This prospective natural history study aimed to characterize the developmental phenotype of individuals with STXBP1-related disorders (STXBP1-RD) and to evaluate the feasibility and validity of standardized clinical outcome measures for use in clinical practice and future trials. Data were collected using a standardized battery of developmental and motor assessments to determine tolerability, score distributions, and relationships among measures.
The study included 155 participants with STXBP1-RD. The cohort had a reported mean age of 8.2 years. Additional individual-level demographic or genotype-phenotype breakdowns were not detailed in the provided source text.
Standardized instruments administered in this study were:
Participants were classified using established clinical classification systems:
These classification scales were used to group participants by domain-specific functional level for comparative analyses with the standardized outcome measures.
Assessments were reported to be well tolerated across the cohort. Rates of incomplete assessments ranged from 0% to 6.9% depending on the measure. The source did not provide item-level reasons for incomplete data or age- or severity-specific completion patterns beyond the aggregate incomplete assessment range.
The investigators evaluated floor and ceiling effects across different scoring outputs. They report that floor or ceiling effects were uncommon when considering raw scores, age equivalents, or growth scale values. By contrast, scaled scores more frequently demonstrated floor or ceiling effects. The source does not provide numerical counts or percentages for each score type beyond the general statement.
When participants were divided into groups by the corresponding developmental domain classification scales (for example, GMFCS strata for gross motor function), significant differences emerged among the Bayley-4, GMFM-66, and PDMS-3 results, indicating that these instruments discriminate across clinically defined levels of function.
Correlation and association testing showed strong relationships among the assessments: statistically significant associations (p < 0.05) were reported across Bayley-4 domains, PDMS-3 domains, and GMFM-66 total scores. These findings support convergent validity among the selected measures in this STXBP1-RD cohort. The source does not specify exact correlation coefficients, effect sizes, or the statistical models used.
Based on tolerability, limited floor/ceiling effects for many score types, discriminatory ability by clinical classification level, and significant inter-measure associations, the authors conclude that the Bayley-4, GMFM-66, and PDMS-3 are suitable outcome measures for use in clinical practice and for incorporation into future clinical trials in individuals with STXBP1-RD. The source emphasizes these instruments’ applicability but does not provide specific guidance on which score types (raw, scaled, age-equivalent) are preferred for trial endpoints.
The study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and local IRBs at participating sites. The authors state that all necessary participant consents were obtained. The source indicates that all data produced are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
Funding and support came from multiple sources, including the Center for Epilepsy and NeuroDevelopmental Disorders at Penn/CHOP, the National Institutes of Health (NINDS grants R01 NS127830 and R01 NS131512 and K23 NS140491), the American Epilepsy Society, Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundations, the STXBP1 Foundation, and other fellowships and awards.
Competing interests were disclosed by several authors, with named relationships to industry and therapeutics companies listed in the source. Specific disclosures were provided for individual authors in the original report.
The source did not provide detailed numerical results for many analyses (for example, exact correlation coefficients or the proportion of participants with floor or ceiling effects for each score type), nor did it provide item-level reasons for incomplete assessments. Those details were not reported in the provided source text and would need to be consulted in the full manuscript or dataset.
For clinicians caring for individuals with STXBP1-RD and for teams designing interventional trials, the study supports the use of the Bayley-4, GMFM-66, and PDMS-3 as feasible and valid standardized tools to assess developmental and motor outcomes. When selecting endpoints, investigators should consider the difference in floor/ceiling behavior between raw/growth-scale outputs and scaled scores and review the full dataset or supplement for instrument-specific details and recommended scoring approaches.