BackgroundClinical trials in rare diseases are more challenging than trials in frequent diseases. Small numbers of eligible trial participants, often complicated by heterogeneity among rare disease patients, hamper the design and conduct of a ‘classical’ Randomized Controlled Trial. Therefore, novel designs are developed by statisticians. However, it is important to be aware of possible design aspects that may jeopardize the feasibility of trial conduct. If the burden of participation is considered out of proportion by patients or parents, recruitment may fail or participants may drop out before trial completion. In order to maximize the chance of success of trials in small populations, it is important to know which aspects of trial design are considered important by patients.ResultsWe have interviewed all ten members of the Patient Think Tank (PTT) of the ASTERIX project, a European research consortium on methodology for clinical trials in small populations. The PTT members are rare disease patient representatives who have completed extensive training in clinical trial methodology. We have analyzed the interviews qualitatively according to Grounded Theory using a thematic analysis, and we structured the topics in four chronologically ordered themes: 1. Involvement in trial design; 2. Opinions on trial design; 3. Trial participation; 4. Phase after the trial. Our main findings are that the PTT-members recommend that patients are involved in trial design from an early stage on, and have influence on the outcomes and measurement instruments that are chosen in the trial, the length of the study, the choice of participants, and the information that is sent to potential participants. Also, according to the PTT-members, patient groups should consider setting up disease registries, placebo groups should be minimized, and more education on clinical trials is advised.ConclusionsRare disease patient representatives who have been educated about clinical trial methodology think it is important to involve patient representatives in research at an early stage. They can be of advice in trial design in such a way that the ratio of potential benefit and burden of trial participation as well as the chosen outcome measures and in- and exclusion criteria are optimized.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-019-1002-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundGoal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is an instrument that is intended to evaluate the effect of an intervention by assessing change in daily life activities on an individual basis. However, GAS has not been validated adequately in an RCT setting. In this paper we propose a conceptual validation plan of GAS in the setting of rare disease drug trials, and describe a hypothetical trial where GAS could be validated.MethodsWe have used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) taxonomy to deduce which measurement properties of GAS can be evaluated, and how. As individual GAS scores cannot be interpreted outside the context of a RCT, the validation of GAS needs to be done on trial as well as on individual level.ResultsThe procedure of GAS consists of three steps. For the step of goal selection (step 1) and definition of levels of attainment (step 2), face validity may be assessed by clinical experts. For the evaluation of the goal attainment (step 3), the inter and intra rater reliability can be evaluated on an individual level. Construct validity may be evaluated by comparison with change scores on other instruments measuring in the same domain as particular goals, if available, and by testing hypotheses about differences between groups. A difference in mean GAS scores between a group who received an efficacious intervention and a control group is an indication of well-chosen goals, and corroborates construct validity of GAS on trial level. Responsiveness of GAS cannot be evaluated due to the nature of the construct being assessed.ConclusionGAS may be useful as an instrument to assess functional change as an outcome measure in heterogeneous chronic rare diseases, but it can only be interpreted and validated when used in RCTs with blinded outcome assessment. This proposed theoretical validation plan can be used as a starting point to validate GAS in specific conditions.

BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that neonatal seizures in term neonates with stroke, asphyxia or brain haemorrhage might be associated with adverse neurodevelopment and development of epilepsy. The extent of this association is not known. The objective of this study was to assess the possible impact of neonatal seizures on these outcomes and if possible calculate a relative risk.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed (study period January 2000–June 2015). PubMed, Medline and Embase were searched for cohort studies evaluating neurodevelopmental outcome at the age of at least 18 months or development of epilepsy in surviving term neonates with or without neonatal seizures. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed and data extractions were performed in a standardized manner by independent reviewers. Pooled Relative Risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals for adverse outcome were calculated if possible.ResultsOut of 1443 eligible studies 48 were selected for full text reading leaving 9 cohort studies for the final analyses (4 studies on stroke, 4 on perinatal asphyxia and one on cerebral hemorrhage). For all cases with stroke or asphyxia combined the pooled risk ratio (RR) for adverse outcome when suffering neonatal seizures was 7.42 (3.84–14.34); for neonates with perinatal asphyxia: 8.41 (4.07–17.39) and for neonates with stroke: 4.95 (1.07–23.0). The pooled RR for development of late onset epilepsy could only be determined for infants suffering from stroke: 1.48 (0.82–2.68). Results were biased and evidence sparse.ConclusionsThe presence of neonatal seizures in term newborns with vascular or hypoxic brain injury may have an impact on or be a predictor of neurodevelopmental outcome. The biased available data yield insufficient evidence about the true size of this association.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-018-1116-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.