Validating online approaches for rare disease research using latent class mixture modeling

Andrew A Dwyer, Ziwei Zeng, Christopher S Lee, Andrew A Dwyer, Ziwei Zeng, Christopher S Lee

Abstract

Background: Rare disease patients are geographically dispersed, posing challenges to research. Some researchers have partnered with patient organizations and used web-based approaches to overcome geographic recruitment barriers. Critics of such methods claim that samples are homogenous and do not represent the broader patient population-as patients recruited from patient organizations are thought to have high levels of needs. We applied latent class mixture modeling (LCMM) to define patient clusters based on underlying characteristics. We used previously collected data from a cohort of patients with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism who were recruited online in collaboration with a patient organization. Patient demographics, clinical information, Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R) scores and Zung self-rating depression Scale (SDS) were used as variables for LCMM analysis. Specifically, we aimed to test the classic critique that patients recruited online in collaboration with a patient organization are a homogenous group with high needs. We hypothesized that distinct classes (clinical profiles) of patients could be identified-thereby demonstrating the validity of online recruitment and supporting transferability of findings.

Results: In total, 154 patients with CHH were included. The LCMM analysis identified three distinct subgroups (Class I: n = 84 [54.5%], Class II: n = 41 [26.6%], Class III: n = 29 [18.8%]) that differed significantly in terms of age, education, disease consequences, emotional consequences, illness coherence and depression symptoms (all p < 0.001) as well as age at diagnosis (p = 0.045). Classes depict a continuum of psychosocial impact ranging from severe to relatively modest. Additional analyses revealed later diagnosis (Class I: 19.2 ± 6.7 years [95% CI 17.8-20.7]) is significantly associated with worse psychological adaptation and coping as assessed by disease consequences, emotional responses, making sense of one's illness and SDS depressive symptoms (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions: We identify three distinct classes of patients who were recruited online in collaboration with a patient organization. Findings refute prior critiques of patient partnership and web-based recruitment for rare disease research. This is the first empirical data suggesting negative psychosocial sequelae of later diagnosis ("diagnostic odyssey") often observed in CHH.

Keywords: Community based participatory research; Diagnostic odyssey; Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism; Kallmann syndrome; Patient organization; Rare disease.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no financial or non-financial competing interests to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of latent class mixture modeling for the CHH/KS cohort (n = 154). The latent categorical variable (i.e. distinct class) is measured by eight (y1–6, u1–2). Continuous variables are depicted by “y”, binary/categorical variables “u” and “ε” indicates error. The categorical variable “C” indicates the most likely class for each case based on conditional probabilities. Class membership can be modeled as a function of multiple characteristics (X). Class membership can be used to predict continuous and categorical (Y/U) variables
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Three latent classes of patients with CHH/KS (n = 154). The LCMM analysis identified distinct subgroups based on demographic, clinical and patient-reported outcome data. a Class I (n = 84) was diagnosed significantly later (p = 0.045) and exhibits high SDS, disease consequences and emotional impact scores and low illness coherence (making sense of one’s disease). b Class II (n = 41) exhibited less severe psychosocial outcomes and greater illness coherence (all p < 0.001 vs. Class I). c Class III (n = 29) was diagnosed the earliest and exhibited relatively modest psychosocial impact. Dx diagnosis, SDS self-rating depression scale, IPQR Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised

References

    1. Kempf L, Goldsmith JC, Temple R. Challenges of developing and conducting clinical trials in rare disorders. Am J Med Genet A. 2018;176:773–783.
    1. Day S, Jonker AH, Lau LPL, Hilgers RD, Irony I, Larsson K, Roes KC, Stallard N. Recommendations for the design of small population clinical trials. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:195.
    1. Rees CA, Pica N, Monuteaux MC, Bourgeois FT. Noncompletion and nonpublication of trials studying rare diseases: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med. 2019;16:e1002966.
    1. EURORDIS: The voice of 12,000 patients: Experiences and expectations of rare disease patients on diagnosis and care in Europe. In Book The voice of 12,000 patients: Experiences and expectations of rare disease patients on diagnosis and care in Europe (Editor ed.^eds.). City; 2009.
    1. Fox S. Peer-to-Peer Healthcare. Washington: Pew Internet; 2011.
    1. Johnson KJ, Mueller NL, Williams K, Gutmann DH. Evaluation of participant recruitment methods to a rare disease online registry. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A:1686–1694.
    1. Krischer J, Cronholm PF, Burroughs C, McAlear CA, Borchin R, Easley E, Davis T, Kullman J, Carette S, Khalidi N, et al. Experience with direct-to-patient recruitment for enrollment into a clinical trial in a rare disease: a web-based study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e50.
    1. Applequist J, Burroughs C, Ramirez A, Jr, Merkel PA, Rothenberg ME, Trapnell B, Desnick RJ, Sahin M, Krischer JP. A novel approach to conducting clinical trials in the community setting: utilizing patient-driven platforms and social media to drive web-based patient recruitment. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:58.
    1. Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, Ip S, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Fleurence R, Hickam DH. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(Suppl 3):S788–800.
    1. Merkel PA, Manion M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Groft S, Jinnah HA, Robertson D, Krischer JP. Rare Diseases Clinical Research N: the partnership of patient advocacy groups and clinical investigators in the rare diseases clinical research network. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11:66.
    1. Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, McKay RC, Vis-Dunbar M, Sibley KM, Nguyen T, Graham ID, Panel SCIGPC. Gainforth HL. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18:51.
    1. Boehm U, Bouloux PM, Dattani MT, de Roux N, Dode C, Dunkel L, Dwyer AA, Giacobini P, Hardelin JP, Juul A, et al. Expert consensus document: European Consensus Statement on congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism–pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2015;11:547–564.
    1. Laitinen EM, Vaaralahti K, Tommiska J, Eklund E, Tervaniemi M, Valanne L, Raivio T. Incidence, phenotypic features and molecular genetics of Kallmann syndrome in Finland. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:41.
    1. Dzemaili S, Tiemensma J, Quinton R, Pitteloud N, Morin D, Dwyer AA. Beyond hormone replacement: quality of life in women with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Endocr Connect. 2017;6:404–412.
    1. Dwyer AA, Smith N, Quinton R. Psychological aspects of congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10:353.
    1. Dwyer AA. Psychosexual effects resulting from delayed, incomplete, or absent puberty. Curr Opin Endocr Metab Res. 2020;14:15–21.
    1. Dwyer AA, Quinton R, Morin D, Pitteloud N. Identifying the unmet health needs of patients with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism using a web-based needs assessment: implications for online interventions and peer-to-peer support. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:83.
    1. Badiu C, Bonomi M, Borshchevsky I, Cools M, Craen M, Ghervan C, Hauschild M, Hershkovitz E, Hrabovszky E, et al. Developing and evaluating rare disease educational materials co-created by expert clinicians and patients: the paradigm of congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12:57.
    1. Dwyer AA, Au MG, Smith N, Plummer L, Lippincott MF, Balasubramanian R, Seminara SB. Evaluating co-created patient-facing materials to increase understanding of genetic test results. J Genet Couns. 2020;30(2):598–605.
    1. Bombak AE, Hanson HM. A critical discussion of patient engagement in research. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2017;4:39–41.
    1. Whitaker C, Stevelink S, Fear N. The use of facebook in recruiting participants for health research purposes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e290.
    1. Benedict C, Hahn AL, Diefenbach MA, Ford JS. Recruitment via social media: advantages and potential biases. Digit Health. 2019;5:2055207619867223.
    1. Lee CS, Faulkner KM, Thompson JH. Identifying subgroups: part 1: patterns among cross-sectional data. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020;19:359–365.
    1. Dwyer AA, Quinton R, Pitteloud N, Morin D. Psychosexual development in men with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism on long-term treatment: a mixed methods study. Sex Med. 2015;3:32–41.
    1. Dwyer AA, Tiemensma J, Quinton R, Pitteloud N, Morin D. Adherence to treatment in men with hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2017;86:377–383.
    1. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(Suppl 1):S40–46.
    1. Kwon SC, Tandon SD, Islam N, Riley L, Trinh-Shevrin C. Applying a community-based participatory research framework to patient and family engagement in the development of patient-centered outcomes research and practice. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8:683–691.
    1. Young J. Approach to the male patient with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:707–718.
    1. Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie K, Horne R, Cameron L, Buick D. The revised illness perception quesionnaire (IPQ-R) Psychol Health. 2002;17:1–16.
    1. Zung WW. A Self-Rating Depression Scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12:63–70.
    1. Zung WW. The role of rating scales in the identification and management of the depressed patient in the primary care setting. J Clin Psychiatry. 1990;51(Suppl):72–76.
    1. Ram N, Grimm KJ. Methods and measures: growth mixture modeling: a method for identifying differences in longitudinal change among unobserved groups. Int J Behav Dev. 2009;33:565–576.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO: Mplus User’s Guide. 8th edn. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2017.
    1. Tozzi AE, Mingarelli R, Agricola E, Gonfiantini M, Pandolfi E, Carloni E, Gesualdo F, Dallapiccola B. The internet user profile of Italian families of patients with rare diseases: a web survey. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:76.
    1. Nicholl H, Tracey C, Begley T, King C, Lynch AM. Internet use by parents of children with rare conditions: findings from a study on parents' web information needs. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e51.
    1. Titgemeyer SC, Schaaf CP. Facebook support groups for rare pediatric diseases: quantitative analysis. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3:e21694.
    1. Morgan T, Schmidt J, Haakonsen C, Lewis J, Della Rocca M, Morrison S, Biesecker B, Kaphingst KA. Using the internet to seek information about genetic and rare diseases: a case study comparing data from 2006 and 2011. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014;3:e10.
    1. Hiort O, Cools M, Springer A, McElreavey K, Greenfield A, Wudy SA, Kulle A, Ahmed SF, Dessens A, Balsamo A, et al. Addressing gaps in care of people with conditions affecting sex development and maturation. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019;15:615–622.
    1. Boycott KM, Rath A, Chong JX, Hartley T, Alkuraya FS, Baynam G, Brookes AJ, Brudno M, Carracedo A, den Dunnen JT, et al. International cooperation to enable the diagnosis of all rare genetic diseases. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;100:695–705.
    1. Gainotti S, Mascalzoni D, Bros-Facer V, Petrini C, Floridia G, Roos M, Salvatore M, Taruscio D. Meeting patients' right to the correct diagnosis: ongoing international initiatives on undiagnosed rare diseases and ethical and social issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):2072.
    1. Dwyer AA, Jayasena CN, Quinton R. Congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism: implications of absent mini-puberty. Minerva Endocrinol. 2016;41:188–195.
    1. Lee CS, Faulkner KM, Thompson JH. Identifying subgroups: part 2: trajectories of change over time. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020;19:444–450.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe