Background Friedreich’s ataxia is an inherited, progressive, neurodegenerative disease that typically begins in childhood. Disease severity is commonly assessed with rating scales, such as the modified Friedreich’s Ataxia Rating Scale, which are usually administered in the clinic by a neurology specialist. Objective This study evaluated the utility of home‐based, self‐administered digital endpoints in children with Friedreich’s ataxia and unaffected controls and their relationship to standard clinical rating scales. Methods In a cross‐sectional study with 25 participants (13 with Friedreich’s ataxia and 12 unaffected controls, aged 6–15 years), home‐based digital endpoints that reflect activities of daily living were recorded over 1 week. Domains analyzed were hand motor function with a digitized drawing, automated analysis of speech with a recorded oral diadochokinesis test, and gait and balance with wearable sensors. Results Hand‐drawing and speech tests were easy to conduct and generated high‐quality data. The sensor‐based gait and balance tests suffered from technical limitations in this study setup. Several parameters discriminated between groups or correlated strongly with modified Friedreich’s Ataxia Rating Scale total score and activities of daily living total score in the Friedreich’s ataxia group. Hand‐drawing parameters also strongly correlated with standard 9‐hole peg test scores. Interpretation Deploying digital endpoints in home settings is feasible in this population, results in meaningful and robust data collection, and may allow for frequent sampling over longer periods of time to track disease progression. Care must be taken when training participants, and investigators should consider the complexity of the tasks and equipment used.

Objective: The objective of this article is to review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, dosage and administration, and formulary considerations of deflazacort. Data Sources: A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (1946 to December 31, 2019) was conducted using the terms deflazacort and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Results were limited to clinical trials, humans, and English. Additional sources and data were obtained from the references of included articles and prescribing information. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All articles published after July 2014 related to pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, or safety of the therapy in human subjects were included. Data Synthesis: Deflazacort 0.9 mg/kg/d is a once-daily oral corticosteroid and is the first drug of its class to be Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for DMD. Studies with deflazacort show improved functional outcomes, delayed onset of cardiomyopathy, reduction in scoliosis surgery, and improved survival, but these improvements are supported by relatively weak evidence. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review presents data from studies published after the most recent DMD 2016 treatment guidelines and offers prescribing considerations, including pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects, formulary considerations, and areas of uncertainty. Conclusions: Deflazacort presents an additional, FDA-approved corticosteroid option for patients that offers improved quality of life for DMD patients. However, there is weak evidence to support these benefits; a full risk-benefit analysis considering adverse events, efficacy, cost, and previous trials of steroid therapy is necessary when selecting therapy. Further research will help clarify deflazacort’s optimal dose, duration of treatment, and impact on quality of life.

Some of the vancomycin dosing approaches provided promising results in obese patients, but there were notable differences in methods used to develop these approaches, and sample sizes were small. Although some approaches can be considered for validation in individual institutions, further research is warranted. This may include validating approaches in larger populations with narrower obesity severity ranges, investigating target attainment in indication-specific target ranges, and evaluating the impact of different dosing weights and methods of creatinine clearance calculation.

No abstract

No abstract