MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309463309 · doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.1005963

Treatment patterns and unmet needs in adults with classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia: A modified Delphi consensus study

2022· article· en· W4309463309 on OpenAlexaff
Richard J. Auchus, Carine Courtillot, Adrian S. Dobs, Diala El‐Maouche, Henrik Falhammar, André Lacroix, Mallory Farrar, Conor O’Donoghue, Milena Anatchkova, Katelyn Cutts, Natalie Taylor, Chuck Yonan, Mark Lamotte, Philippe Touraine

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Endocrinology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNeurocrine Biosciences
KeywordsCongenital adrenal hyperplasiaMedicineDelphi methodAndrogenPediatricsAndrogen deficiencyNewborn screeningFamily medicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency is a rare autosomal recessive condition characterized by cortisol deficiency and excess androgen production. The current standard of care is glucocorticoid (GC) therapy, and sometimes mineralocorticoids, to replace endogenous cortisol deficiency; however, supraphysiologic GC doses are usually needed to reduce excess androgen production. Monitoring/titrating GC treatment remains a major challenge, and there is no agreement on assessment of treatment adequacy. This study surveyed expert opinions on current treatment practices and unmet needs in adults with classic CAH. Methods A modified two-round Delphi process with adult endocrinologists was conducted via online questionnaire. Survey questions were organized into three categories: practice characteristics/CAH experience, GC management, and unmet needs/complications. Anonymized aggregate data from Round 1 were provided as feedback for Round 2. Responses from both rounds were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Consensus was defined a priori as: full consensus (100%, n=9/9); near consensus (78% to <100%, n=7/9 or 8/9); no consensus (<78%, n<7/9). Results The same nine panelists participated in both survey rounds; five (56%) were based in North America and four (44%) in Europe. Most panelists (78%) used hydrocortisone in the majority of patients, but two (22%) preferred prednisone/prednisolone. Panelists agreed (89%) that adequate control is best evaluated using a balance of clinical presentation and androgen/precursor laboratory values; no consensus was reached on optimal timing of collecting samples for androgen testing or laboratory values indicating good control. Despite lack of consensus on many aspects of CAH management, panelists agreed on the importance of many disease- and GC-related complications, and that there is a large unmet need for new treatments. With currently available treatments, panelists reported that 46% of classic CAH patients did not have optimized androgen levels, regardless of GC dose. Conclusions The limited areas of consensus obtained in this study reflect the variability in treatment practices for adults with classic CAH, even among clinicians with expertise in treating this population. However, all panelists agreed on the need for new treatments for classic CAH and the importance of many disease- and GC-related complications, which are difficult to manage with currently available treatments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EndocrinologySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207