Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35096477›Full record

ReviewInnovations in clinical neuroscience

Clinician- and Patient-reported Endpoints in CNS Orphan Drug Clinical Trials: ISCTM Position Paper on Best Practices for Endpoint Selection, Validation, Training, and Standardization.

Joan Busner, Gahan Pandina, SilviaZaragoza Domingo, Anna-Karin Berger, Maria T Acosta, Nahome Fisseha, Joseph Horrigan, Jelena Ivkovic, William Jacobson, Dennis Revicki and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Innovations in clinical neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Joan BusnerAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Gahan PandinaAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
SilviaZaragoza DomingoAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Anna-Karin BergerAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Maria T AcostaAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Nahome FissehaAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Joseph HorriganAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Jelena IvkovicAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
William JacobsonAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Dennis RevickiAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Victoria Villalta-GilAll authors are members of the ISCTM Working Group for Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development; Drs. Busner and Pandina are Co-Chairs.
Ithaka Harbors · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe International Society of CNS Clinical Trials Methodology (ISCTM) Working Group on Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development is dedicated to improving and streamlining trials to best develop new treatments for rare diseases. The rarity of these disorders requires a drug development strategy that differs from those of nonrare conditions. Rare disease drug development programs are challenged with small sample sizes, heterogeneous clinical presentations, and few, if any, off-the-shelf endpoints. When disease-specific clinical endpoints exist, they might not be validated and are typically not well known or broadly used in clinical practice. This paper aims to provide an overview of the special issues surrounding endpoints in rare disease drug development, with guidance, practical applications, and discussion. DISCUSSION: The paper covers regulatory considerations in endpoint selection; identification of relevant measurement domains; methods of quantifying clinical meaningfulness; incorporation of patient- and clinician-reported outcomes; considerations for global clinician- and patient-rated clinical assessments; cognition assessment challenges in rare diseases; translation considerations; training, standardization, and calibration of assessors; and endpoint quality assurance. Additionally, it provides guidance and resources for those involved in drug development for rare diseases.

conclusionIn keeping with the mission of ISCTM and the rare disease/orphan drug development working group, this article is designed to encourage thoughtful consideration and provide insight and guidance to promote and further efforts in in central nervous system (CNS) rare disease drug development efforts.

Indexed as

assessmentCGICOAseCOAsEndpointsInternational Society of CNS Clinical Trials Methodology (ISCTM)measurementorphan diseaseorphan drug developmentoutcomesPGIposition paperrare disease

Identifiers

PMID35096477
PMCPMC8794479
OpenAlexW4210821569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.