Evidence Hub

Achondroplasia Natural History Study (CLARITY): a multicenter retrospective cohort study of achondroplasia in the United States

J. Hoover-Fong, Adekemi Y. Alade, S. Hashmi, J. Hecht, Janet M. Legare, M. Little, Cheng-Xin Liu, John McGready et al.

Genetics in Medicine, 2021

1,374 participants · 51 citations

Abstract

Achondroplasia is the most common short stature skeletal dysplasia (1:20,000–30,000), but the risk of adverse health outcomes from cardiovascular diseases, pain, poor function, excess weight, and sleep apnea is unclear. A multicenter retrospective natural history study was conducted to understand medical and surgical practices in achondroplasia. Data from patients with achondroplasia evaluated by clinical geneticists at Johns Hopkins University, A.I. duPont Hospital for Children, McGovern Medical School UTHealth, and University of Wisconsin were populated into a REDCap database. All available retrospective medical records of anthropometry (length/height, weight, occipitofrontal circumference), surgery, polysomnography (PSG), and imaging (e.g., X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging) were included. Data from 1,374 patients (48.8% female; mean age 15.4 ± 13.9 years) constitute the primary achondroplasia cohort (PAC) with 496 subjects remaining clinically active and eligible for prospective studies. Within the PAC, 76.0% had a de novo FGFR3 pathologic variant and 1,094 (79.6%) had one or more achondroplasia-related surgeries. There are ≥37,000 anthropometry values, 1,631 PSGs and 10,727 imaging studies. This is the largest multicenter achondroplasia natural history study, providing a vast array of medical information for use in caring for these patients. This well-phenotyped cohort is a reference population against which future medical and surgical interventions can be compared.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,374 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free