A Mixed-Method Study Exploring Patient-Experienced and Caregiver-Reported Benefits and Side Effects of Corticosteroid Use in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are recommended to all people with Duchenne as standard of care; patient experience data is important to guide corticosteroid decision making and as a comparator for new treatment options. OBJECTIVE: This study assesses patient and caregiver-reported benefits and side effects from corticosteroids to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy, their importance, and satisfaction. METHODS: Using one-on-one interviews (n = 28) and an online survey (n = 236), parents and adults with Duchenne reported corticosteroid benefits and side effects rated as both experienced and important. RESULTS: Benefits to breathing, heart function, arm strength, slowing progression of weakness, and getting around were rated as particularly important, regardless of ambulatory status. Important side effects included increased fracture risk, unwanted weight gain, and diabetes/prediabetes. Parents rated behavior issues and adults rated delayed puberty as having high importance. Being ambulatory was independently associated with reporting more net benefit (p = 0.02). For side effects, parent scores were significantly higher than adult score (p = 0.02). Corticosteroid type was not significant. Participants were, overall, satisfied with corticosteroids (means ranging from 6.2 to 7.7 on a scale of 0-10), with no significant differences based on corticosteroid type. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, most participants were satisfied with the use of corticosteroids. While a range of side effects were rated as important and relatively common, individuals using corticosteroids and their caregivers indicate that benefits outweigh the side effects. Qualitative data indicate that high acceptability is influenced by lack of treatment alternatives. Patient experience data on use of corticosteroids in Duchenne may be relevant to drug development, regulatory assessment of new treatments, and to families making decisions about corticosteroid use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".