Observational studyEpilepsia2026
Baseline characteristics and feasibility of clinical outcome measures in CDKL5 deficiency disorder: The CANDID observational study.
Observational study in Epilepsia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive and behavioral clinical outcome assessments in children with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies: Issues and instruments.Epilepsia · 2026Review
- Baseline characteristics and feasibility of clinical outcome measures in CDKL5 deficiency disorder: The CANDID observational study.Epilepsia · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCDKL5 deficiency disorder (CDD) is a rare X-linked developmental and epileptic encephalopathy caused by loss-of-function variants in the CDKL5 gene. Preclinical experiments using enzyme replacement or gene therapies show promise and could be transformative therapies. This precompetitive consortium sought to harmonize nonseizure clinical endpoint selection for efficacy trials. Clinical Assessment of Neurodevelopmental Measures in CDD (CANDID) is an ongoing study evaluating the feasibility and suitability of neurocognitive tests and functioning scales in CDD patients.
methodsCANDID is a 3-year, longitudinal, noninterventional global study involving children and adults with CDD. On-site and remote visits include clinical, behavioral, developmental, and quality of life assessments.
resultsWe enrolled 112 patients (111 included in analyses); mean age = 8.3 years (range <1-28); 93% female; 10 participants were ≥18 years old. In the first 28 days, 82% had >16 seizures; six were seizure-free. Median seizure onset was at 1.5 months (range = 0-66). Patients used an average of 2.6 antiseizure medications at baseline. The most frequent comorbidities included gastrointestinal hypomotility, muscle tone abnormalities, and sleep disorders. Gross Motor Function Measure-88 (GMFM-88) scores indicated a floor effect in crawling, standing, and walking across all ages. Vineland-3 and Bayley-4 scores could be derived in most, with receptive language, interpersonal relationships, and fine and gross motor scores increasing with age. Bruni sleep questionnaire identified sleep initiation, sleep-awake transition, and excessive somnolence as the most disrupted components across all age groups. The mean Quality of Life Inventory-Disability total scores ranged from 53% to 64%, the independence domain being the most impacted. SIGNIFICANCE: The scales in the CANDID study capture disease-related deficits and phenotype variability in CDD. Floor effects in subdomains aligned with disease severity. The GMFM-88 lacks granularity, and its operational limitations make it unsuitable for CDD trials. Baseline analyses demonstrate the feasibility and potential value of most selected scales, supporting their use in optimizing trial design and endpoint selection for future CDD clinical trials.
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.