Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
Patient reported outcome measures in spinal muscular atrophy and duchenne muscular dystrophy: review of instruments and their inclusion in clinical and regulatory processes.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Malandrini Francesco, Spataro Clarissa, Meregaglia Michela, Sansone Valeria, D'amico Adele, Scopinaro Annalisa, Ciani Oriana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to analyze the use of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), observer-reported outcome measures (ObsROMs), and caregiver-reported outcome measures (CROMs) in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The objectives are twofold: (1) to identify and characterize available instruments to be used in research and clinical practice, and (2) to assess their inclusion in drug development and regulatory assessment processes.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ePROVIDE database to identify PROMs, ObsROMs, and CROMs for SMA and DMD. The identified instruments were analyzed for validation, psychometric properties, Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), and recall period. Additionally, clinical trial protocols, relative study publications, European Public Assessment Report (EPAR), and Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) reports for innovativeness recognition on medicines for SMA and DMD (i.e., nusinersen, onasemnogene abeparvovec, risdiplam, and ataluren) were reviewed to evaluate the inclusion of these measures in drug development and regulatory assessment.
RESULTS: The initial search identified 50 questionnaires, including 40 PROMs, 5 ObsROMs, and 5 CROMs. Of these, 15 (30.0%) instruments were included in pivotal clinical trial protocols, with none designated as primary endpoints. Only 6 (12.0%) instruments were mentioned in EPARs, and MCID determination was reported for 6 (12.0%) of the instruments. Generic instruments like the PedsQL were frequently used but criticized for limited specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of PROMs, ObsROMs, and CROMs for SMA and DMD, their use in clinical trials and regulatory documents is limited and inconsistent. Greater standardization and systematic inclusion of these measures are needed to support patient-centered drug development and evaluation.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ePROVIDE database to identify PROMs, ObsROMs, and CROMs for SMA and DMD. The identified instruments were analyzed for validation, psychometric properties, Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), and recall period. Additionally, clinical trial protocols, relative study publications, European Public Assessment Report (EPAR), and Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) reports for innovativeness recognition on medicines for SMA and DMD (i.e., nusinersen, onasemnogene abeparvovec, risdiplam, and ataluren) were reviewed to evaluate the inclusion of these measures in drug development and regulatory assessment.
RESULTS: The initial search identified 50 questionnaires, including 40 PROMs, 5 ObsROMs, and 5 CROMs. Of these, 15 (30.0%) instruments were included in pivotal clinical trial protocols, with none designated as primary endpoints. Only 6 (12.0%) instruments were mentioned in EPARs, and MCID determination was reported for 6 (12.0%) of the instruments. Generic instruments like the PedsQL were frequently used but criticized for limited specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of PROMs, ObsROMs, and CROMs for SMA and DMD, their use in clinical trials and regulatory documents is limited and inconsistent. Greater standardization and systematic inclusion of these measures are needed to support patient-centered drug development and evaluation.