we use technology? Can we do video interviews, are there other ways that we can gather data without a patient having to necessarily go into a center? For me, the data can either supplement a current in-person study, or it could be a study in itself.

Daniel Levine: It strikes me that the other thing that’s possible here is, you normally think of groups doing these types of studies in isolation. You’ve got four groups focused on different neurological conditions working together here. Is the expectation that insights gleaned from one will help elucidate the other?

Nasha Fitter: Yes, exactly. We learned so much and there’s a lot we have in common and there are differences. That’s really been the eye-opener—that there is so much in common. We can scale faster through neurodevelopmental disorders. There’s a few things that we’re learning that are different and are very helpful to understand how these diseases differ from each other. That’s why when our foundation wrote the grant we wanted to include a few different groups that were similar in some ways, but also quite different in the types of genes, gene locations on different chromosomes, et cetera, so we could build something that was holistic.

Daniel Levine: You mentioned the challenges of getting patients to participate in the natural history study. What control do patients have over their data and how it’s used and what’s the incentive for them to make use of the Ciitizen platform?

Nasha Fitter: They have complete and total control of their medical records, as well as where the extracted data goes. It’s a completely patient-centric platform. Patients consent, yes I want to share my data with academic and biopharma researchers or I don’t, or I just want to be contacted on a study by study basis. It is completely up to the patient and they can pull their consent at a later date as well. It is very much a patient directed platform. The other thing that sometimes I think gets overlooked is, normally when you have biopharma that are creating these natural history studies, they do them individually. You’ll have company A doing a study for, I’m just going to make up a disease group, like SCN2A patients, and then company B may do a similar study. You’ve got a very small patient pool to begin with and then they have to enroll in two separate studies. That’s what we’re trying to break away from. We can just gather this data and put it on one platform. Then, however many companies that want to access the data can do so. It’s not owned by any one company or any one academic institution.

Daniel Levine: As a matter of disclosure for listeners, I perform work for the collaborative data sharing platform RARE-X. Listeners can hear a discussion that you and I recently had along with Vanessa Vogel-Farley about a partnership that Ciitizen and RARE-X recently entered. While I have you, what will that partnership do, and what does that mean for rare disease patients looking to drive research into their conditions?

Nasha Fitter: The future, how we’re thinking is how do we just accelerate, accelerate, accelerate, getting all this rich information. RARE-X is amazing because they have thought through very carefully, what are the right survey questions that caregivers and patients should take? This is a distinction that there’s some confusion over. There’s two types of data. There’s something called a PRO, which is a patient reported outcome, like a survey that we fill, and then there’s clinical, clinician reported outcomes, which is information that we glean from a medical record. There are two types of data and why the partnership with RARE-X is so powerful is we’re able to combine the expertise of both of those. Information that’s gleaned from PROs and then information that is gleaned from electronic medical records. One of the things I love about RARE-X is they realize that no one platform is going to own everything and be great at everything. The idea here is, we have our expertise, but the only way we’re going to accelerate rare disease is if we can open these pipelines. RARE-X may work with other companies like Ciitizen, and we may work with other organizations like RARE-X, and that is fine. It’s up to the patient or the advocacy group where they want to go. The goal is our platforms should really talk to one another.

Daniel Levine: As you think about the new ways that information technology is enabling people to gather and share information about rare diseases? How do you see this ultimately altering the landscape for patients?

Nasha Fitter: I think this is going to be one of the biggest game changers that we will see in our lifetime because over the next 10 years we will see a massive movement towards precision medicine. That will only work if there’s very granular information on a per patient basis. So, very granular genetic genomic information as well as very granular clinical information that also can be compared to other cohorts. I see the future of medicine very differently than how it is now. I see treatments that are going to be much more effective. We’re going to see better treatments. We’re going to see more transformational treatments. None of that is going to be possible without rich data, easily accessible by everyone in the spectrum.

Daniel Levine: Nasha Fitter, co-founder and CEO FoxG1 Research Foundation and director of rare neurological diseases for Ciitizen. Nasha, thanks as always.

Nasha Fitter: Thank you so much for having me for this important topic. I appreciate it.


Stay Connected

Sign up for updates straight to your inbox.