Comparative Study of Clinical Endpoint in DMD: Handheld Myometry (HHM) Versus CINRG Quantitative Measurement System (CQMS)
The aim of the proposed research is to compare two commonly used pediatric strength testing measures: handheld myometry (HHM) and CINRG Quantitative Measurement System (CQMS), with the goal of identifying a sensitive and valid tool for measuring muscle strength in children with DMD. The data obtained from this study will be used to make recommendations for strength measurement endpoints in prospective muscular dystrophy trials and provide more reliable and accurate recommendations in the clinic for strength assessment. This study will be performed at six participating sites in the Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group (CINRG).
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
|Study Design:||Observational Model: Case-Crossover
Time Perspective: Prospective
|Official Title:||Comparative Study of Clinical Endpoint in DMD: HHM vs. CQMS|
- Compare the inter and intra rater reliability of HHM and CQMS by measuring Elbow and Knee Flexor/Extensor Strength in children ages 6-18 diagnosed with DMD tested by experienced clinical evaluators in both HHM and CQMS. [ Time Frame: two-day visit ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]Muscle groups will be tested in a standardized order 1. Knee extension 2. Knee flexion 3. Elbow Flexion 4. Elbow extension with all tests sequencing following a right to left pattern. This will reduce assessment bias and the impact of muscle fatigue per muscle group. Study participants are randomized to two different sequences of four assessments, one sequence performed on one testing day (Visit 1) and another on a different testing day (Visit 2).
|Study Start Date:||January 2010|
|Study Completion Date:||August 2010|
|Primary Completion Date:||June 2010 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
We propose to compare the reliability of CQMS vs. HHM in the DMD population. The importance of this study is to be able to compare the results of clinical trials done by different networks using distinct strength endpoints. If results indicate a distinct difference in reliability of one tool over the other, a standardized tool could be established for research groups throughout the world to interpret strength in the context of clinical trials. If the results indicate minor differences then it would be possible to interpret and compare/contrast strength measurements used in different studies.
Understanding the relationship between the HHM vs CQMS will help us examine other surrogate measures capable of predicting functionality that are based on strength measurements.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01125709
|United States, District of Columbia|
|Children's National Medical Center|
|Washington, District of Columbia, United States, 20010|
|United States, Missouri|
|Washington University - St. Louis|
|St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 63110|
|United States, North Carolina|
|Carolinas Medical Center|
|Charlotte, North Carolina, United States, 28207|
|Royal Children's Hospital|
|Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 3052|
|Centro Clinico Nemo|
|Milano, Italy, 20162|
|Principal Investigator:||Tina T Duong, MPT||Children's Research Institute|