Observer Agreement of Vertebral Fracture Grading Using Dual Energy Absorptiometry Vertebral Fracture Assessment in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

Routine screening of the spine for vertebral fracture is recommended in the recent international standards of care for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Recent international consensus endorses the use of dual energy absorptiometry vertebral fracture assessment for identification of vertebral fractures in children, which could be used instead of spine radiographs. This study aims to evaluate the inter-observer agreement for vertebral fracture classification in boys with DMD, and the impact on clinical management. Dual energy absorptiometry vertebral fracture assessment and morphometric analysis in 39 boys was performed by a reader with no prior experience (R1) and 2 readers with experience (R2 and R3). Inter-observer concordance of vertebral fracture grading comparing R1 with R2 and R3 was substantial (Kappa 0.66, 95% CI 0.56, 0.76). Concordance between R2 and R3 was almost perfect (Kappa 0.93, 95% CI 0.89, 0.97) which did not lead to differences in clinical management. Grading by R1 in comparison to R2 and R3 would have led to change in management of 5/39 boys (13%), according to recent standards of care guidance. Structured education programme on identification of vertebral fractures should be explored to ensure consistency of reporting of this important health outcome measure in DMD.

Fractures and bone health monitoring in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy managed within the Scottish Muscle Network.

There are limited reports of radiologically confirmed fractures and bone health monitoring in with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. We performed a retrospective study of 91 boys, with a median age of 11.0 years, who are currently managed in Scotland with the aim to assess the frequency of radiologically confirmed fractures and report on bone health monitoring in relation to International Care Consensus Guidance. Of these boys, 59 (65%) were receiving glucocorticoid (GC) therapy and 23 (25%) had received previous treatment. Of those currently on GC, 37 (63%) had an assessment of bone mineral density and none had routine imaging for vertebral fractures during the study period. Of the 91 boys, 44 (48%) had sustained at least one symptomatic radiographically confirmed fracture. The probability of sustaining a first symptomatic fracture was 50% by 12.8 years old (95%CI: 12.1, 13.6). The most common sites for non-vertebral fracture were the femur and tibia. In this review of boys with DMD, almost half had sustained at least one radiologically confirmed symptomatic fracture. There is a need for standardized bone health monitoring in DMD that includes routine imaging of the spine to identify vertebral fractures, given the persistence of insult to the skeleton in these boys.

A checklist for clinical trials in rare disease: obstacles and anticipatory actions-lessons learned from the FOR-DMD trial.

BACKGROUND: Trials in rare diseases have many challenges, among which are the need to set up multiple sites in different countries to achieve recruitment targets and the divergent landscape of clinical trial regulations in those countries. Over the past years, there have been initiatives to facilitate the process of international study set-up, but the fruits of these deliberations require time to be operationally in place. FOR-DMD (Finding the Optimum Steroid Regimen for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy) is an academic-led clinical trial which aims to find the optimum steroid regimen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for 5 years (July 2010 to June 2015), anticipating that all sites (40 across the USA, Canada, the UK, Germany and Italy) would be open to recruitment from July 2011. However, study start-up was significantly delayed and recruitment did not start until January 2013. METHOD: The FOR-DMD study is used as an example to identify systematic problems in the set-up of international, multi-centre clinical trials. The full timeline of the FOR-DMD study, from funding approval to site activation, was collated and reviewed. Systematic issues were identified and grouped into (1) study set-up, e.g. drug procurement; (2) country set-up, e.g. competent authority applications; and (3) site set-up, e.g. contracts, to identify the main causes of delay and suggest areas where anticipatory action could overcome these obstacles in future studies. RESULTS: Time from the first contact to site activation across countries ranged from 6 to 24 months. Reasons of delay were universal (sponsor agreement, drug procurement, budgetary constraints), country specific (complexity and diversity of regulatory processes, indemnity requirements) and site specific (contracting and approvals). The main identified obstacles included (1) issues related to drug supply, (2) NIH requirements regarding contracting with non-US sites, (3) differing regulatory requirements in the five participating countries, (4) lack of national harmonisation with contracting and the requirement to negotiate terms and contract individually with each site and (5) diversity of languages needed for study materials. Additionally, as with many academic-led studies, the FOR-DMD study did not have access to the infrastructure and expertise that a contracted research organisation could provide, organisations often employed in pharmaceutical-sponsored studies. This delay impacted recruitment, challenged the clinical relevance of the study outcomes and potentially delayed the delivery of the best treatment to patients. CONCLUSION: Based on the FOR-DMD experience, and as an interim solution, we have devised a checklist of steps to not only anticipate and minimise delays in academic international trial initiation but also identify obstacles that will require a concerted effort on the part of many stakeholders to mitigate.