Trial reportPloS one2024
Exploring concurrent validity of the CLN2 Clinical Rating Scale: Comparison to PedsQL using cerliponase alfa clinical trial data.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
A Phase 1/2 Open-Label Dose-Escalation Study to Evaluate Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Efficacy of Intracerebroventricular BMN 190 in Patients With Late-Infantile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis Type 2 (CLN2) Disease
A Multicenter, Multinational, Extension Study to Evaluate the Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of BMN 190 in Patients With CLN2 Disease
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caregiver Reports of Neurodevelopmental Functions in Pediatric Lysosomal Storage Disorders: A Scoping Review.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2026Article
- Speech, Language and Non-verbal Communication in CLN2 and CLN3 Batten Disease.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2025Article
- Psychometric Validation of the CLN2 Quality of Life Questionnaire in Participants with CLN2 Disease Treated with Cerliponase Alfa.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe CLN2 Clinical Rating Scale evaluates disease progression in CLN2 disease, an ultra-rare, neurodegenerative disorder with late infantile onset. To validate the Clinical Rating Scale, a comparison with the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) was conducted utilising clinical trial data investigating cerliponase alfa use in CLN2 disease.
methodsLinear regression and mixed effects models were used to investigate the relationship between the Clinical Rating Scale and PedsQL using open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 (NCT01907087) and ongoing extension study (NCT02485899) data of 23 children with CLN2 disease treated with cerliponase alfa for ≥96 weeks.
resultsCorrelations between the four Clinical Rating Scale domains were low. Linear mixed effects analyses showed significant correlation between PedsQL and Clinical Rating Scale (Total score or motor-language [ML] score adjusted p-values <0.05), driven by the relationship with the PedsQL Physical domain. A statistically significant relationship was identified between the Clinical Rating Scale motor domain and PedsQL (Total score: adjusted p-value = 0.048, parameter estimate [PE] = 8.10; Physical domain score: adjusted p-value = 0.012; PE = 13.79).
conclusionsEach domain of the Clinical Rating Scale provides unique information on disease state. Validity of the scale is supported by its relationship with the PedsQL. Among the four domains of the Clinical Rating Scale, motor has the highest correlation to PedsQL, suggesting motor function as a driver of patients' quality of life. The lack of association between the remaining domains of the Clinical Rating Scale and PedsQL suggests that additional disease-specific measures may be needed to fully capture the quality of life impact of CLN2 disease.
trial registrationNCT01907087, NCT02485899.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.