A Common Data Element-Based Adjudication Process for mTBI Clinical Profiles: A Targeted Multidomain Clinical Trial Preliminary Study.

INTRODUCTION: The primary purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and percent agreement of clinician-identified mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) clinical profiles and cutoff scores for selected Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research common data elements (CDEs). A secondary purpose was to investigate the predictive value of established CDE assessments in determining clinical profiles in adults with mTBI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one (23 males; 48 females) participants (M = 29.00, SD = 7.60, range 18-48 years) within 1-5 months (M = 24.20, SD = 25.30, range 8-154 days) of mTBI completed a clinical interview/exam and a multidomain assessment conducted by a licensed clinician with specialized training in concussion, and this information was used to identify mTBI clinical profile(s). A researcher administered CDE assessments to all participants, and scores exceeding CDE cutoffs were used to identify an mTBI clinical profile. The clinician- and CDE-identified clinical profiles were submitted to a multidisciplinary team for adjudication. The prevalence and percent agreement between clinician- and CDE-identified clinical profiles was documented, and a series of logistic regressions with adjusted odds ratios were performed to identify which CDE assessments best predicted clinician-identified mTBI clinical profiles. RESULTS: Migraine/headache, vestibular, and anxiety/mood mTBI clinical profiles exhibited the highest prevalence and overall percent agreement among CDE and clinician approaches. Participants exceeding cutoff scores for the Global Severity Index and Headache Impact Test-6 assessments were 3.90 and 8.81 times more likely to have anxiety/mood and migraine/headache profiles, respectively. The Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening vestibular items and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score were predictive of clinician-identified vestibular and sleep profiles, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CDEs from migraine/headache, vestibular, and anxiety/mood domains, and to a lesser extent the sleep modifier, may be clinically useful for identifying patients with these profiles following mTBI. However, CDEs for cognitive and ocular may have more limited clinical value for identifying mTBI profiles.

Assessing disease experience across the life span for individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta: challenges and opportunities for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measurement: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome (PRO) information is crucial for establishing better patient-provider communication, improving shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, assessing patient responses to therapeutic interventions, and increasing satisfaction with care. We used the Brittle Bones Disease Consortium (BBDC) Contact Registry for People with OI, managed by the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network (RDCRN) to (1) to evaluate the construct validity of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) to record important components of the disease experience among individuals with OI; and (2) explore the feasibility of using a registry to recruit individuals with OI to report on health status. Our long-term goal is to enhance communication of health and disease management findings back to the OI community, especially those who do not have access to major OI clinical centers. RESULTS: We demonstrated the construct validity of PROMIS instruments in OI. Our results confirm that the scores from most domains differ significantly from the general US population: individuals with OI have worse symptom burden and functioning. We found no excessive floor or ceiling effects. Our study demonstrates that the BBDC Contact Registry can be used to recruit participants for online health status surveys. However, there are numerous challenges that must be addressed: lack of self-knowledge of OI type, under-representation of men, limited ethnic diversity, and imperfect questionnaire completion rates. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of using a contact registry to recruit respondents from the OI community and to obtain analyzable PROMIS data regarding disease experience. Because the results differ from the general population and avoid excessive floor and ceiling effects, PROMIS instruments can be used to assess response to therapeutic interventions in individuals with OI. Future directions will include (1) development and validation of an OI-specific patient-based classification system that aggregates persons with similar clinical characteristics and risks for complications to identify treatment needs; and (2) integrating these PRO tools into routine patient care and research studies.