BackgroundPatient-centered health care for children with inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) and their families is important and requires an understanding of patient experiences, needs, and priorities. IEM-specific patient groups have emerged as important voices within these rare disease communities and are uniquely positioned to contribute to this understanding. We conducted qualitative interviews with IEM patient group representatives to increase understanding of patient and family experiences, needs, and priorities and inform patient-centered research and care.MethodsWe developed a sampling frame of patient groups representing IEM disease communities from Canada, the United States, and United Kingdom. With consent, we interviewed participants to explore their views on experiences, needs, and outcomes that are most important to children with IEM and their families. We analyzed the data using a qualitative descriptive approach to identify key themes and sub-themes.ResultsWe interviewed 18 organizational representatives between February 28 and September 17, 2014, representing 16 IEMs and/or disease categories. Twelve participants voluntarily self-identified as parents and/or were themselves patients. Three key themes emerged from the coded data: managing the uncertainty associated with raising and caring for a child with a rare disease; challenges associated with the affected child’s life transitions, and; the collective struggle for improved outcomes and interventions that rare disease communities navigate.ConclusionHealth care providers can support children with IEM and their families by acknowledging and reducing uncertainty, supporting families through children’s life transitions, and contributing to rare disease communities’ progress toward improved interventions, experiences, and outcomes.

Review WHY HEALTH-SYSTEMS RESEARCH IS NEEDEDThe fields of rare-disease research and clinical practice are rapidly changing. Technology such as lower-cost next-generation sequencing has advanced our capacity to identify the genetic basis for an increasing number of rare single-gene diseases.

Background: We sought to understand the experiences of parents/caregivers of children with inherited metabolic diseases (IMD) in order to inform strategies for supporting patients and their families. We investigated their experiences regarding the management of disease, its impact on child and family life, and interactions with the health care system. Methods: From four Canadian centres, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with parents/caregivers of children with an IMD who were born between 2006 and 2015 and who were participating in a larger cohort study. Participants were selected with the aim of achieving a diverse sample with respect to treatment centre, IMD, and age of the child. Interviews emphasized the impacts of the disease and its treatment on the child and family and explicitly queried perceptions of interactions with the health care system. We identified emergent themes from the interview data. Results: We completed interviews with 21 parents/caregivers. The 21 children were aged <1 to 7 years old with IMD that included amino acid disorders, urea cycle disorders, fatty acid oxidation disorders, and organic acid disorders or 'other' IMD. Most parents reported that they and their families had adapted well to their child's diagnosis. Parents used proactive coping strategies to integrate complex disease management protocols into routine family life. An important source of stress was concern about the social challenges faced by their children. Participants reported positive interactions with their most involved health care providers within the metabolic clinic. However, they reported challenges associated with the health care system outside of disease-specific metabolic care, when encountering systems and providers unfamiliar with the child's disease. Conclusions: The successful use of proactive coping strategies among parents of children with IMD in this study suggests the potential value of promoting positive coping and is an important direction for future study. Parents' social concerns for their children were important stressors that warrant consideration by health care providers positioned to support families. Our results with respect to experiences with care highlight the important role of specialized metabolic clinics and point to a need for better coordination of the care that takes place outside the disease-specific management of IMD.

IntroductionFor many rare diseases, strong analytic study designs for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions are challenging to implement because of small, geographically dispersed patient populations and underlying clinical heterogeneity. The objective of this study was to integrate perspectives from published literature and key rare disease stakeholders to better understand the perceived challenges and proposed methodological approaches to research on clinical interventions for rare diseases.MethodsWe used a meta-narrative literature review and focus group interviews with key rare disease stakeholders to better understand the perceived challenges in generating and synthesizing treatment effectiveness evidence, and to describe various research methods for mitigating these identified challenges. Data from both components of this study were synthesized narratively according to research paradigms that emerged from our data.ResultsResults from our meta-narrative literature review and focus group interviews revealed three fundamental challenges in generating robust treatment effectiveness evidence for rare diseases: i) limitations in recruiting a sufficient sample size to achieve planned statistical power; ii) inability to account for clinical heterogeneity and assess treatment effects across a clinical spectrum; and iii) reliance on short-term, surrogate outcomes whose clinical relevance is often unclear. We mapped these challenges and associated solutions to three interrelated research paradigms: i) explanatory evidence generation; ii) comparative effectiveness/pragmatic evidence generation; and iii) patient-oriented evidence generation. Within each research paradigm, numerous criticisms and potential solutions have been described with respect to overcoming these challenges from a research study design perspective.ConclusionsOver time, discussions about clinical research for interventions for rare diseases have moved beyond methodological approaches to overcome challenges related to explanatory evidence generation, with increased recognition of the importance of pragmatic and patient-oriented evidence. Future directions for our work include developing a framework to expand current evidence synthesis practices to take into consideration many of the concepts discussed in this paper.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-018-0851-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs) are a group of individually rare single-gene diseases. For many IMDs, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence that evaluates the effectiveness of clinical interventions. Clinical effectiveness trials of IMD interventions could be supported through the development of core outcome sets (COSs), a recommended minimum set of standardized, high-quality outcomes and associated outcome measurement instruments to be incorporated by all trials in an area of study. We began the process of establishing pediatric COSs for two IMDs, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and phenylketonuria (PKU), by reviewing published literature to describe outcomes reported by authors, identify heterogeneity in outcomes across studies, and assemble a candidate list of outcomes. Methods: We used a comprehensive search strategy to identify primary studies and guidelines relevant to children with MCAD deficiency and PKU, extracting study characteristics and outcome information from eligible studies including outcome measurement instruments for select outcomes. Informed by an established framework and a previously published pediatric COS, outcomes were grouped into five, mutually-exclusive, a priori core areas: growth and development, life impact, pathophysiological manifestations, resource use, and death.