Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare diseases: methodological review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To examine methods for generating evidence on health outcomes in patients with rare diseases.Design
Methodological review of existing literature.Setting
PubMed, Embase, and Academic Search Premier searched for articles describing innovative approaches to randomized trial design and analysis methods and methods for conducting observational research in patients with rare diseases.Main outcome measures
We assessed information related to the proposed methods, the specific rare disease being studied, and outcomes from the application of the methods. We summarize methods with respect to their advantages in studying health outcomes in rare diseases and provide examples of their application.Results
We identified 46 articles that proposed or described methods for studying patient health outcomes in rare diseases. Articles covered a wide range of rare diseases and most (72%) were published in 2008 or later. We identified 16 research strategies for studying rare disease. Innovative clinical trial methods minimize sample size requirements (n=4) and maximize the proportion of patients who receive active treatment (n=2), strategies crucial to studying small populations of patients with limited treatment choices. No studies describing unique methods for conducting observational studies in patients with rare diseases were identified.Conclusions
Though numerous studies apply unique clinical trial designs and considerations to assess patient health outcomes in rare diseases, less attention has been paid to innovative methods for studying rare diseases using observational data.
SUBMITTER: Gagne JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4242670 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Rare anemias (RA) are mostly hereditary disorders with low prevalence and a broad spectrum of clinical severity, affecting different stages of erythropoiesis or red blood cell components. RA often remains underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, and treatment options have been limited to supportive care for many years. During the last decades, the elucidation of the molecular mechanisms underlying several RA paved the way for developing new treatments. Innovative treatments other than supportive care and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation are currently in clinical trials for β-thalassemias, sickle cell disease (SCD), and congenital hemolytic anemias. Recently, luspatercept, an activin receptor ligand trap targeting ineffective erythropoiesis, has been approved as the first pharmacological treatment for transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia. L-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab are new drugs approved SCD, targeting different steps of the complex pathophysiological mechanism. Gene therapy represents an innovative and encouraging strategy currently under evaluation in several RA and recently approved for β-thalassemia. Moreover, the advent of gene-editing technologies represents an additional option, mainly focused on correcting the defective gene or editing the expression of genes that regulate fetal hemoglobin synthesis. In this review, we aim to update the status of innovative treatments and the ongoing trials and discuss RA treatments' future directions. Interestingly, several molecules that showed promising results for treating one of these disorders are now under evaluation in the others. In the near future, the management of RA will probably consist of polypharmacotherapy tailored to patients' characteristics.
| S-EPMC8171369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods.ObjectiveTo quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality.DiscussionThis will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.
| S-EPMC8442283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Distance to care is a common exposure and proposed instrumental variable in health research, but it is vulnerable to violations of fundamental identifiability conditions for causal inference. We used data collected from the Botswana Birth Outcomes Surveillance study between 2014 and 2016 to outline 4 challenges and potential biases when using distance to care as an exposure and as a proposed instrument: selection bias, unmeasured confounding, lack of sufficiently well-defined interventions, and measurement error. We describe how these issues can arise, and we propose sensitivity analyses for estimating the degree of bias.
| S-EPMC6735874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Patients with rare diseases have limited access to useful information to guide treatment decisions. Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in clinical research may help to ensure that research efforts in rare diseases address relevant clinical questions and patient-centered health outcomes. Rare disease organizations may provide an effective means to facilitate patient engagement in research. However, the effectiveness of patient-engagement approaches, particularly for the study of rare diseases, has not been well studied. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize evidence about engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research on rare diseases, including the role of rare disease organizations in facilitating patient-centered research. METHODS/RESEARCH DESIGN: A systematic review and gray literature search were guided by a technical expert panel composed of patient representatives, clinicians, and researchers. English-language studies that engaged patients or other stakeholders in research on rare diseases or evaluated engagement were included. Studies were assessed on how well key research questions were answered, based on the level of detail describing engagement activities and whether outcomes from engagement were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included, although many reported minimal information on engagement. Patients and other stakeholders were most commonly engaged to identify patient-centered research agendas, to select which study outcomes were important to patients, to provide input on study design, and to identify strategies for increasing enrollment in trials. Rare disease organizations mainly helped provide access to patients and communicated research opportunities and findings. They also helped promote collaborative networks and provided financial support for research infrastructures. Although authors reported benefits of engagement and identified changes to their research processes, no empirical assessments of engagement practices and their effectiveness were found. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers studying rare diseases can obtain patient input regarding which research questions and health outcomes to study; however, the most effective approaches to engagement have not been well defined.
| S-EPMC4124116 | biostudies-other
Project description:Global regulatory agencies have transformed their approach to approvals in their processes for formal review of the safety and efficacy of new drugs. Opportunities for innovation have expanded because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several regulatory-led initiatives have progressed rapidly during the past year, including patient-focused drug development, model-informed drug development, real-world evidence, and complex innovative trial designs. Collectively, these initiatives have accelerated the rate of approvals. Despite demands to focus on urgent needs imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new drug approvals over the past year, particularly for rare diseases, has outpaced expectations. Advancing therapeutics for nervous system disorders requires adaptive strategies that align with rapid developments in the field. Three relentlessly progressive diseases, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and Parkinson's disease are in urgent need of new treatments. Herein, we propose new regulatory initiatives, including innovative trial designs and patient-focused drug development that accelerate clinical trial conduct while meeting critical regulatory requirements for therapeutic approval.
| S-EPMC9305159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mixed methods research has been increasingly recognized as a useful approach for describing and explaining complex issues in palliative care and end-of-life research. However, little is known about the use of this methodology in the field and the ways in which mixed methods studies have been reported. The purpose of this methodological review was to examine the characteristics, methodological features and reporting quality of mixed methods articles published in palliative care research. The authors screened all articles published in eight journals specialized in palliative care between January 2014 and April 2019. Those that reported a mixed methods study (n = 159) were included. The Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria were used to assess reporting quality. Findings showed that 57.9% of the identified studies used a convergent design and 82.4% mentioned complementarity as their main purpose for using a mixed methods approach. The reporting quality of the articles generally showed a need for improvement as authors usually did not describe the type of mixed methods design used and provided little detail on the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Based on the findings, recommendations are made to improve the quality of reporting of mixed methods articles in palliative care.
| S-EPMC7312170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTobacco use among young people is a complex and serious global dilemma that demands innovative and diverse research approaches. The purpose of this methodological review was to examine the current use of mixed methods research in tobacco control with youth and young adult populations and to develop practical recommendations for tobacco control researchers interested in this methodology.MethodsUsing PubMed, we searched five peer-reviewed journals that publish tobacco control empirical literature for the use of mixed methods research to study young populations, age 12-25 years. Our team analyzed the features of each article in terms of tobacco control topic, population, youth engagement strategies, and several essential elements of mixed methods research.ResultsWe identified 23 mixed methods studies published by authors from five different countries reported between 2004 and 2015. These 23 articles examined various topics that included tobacco use behavior, tobacco marketing and branding, and cessation among youth and young adults. The most common mixed methods approach was variations of the concurrent design in which the qualitative and quantitative strands were administered at the same time and given equal priority. This review documented several innovative applications of mixed methods research as well as challenges in the reporting of the complex research designs.ConclusionsThe use of mixed methods research in tobacco control has great potential for advancing the understanding of complex behavioral and sociocultural issues for all groups, especially youth and young adults.
| S-EPMC5571971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSocial media may be particularly valuable in research in rare genetic diseases because of the low numbers of patients and the rare disease community's robust online presence. The goal of this systematic review was to understand how social media is currently used in rare disease research and the characteristics of the participants in these studies.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of six databases to identify studies published in English between January 2004 and November 2020, of which 120 met inclusion criteria.ResultsMost studies were observational (n = 114, 95.0%) and cross-sectional (n = 107, 89.2%), and more than half (n = 69, 57.5%) utilized only surveys. Only 101 rare diseases were included across all studies. Participant demographics, when reported, were predominantly female (70.1% ± 22.5%) and white (85.0% ± 11.0%) adult patients and caregivers.ConclusionDespite its potential benefits in rare disease research, the use of social media is still methodologically limited and the participants reached may not be representative of the rare disease population by gender, race, age, or rare disease type. As scholars explore using social media for rare disease research, careful attention should be paid to representativeness when studying this diverse patient community.
| S-EPMC8720387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The translation of emerging genomic knowledge into public health and clinical care is one of the major challenges for the coming decades. At the moment, genome-based prediction of common diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and cancer, is still not informative. Our understanding of the genetic basis of multifactorial diseases is improving, but the currently identified susceptibility variants contribute only marginally to the development of disease. At the same time, an increasing number of companies are offering personalized lifestyle and health recommendations on the basis of individual genetic profiles. This discrepancy between the limited predictive value and the commercial availability of genetic profiles highlights the need for a critical appraisal of the usefulness of genome-based applications in clinical and public health care. Anticipating the discovery of a large number of genetic variants in the near future, we need to prepare a framework for the design and analysis of studies aiming to evaluate the clinical validity and utility of genetic tests. In this article, we review recent studies on the predictive value of genetic profiling from a methodological perspective and address issues around the choice of the study population, the construction of genetic profiles, the measurement of the predictive value, calibration and validation of prediction models, and assessment of clinical utility. Careful consideration of these issues will contribute to the knowledge base that is needed to identify useful genome-based applications for implementation in clinical and public health practice.
| S-EPMC2664953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRare diseases affect as many as 60 million people in the United States and Europe. However, most rare diseases lack effective therapies and are in critical need of clinical research. Our objective was to determine the frequency of noncompletion and nonpublication of trials studying rare diseases.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of randomized clinical trials studying rare diseases as defined by the Genetic and Rare Disease Information Center database that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012, and completed or discontinued by December 31, 2014. Our main outcome measures were the frequency of trial noncompletion and, among completed studies, frequency of trial nonpublication at 2 and 4 years following trial completion. Reasons for discontinuation were extracted from the registry, and trial sponsors were contacted for additional information, as needed. Two independent investigators performed publication searches for each trial in PubMed, EMBASE, and GoogleScholar, allowing for a minimum of 45 months between trial completion and publication. When a publication could not be identified, trial sponsors were contacted to confirm publication status. The impact of funding source on trial noncompletion was assessed with multivariable logistic regression, and the effect on time to publication was examined with Cox proportional hazards regression. Control variables included intervention type, trial phase, masking, enrollment, and study population. We analyzed 659 rare disease trials accounting for 70,305 enrolled patients. Industry was the primary funder for 327 trials (49.6%) and academic institutions for 184 trials (27.9%). There were 79 trials (12.0%) focused on pediatric populations. A total of 199 trials (30.2%) were discontinued. Lack of patient accrual (n = 64, 32.1%) and informative termination (n = 41, 20.6%) were the most common reasons for trial noncompletion. Among completed trials, 306 (66.5%) remained unpublished at 2 years and 142 (31.5%) at 4 years. In multivariable analyses, industry-funded trials were less likely to be discontinued than trials funded by healthcare centers (odds ratio [OR] 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-4.39, P = 0.003). We found no significant association between funding source and time to publication. A total of 18,148 patients were enrolled in trials that were discontinued or unpublished 4 years after completion. A potential limitation of our study is that certain interventional trials for rare diseases may not have been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, in particular Phase 0 and Phase I trials, which are not required to be registered.ConclusionsIn this study, over half of clinical trials initiated for rare diseases were either discontinued or not published 4 years after completion, resulting in large numbers of patients with rare diseases exposed to interventions that did not lead to informative findings. Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that participation of patients in rare disease trials advances scientific knowledge and treatments for rare diseases.
| S-EPMC6871779 | biostudies-literature