PURPOSE: A validated disease severity scoring system (DS3) for Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1) is needed to standardize patient monitoring and to define patient cohorts in clinical studies. METHODS: DS3 domains were established by an expert physician group using the nominal group technique of consensus formation. Items were selected by 36 GD1 physicians. The expert group determined appropriate measurement techniques for each item. Measurements were weighted considering contributions to GD1 morbidity and mortality. Consensus Clinical Global Impression Severity scores for sample cases were compared with average DS3 scores. A minimal clinically important difference in GD1 DS3 score was calculated. RESULTS: The GD1 DS3 includes bone (42% of score), hematologic (32%), and visceral domains (26%); individual items use routine assessments, including medical history, blood chemistry, organ volume measurements, and bone evaluations (magnetic resonance imaging and dual x-ray absorptiometry). The maximum score is 19. Interrater reliability was 0.97 (Cohen's kappa). DS3 scores were highly correlated with Clinical Global Impression Severity scores (r2 = 0.89). The minimal clinically important difference was -3.2 improvement and +3.9 deterioration. CONCLUSION: This DS3 accurately quantifies GD1 status and intrapatient change over time. Testing of reliability and validity will continue to allow eventual implementation of the DS3 in clinical studies and routine practice.
PURPOSE: A validated disease severity scoring system (DS3) for Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1) is needed to standardize patient monitoring and to define patient cohorts in clinical studies. METHODS: DS3 domains were established by an expert physician group using the nominal group technique of consensus formation. Items were selected by 36 GD1 physicians. The expert group determined appropriate measurement techniques for each item. Measurements were weighted considering contributions to GD1 morbidity and mortality. Consensus Clinical Global Impression Severity scores for sample cases were compared with average DS3 scores. A minimal clinically important difference in GD1 DS3 score was calculated. RESULTS: The GD1 DS3 includes bone (42% of score), hematologic (32%), and visceral domains (26%); individual items use routine assessments, including medical history, blood chemistry, organ volume measurements, and bone evaluations (magnetic resonance imaging and dual x-ray absorptiometry). The maximum score is 19. Interrater reliability was 0.97 (Cohen's kappa). DS3 scores were highly correlated with Clinical Global Impression Severity scores (r2 = 0.89). The minimal clinically important difference was -3.2 improvement and +3.9 deterioration. CONCLUSION: This DS3 accurately quantifies GD1 status and intrapatient change over time. Testing of reliability and validity will continue to allow eventual implementation of the DS3 in clinical studies and routine practice.
Authors: Laura van Dussen; Timothy M Cox; Erik J Hendriks; Elizabeth Morris; Erik M Akkerman; Mario Maas; Johanna E M Groener; Johannes M F G Aerts; Patrick B Deegan; Carla E M Hollak Journal: Haematologica Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Nevin Ajluni; Rasimcan Meral; Adam H Neidert; Graham F Brady; Eric Buras; Barbara McKenna; Frank DiPaola; Thomas L Chenevert; Jeffrey F Horowitz; Colleen Buggs-Saxton; Amit R Rupani; Peedikayil E Thomas; Marwan K Tayeh; Jeffrey W Innis; M Bishr Omary; Hari Conjeevaram; Elif A Oral Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Clarence K Zhang; Philip B Stein; Jun Liu; Zuoheng Wang; Ruhua Yang; Judy H Cho; Peter K Gregersen; Johannes M F G Aerts; Hongyu Zhao; Gregory M Pastores; Pramod K Mistry Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2012-03-03 Impact factor: 10.047
Authors: Pramod K Mistry; Maria Domenica Cappellini; Elena Lukina; Hayri Ozsan; Sara Mach Pascual; Hanna Rosenbaum; Maria Helena Solano; Zachary Spigelman; Jesús Villarrubia; Nora Patricia Watman; Gero Massenkeil Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 10.047