Search

BackgroundNeuroimaging studies suggest that volumetric MRI measures of specific brain structures may serve as excellent biomarkers in future clinical trials of Huntington disease (HD).ObjectiveDemonstration of the clinical significance of these measures is an important step in determining their appropriateness as potential outcome measures.MethodsMeasures of gray- and white-matter lobular volumes and subcortical volumes (caudate, putamen, globus pallidus, thalamus, nucleus accumbens, hippocampus) were obtained from MRI scans of 516 individuals who tested positive for the HD gene expansion, but were not yet exhibiting signs or symptoms severe enough to warrant diagnosis ("pre-HD"). MRI volumes (corrected for intracranial volume) were correlated with cognitive, motor, psychiatric, and functional measures known to be sensitive to subtle changes in pre-HD.ResultsCaudate, putamen, and globus pallidus volumes consistently correlated with cognitive and motor, but not psychiatric or functional measures in pre-HD. Volumes of white matter, nucleus accumbens, and thalamus, but not cortical gray matter, also correlated with some of the motor and cognitive measures.ConclusionsResults of regression analyses suggest that volumes of basal ganglia structures contributed more highly to the prediction of most motor and cognitive variables than volumes of other brain regions. These results support the use of volumetric measures, especially of the basal ganglia, as outcome measures in future clinical trials in pre-HD. Results may also assist investigators in selecting the most appropriate measures for treatment trials that target specific clinical features or regions of neuropathology. more...

The field of Huntington's disease research covers many different scientific disciplines, from molecular biology all the way through to clinical practice, and as our understanding of the disease has progressed over the decades, a great deal of different terminology has accrued. The field is also renowned for its collaborative spirit and use of standardized reagents, assays, datasets, models, and clinical measures, so the use of standardized terms is especially important. We have set out to determine, through a consensus exercise involving basic and clinical scientists working in the field, the most appropriate language to use across disciplines. Nominally, this article will serve as the style guide for the Journal of Huntington's Disease (JHD), the only journal devoted exclusively to HD, and we lay out the preferred and standardized terminology and nomenclature for use in JHD publications. However, we hope that this article will also serve as a useful resource to the HD research community at large and that these recommended naming conventions will be adopted widely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...

Background: Huntington disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disease caused by a CAG repeat expansion on chromosome 4. Pathology is associated with CAG repeat length. Prior studies examining people in the intermediate allele (IA) range found subtle differences in motor, cognitive, and behavioral domains compared to controls. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine baseline and longitudinal differences in motor, cognitive, behavioral, functional, and imaging outcomes between persons with CAG repeats in three ranges: normal (≤26), intermediate (27-35), and reduced penetrance (36-39). Methods: We examined longitudinal data from 389 participants in three allele groups: 280 normal controls (NC), 21 intermediate allele [IA], and 88 reduced penetrance [RP]. We used linear mixed models to identify differences in baseline and longitudinal outcomes between groups. Three models were tested: 1) no baseline or longitudinal differences; 2) baseline differences but no longitudinal differences; and 3) baseline and longitudinal differences. Results: Model 1 was the best fitting model for most outcome variables. Models 2 and 3 were best fitting for some of the variables. We found baseline and longitudinal trends of declining performance across increasing CAG repeat length groups, but no significant differences between the NC and IA groups. Conclusion: We did not find evidence to support differences in the IA group compared to the NC group. These findings are limited by a small IA sample size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...