Search

Abstract Background Spinocerebellar ataxia type 2 (SCA2) affects several neurological structures, giving rise to multiple symptoms. However, only the natural history of ataxia is well known, as measured during the study duration. We aimed to describe the progression rate of ataxia, by the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), as well as the progression rate of the overall neurological picture, by the Neurological Examination Score for Spinocerebellar Ataxias (NESSCA), and not only during the study duration but also in a disease duration model. Comparisons between these models might allow us to explore whether progression is linear during the disease duration in SCA2; and to look for potential modifiers. Results Eighty–eight evaluations were prospectively done on 49 symptomatic subjects; on average (SD), study duration and disease duration models covered 13 (2.16) months and 14 (6.66) years of individuals’ life, respectively. SARA progressed 1.75 (CI 95%: 0.92–2.57) versus 0.79 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.14) points/year in the study duration and disease duration models. NESSCA progressed 1.45 (CI 95%: 0.74–2.16) versus 0.41 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.59) points/year in the same models. In order to explain these discrepancies, the progression rates of the study duration model were plotted against disease duration. Then an acceleration was detected after 10 years of disease duration: SARA scores progressed 0.35 before and 2.45 points/year after this deadline (p = 0.013). Age at onset, mutation severity, and presence of amyotrophy, parkinsonism, dystonic manifestations and cognitive decline at baseline did not influence the rate of disease progression. Conclusions NESSCA and SARA progression rates were not constant during disease duration in SCA2: early phases of disease were associated with slower progressions. Modelling of future clinical trials on SCA2 should take this phenomenon into account, since disease duration might impact on inclusion criteria, sample size, and study duration. Our database is available online and accessible to future studies aimed to compare the present data with other cohorts.

Background: Spinocerebellar ataxia type 2 (SCA2) affects several neurological structures, giving rise to multiple symptoms. However, only the natural history of ataxia is well known, as measured during the study duration. We aimed to describe the progression rate of ataxia, by the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), as well as the progression rate of the overall neurological picture, by the Neurological Examination Score for Spinocerebellar Ataxias (NESSCA), and not only during the study duration but also in a disease duration model. Comparisons between these models might allow us to explore whether progression is linear during the disease duration in SCA2; and to look for potential modifiers.Results: Eighty-eight evaluations were prospectively done on 49 symptomatic subjects; on average (SD), study duration and disease duration models covered 13 (2.16) months and 14 (6.66) years of individuals' life, respectively. SARA progressed 1.75 (CI 95%: 0.92-2.57) versus 0.79 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.14) points/year in the study duration and disease duration models. NESSCA progressed 1.45 (CI 95%: 0.74-2.16) versus 0.41 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.59) points/year in the same models. In order to explain these discrepancies, the progression rates of the study duration model were plotted against disease duration. Then an acceleration was detected after 10 years of disease duration: SARA scores progressed 0.35 before and 2.45 points/year after this deadline (p = 0.013). Age at onset, mutation severity, and presence of amyotrophy, parkinsonism, dystonic manifestations and cognitive decline at baseline did not influence the rate of disease progression.Conclusions: NESSCA and SARA progression rates were not constant during disease duration in SCA2: early phases of disease were associated with slower progressions. Modelling of future clinical trials on SCA2 should take this phenomenon into account, since disease duration might impact on inclusion criteria, sample size, and study duration. Our database is available online and accessible to future studies aimed to compare the present data with other cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spinocerebellar ataxia type 2 (SCA2), caused by a CAG expansion (CAGexp) at ATXN2, has a complex clinical picture. While validated ataxia scales are available, comprehensive instruments to measure all SCA2 neurological manifestations are required. This study aims to validate the Neurological Examination Score for the assessment of Spinocerebellar Ataxias (NESSCA) to be used in SCA2 and to compare its responsiveness to those obtained with other instruments. NESSCA, SARA, SCAFI, and CCFS scales were applied in symptomatic SCA2 patients. Correlations were done with age at onset, disease duration, CAGexp, and between scales. Responsiveness was estimated by comparing deltas of stable to worse patients after 12 months, according to Patient Global Impression of change, and the area under the curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve of scores range. Eighty-eight evaluations (49 patients) were obtained. NESSCA had an even distribution and correlated with disease duration ( r = 0.55), SARA ( r = 0.63), and CAGexp (rho = 0.32): both explained 44% of NESSCA variance. Deltas (95% CI) after 1 year in stable and worse patients were only significantly different for SARA. NESSCA, SARA, SCAFI, and CCFS AUC were 0.63, 0.81, 0.49, and 0.48, respectively. NESSCA is valid to be used in SCA2. However, the only instrument that presented good responsiveness to change in 1 year was SARA. We suggest that NESSCA can be used as a secondary outcome in future trials in SCA2 due to the burden of neurological disabilities related to disease progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introdução: a obtenção dos dados por meio de medidas repetidas em diversas ocasiões no tempo em um mesmo sujeito torna possível o ajuste de curvas que descrevam padrões de evolução e identificam preditores de evolução. O objetivo deste trabalho foi ajustar curvas para descrever a progressão da doença de Machado-Joseph (DMJ), quantificada pelo escore NESSCA (Neurological Examination Score for Spinocerebellar Ataxia), utilizando modelos mistos. Métodos: os dados foram obtidos de uma coorte de pacientes da DMJ acompanhada no Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA) durante um período de 10 anos. Nas avaliações clínicas realizadas, o comprometimento clínico do paciente foi mensurado várias vezes através do escore NESSCA. Esse escore foi considerado como desfecho, e a progressão da doença poderia ser influenciada pelas variáveis explicativas: idade no início da doença e comprimento da mutação. O procedimento Proc MIXED do software SAS foi utilizado para realizar o ajuste dos modelos. Resultados: a progressão da doença ocorre mais lentamente com o aumento na idade de início da doença, por outro lado, com o aumento do comprimento da mutação, mais rápida é a progressão da doença. Conclusão: uma maior idade inicial idade no início da doença é fator de proteção para a progressão da DMJ e um maior o comprimento da mutação é fator de risco. Ressalta-se que as atribuições de proteção e risco estão relacionadas exclusivamente com a velocidade de progressão da doença, não sendo observados efeitos significativos dessas variáveis para o escore no início da doença.

We aimed to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the existing ataxia scales. We described the disorders for which the instruments have been validated and used, the time spent in its application, its validated psychometric properties, and their use in studies of natural history and clinical trials. A search from 1997 onwards was performed in the MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases. The web sites ClinicalTrials.gov and Orpha.net were also used to identify the endpoints used in ongoing randomized clinical trials. We identified and described the semiquantitative ataxia scales (ICARS, SARA, MICARS, BARS); semiquantitative ataxia and non-ataxia scales (UMSARS, FARS, NESSCA); a semiquantitative non-ataxia scale (INAS); quantitative ataxia scales (CATSYS 2000, AFCS, CCFS and CCFSw, and SCAFI); and the self-performed ataxia scale (FAIS). SARA and ICARS were the best studied and validated so far, and their reliability sustain their use. Ataxia and non-ataxia scores will probably provide a better view of the overall disability in long-term trials and studies of natural history. Up to now, no clear advantage has been disclosed for any of them; however, we recommend the use of specific measurements of gait since gait ataxia is the first significant manifestation in the majority of ataxia disorders and comment on the best scales to be used in specific ataxia forms. Quantitative ataxia scales will be needed to speed up evidence from phase II clinical trials, from trials focused on the early phase of diseases, and for secondary endpoints in phase III trials. Finally, it is worth remembering that estimation of the actual minimal clinically relevant difference is still lacking; this, together with changes in quality of life, will probably be the main endpoints to measure in future therapeutic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]