4.4 Review

The cooperative international neuromuscular research group duchenne natural history studya longitudinal investigation in the era of glucocorticoid therapy: Design of protocol and the methods used

期刊

MUSCLE & NERVE
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 32-54

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mus.23807

关键词

adolescent; adult; child; preschool; follow-up study; health status; human; locomotion; male; muscle strength; physiology; muscular dystrophies; classification; muscular dystrophies; Duchenne; physiopathology; muscular dystrophies; therapy; phenotype; quality of life; psychology; respiratory function test

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Education/NIDRR [H133B031118, H133B090001]
  2. U.S. Department of Defense [W81XWH-09-1-0592]
  3. National Institutes of Health [UL1RR031988, U54HD053177, UL1RR024992, U54RR026139, G12RR003051, 1R01AR061875, RO1AR062380]
  4. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contemporary natural history data in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is needed to assess care recommendations and aid in planning future trials. Methods The Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group (CINRG) DMD Natural History Study (DMD-NHS) enrolled 340 individuals, aged 2-28 years, with DMD in a longitudinal, observational study at 20 centers. Assessments obtained every 3 months for 1 year, at 18 months, and annually thereafter included: clinical history; anthropometrics; goniometry; manual muscle testing; quantitative muscle strength; timed function tests; pulmonary function; and patient-reported outcomes/health-related quality-of-life instruments. Results Glucocorticoid (GC) use at baseline was 62% present, 14% past, and 24% GC-naive. In those 6 years of age, 16% lost ambulation over the first 12 months (mean age 10.8 years). Conclusions Detailed information on the study methodology of the CINRG DMD-NHS lays the groundwork for future analyses of prospective longitudinal natural history data. These data will assist investigators in designing clinical trials of novel therapeutics. Muscle Nerve, 2013

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据