Aicardi Goutières syndrome is a type I interferonopathy that results in a spectrum of neurologic impairment. In general, neurodegenerative disorders of childhood strongly affect the quality of life and perspective of the whole caregiver network. This article aims to define the impact of Aicardi Goutières syndrome on affected individuals and families through a multimethod approach using quality of life surveys and qualitative interviews.
Qualitative interviews (n = 45) and quality of life questionnaires, including the Pediatric Quality of Life–Generic Core (PedsQL-GC, n = 46) and Family Impact (PedsQL-FI, n = 45) modules, Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD, n = 30), and Caregiver Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)-CareQoL (n = 37), were administered to caregivers of children with Aicardi Goutières syndrome. The open-ended interviews with guided questions addressed the caregivers’ perception of Aicardi Goutières syndrome and determinants of quality of life. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation and qualitative analyses generated salient themes. Per quality of life questionnaires, motor abilities and activities of daily living were more impaired compared with other domains (Comfort and Emotion, Psychosocial Health, [mixed effect analysis with Bonferroni correction, P < .0001; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .0001, respectively). In the qualitative interviews, families described stress surrounding symptoms of Aicardi Goutières syndrome, poor neurologic development with communication and motor impairment, and the overall impact of the disease on the family. This study shows the profound effects of Aicardi Goutières syndrome on families, which have global implications for family life. CPCHILD and PedsQL-FI are the preferred tools for routinely assessing the impact of disease in the Aicardi Goutières syndrome population.
AdangLAFrankDBGilaniA, et al.Aicardi Goutières syndrome is associated with pulmonary hypertension. Mol Genet Metab. 2018;125:351–358. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.09.004
2.
CuadradoEVanderverABrownKJ, et al.Aicardi-Goutières syndrome harbours abundant systemic and brain-reactive autoantibodies. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:1931–1939. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-205396
3.
GavazziFCrossZMWoidillS, et al.Hepatic involvement in Aicardi-Goutières syndrome. Neuropediatrics. 2021;52:441–447. doi:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1722673
4.
LivingstonJHCrowYJ. Neurologic phenotypes associated with mutations in TREX1, RNASEH2A, RNASEH2B, RNASEH2C, SAMHD1, ADAR1, and IFIH1: Aicardi-Goutières syndrome and beyond. Neuropediatrics. 2016;47:355–360. doi:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1592307
5.
RiceGPatrickTParmarR, et al.Clinical and molecular phenotype of Aicardi-Goutieres syndrome. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:713–725. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/521373
6.
WorthCBriggsTAPadidelaRBalmerESkaeM. Endocrinopathies in Aicardi Goutières syndrome—a descriptive case series. Clin Case Rep. 2020;8:2181–2185. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.3081
7.
AdangLGavazziFDe SimoneM, et al.Developmental outcomes of Aicardi Goutières syndrome. J Child Neurol. 2020;35:7–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073819870944
8.
WittSSchuettKWiegand-GrefeSBoettcherJQuitmannJ. Living with a rare disease—experiences and needs in pediatric patients and their parents. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2023;18:242. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-023-02837-9
9.
DellveLSamuelssonLTallbornAFasthAHallbergLR. Stress and well-being among parents of children with rare diseases: a prospective intervention study. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53:392–402. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03736.x
10.
TrulssonUKlingbergG. Living with a child with a severe orofacial handicap: experiences from the perspectives of parents. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003;111:19–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00001.x
11.
MalcolmCHainRGibsonFAdamsSAndersonGForbatL. Challenging symptoms in children with rare life-limiting conditions: findings from a prospective diary and interview study with families. Acta Paediatr. 2012;101:985–992. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2012.02680.x
12.
EichlerFSCoxTMCrombezEDaliCKohlschütterA. Metachromatic leukodystrophy: an assessment of disease burden. J Child Neurol. 2016;31:1457–1463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073816656401
13.
DermerESpahrATranLT, et al.Stress in parents of children with genetically determined leukoencephalopathies: a pilot study. J Child Neurol. 2020;35:901–907. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073820938645
14.
AndersonMElliottEJZurynskiYA. Australian families living with rare disease: experiences of diagnosis, health services use and needs for psychosocial support. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-8-22
15.
PalisanoRJAlmarsiNChiarelloLAOrlinMNBagleyAMaggsJ. Family needs of parents of children and youth with cerebral palsy. Child Care Health Dev. 2010;36:85–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01030.x
16.
CoffeyJS. Parenting a child with chronic illness: a metasynthesis. Pediatr Nurs. 2006;32:51–59.
17.
SperawS. Spiritual experiences of parents and caregivers who have children with disabilities or special needs. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2006;27:213–230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840500436974
18.
KirkSGlendinningC. Developing services to support parents caring for a technology-dependent child at home. Child Care Health Dev. 2004;30:209–218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2004.00393.x
19.
ZierhutHABartelsDM. Waiting for the next shoe to drop: The experience of parents of children with Fanconi anemia. J Genet Couns. 2012;21:45–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-011-9394-5
20.
KerrLMHarrisonMBMedvesJTranmerJEFitchMI. Understanding the supportive care needs of parents of children with cancer: an approach to local needs assessment. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2007;24:279–293. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1043454207304907
21.
WalkowiakDDomaradzkiJMozrzymasRKałużnyŁWalkowiakJ. Navigating the unique challenges of caregiving for children with rare diseases: are the care experiences of all caregivers the same? A focus on life-limiting rare diseases. J Clin Med. 2024;13:4510. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154510
22.
LenderkingWRAnatchkovaMPokrzywinskiRSkalickyAMartinMLGelhornH. Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with rare disease. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00336-8
23.
GraungaardAHSkovL. Why do we need a diagnosis? A qualitative study of parents’ experiences, coping and needs, when the newborn child is severely disabled. Child Care Health Dev. 2007;33:296–307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00666.x
24.
KerrSMMcIntoshJB. Coping when a child has a disability: exploring the impact of parent-to-parent support. Child Care Health Dev. 2000;26:309–322. doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2000.00149.x
25.
Food and Drug Administration. FDA guidance for industry, and other stakeholders. Patient-focused drug development: incorporating clinical outcome assessments into endpoints for regulatory decision-making. Docket number FDA-2023-D-0026 (April 2023).
26.
Food and Drug Administration.FDA guidance for industry, and other stakeholders. Patient-focused drug development: methods to identify what is important to patients. Docket number: FDA-2019-D-4247. (February 2022).
27.
Food and Drug Administration. FDA guidance for industry, and other stakeholders. Patient-focused drug development. Collecting Comprehensive and Representative Input Docket Number FDA-2018-D-1893 (June 2018).
28.
Food and Drug Administration. FDA guidance for industry, and other stakeholders. Patient-focused drug development. Selecting, developing, or modifying fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments. Docket number FDA-2022-D-1385 (June 2022).
29.
Food and Drug Administration. FDA guidance for industry, and other stakeholders. Rare diseases natural history studies for drug development. Docket number FDA-2019-D-0481 (March 2019).
30.
FDA guidance for industry. Digital health technologies for remote data acquisition in clinical investigations. Docket number: FDA-2021-D-1128 (2023).
31.
VanderverAAdangLGavazziF, et al.Janus kinase inhibition in the Aicardi-Goutières syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:986–989. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2001362
32.
CrowYJShettyJLivingstonJH. Treatments in Aicardi-Goutières syndrome. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2020;62:42–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14268
33.
KotesEGavazziFWoidillS, et al.Determination of health concepts in β-propeller protein-associated neurodegeneration. J Child Neurol. 2025;40:15–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/08830738241283932
34.
GavazziFVaiaYWoidillS, et al.Nonverbal cognitive skills in children with Aicardi Goutières syndrome. Neurology. 2024;103:e209541. doi:https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000209541
35.
VarniJWRodeCASeidMKatzERFriedman-BenderAQuigginsDJ. The Pediatric Cancer Quality of Life Inventory-32 (PCQL-32). II. Feasibility and range of measurement. J Behav Med. 1999;22:397–406. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018730204210
36.
JohansenHDammannBAndresenILFagerlandMW. Health-related quality of life for children with rare diagnoses, their parents’ satisfaction with life and the association between the two. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-152
37.
VarniJWShermanSABurwinkleTMDickinsonPEDixonP. The PedsQL family impact module: preliminary reliability and validity. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-55
38.
NarayananUGFehlingsDWeirSKnightsSKiranSCampbellK. Initial development and validation of the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD). Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48:804–812. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2006.tb01227.x
39.
CarlonSShieldsNYongKGilmoreRSakzewskiLBoydR. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of quality of life measures for school aged children with cerebral palsy. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-10-81
40.
CarlozziNEBoileauNRKallenMA, et al.Reliability and validity data to support the clinical utility of the Traumatic Brain Injury Caregiver Quality of Life (TBI-CareQOL). Rehabil Psychol. 2020;65:323–336. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000295
41.
CarlozziNEKallenMAIanniPA, et al.The development of a new computer-adaptive test to evaluate strain in caregivers of individuals with TBI: TBI-CareQOL caregiver strain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:S13–s21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.033
42.
CarlozziNEKallenMAHanksR, et al.The development of a new computer adaptive test to evaluate feelings of being trapped in caregivers of individuals with traumatic brain injury: TBI-CareQOL feeling trapped item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:S43–s51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.06.025
43.
CarlozziNELangeRTKallenMA, et al.Assessing vigilance in caregivers after traumatic brain injury: TBI-CareQOL caregiver vigilance. Rehabil Psychol. 2020;65:418–431. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000302
44.
CarlozziNEKallenMASanderAM, et al.The development of a new computer adaptive test to evaluate anxiety in caregivers of individuals with traumatic brain injury: TBI-CareQOL caregiver-specific anxiety. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:S22–s30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.027
45.
CarlozziNEKallenMABrickellTA, et al.Measuring emotional suppression in caregivers of adults with traumatic brain injury. Rehabil Psychol. 2020;65:455–470. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000291
46.
CarlozziNEKallenMAIanniPA, et al.The development of two new computer adaptive tests to evaluate feelings of loss in caregivers of individuals with traumatic brain injury: TBI-CareQOL feelings of loss-self and feelings of loss-person with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:S31–s42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.026
47.
CrowYJChaseDSLowenstein SchmidtJ, et al.Characterization of human disease phenotypes associated with mutations in TREX1, RNASEH2A, RNASEH2B, RNASEH2C, SAMHD1, ADAR, and IFIH1. Am J Med Genet A. 2015;167a:296–312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.36887
48.
SaundersBSimJKingstoneT,et al.Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52:1893–1907. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
49.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeRPayneJGonzalezNCondeJG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
50.
HarrisPATaylorRMinorBL, et al.The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
BrooksJMcCluskeySTurleyEKingN. The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qual Res Psychol. 2015;12:202–222. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.955224
53.
BazenABargFKTakeshitaJ. Research techniques made simple: an introduction to qualitative research. J Invest Dermatol. 2021;141:241–247.e1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2020.11.029
54.
HillDLNathansonPGCarrollKWSchallTEMillerVAFeudtnerC. Changes in parental hopes for seriously ill children. Pediatrics. 2018;141:e20173549. doi:https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-3549
55.
Ammann-SchnellLGroeschelSKehrerCFrölichSKrägeloh-MannI. The impact of severe rare chronic neurological disease in childhood on the quality of life of families—a study on MLD and PCH2. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2021;16:211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-021-01828-y
56.
GavazziFGonzalezCDArnoldK, et al.Nucleotide metabolism, leukodystrophies, and CNS pathology. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2024;47:860–875. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jimd.12721
57.
PiccoliCBronnerNGavazziF, et al.Late-onset Aicardi-Goutières syndrome: a characterization of presenting clinical features. Pediatr Neurol. 2021;115:1–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2020.10.012
58.
JemtåLFugl-MeyerKSObergKDahlM. Self-esteem in children and adolescents with mobility impairment: impact on well-being and coping strategies. Acta Paediatr. 2009;98:567–572. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01081.x
59.
PelentsovLJFielderALLawsTAEstermanAJ. The supportive care needs of parents with a child with a rare disease: results of an online survey. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17:88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0488-x
60.
CardinaliPMiglioriniLRaniaN. The caregiving experiences of fathers and mothers of children with rare diseases in Italy: challenges and social support perceptions. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1780. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01780
61.
HartleySLBarkerETSeltzerMM,et al.The relative risk and timing of divorce in families of children with an autism spectrum disorder. J Fam Psychol. 2010;24:449–457. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019847
62.
NamkungEHSongJGreenbergJSMailickMRFloydFJ. The relative risk of divorce in parents of children with developmental disabilities: impacts of lifelong parenting. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2015;120:514–526. doi:https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-120.6.514
63.
EverittBS. Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems. Br J Psychiatry. 1975;126:237–240. doi:https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.126.3.237
64.
AnthoineEMoretLRegnaultASebilleVHardouinJB. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:176. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
