du Montcel Sophie Tezenas, Charles Perrine, Ribai Pascale, Goizet Cyril, Le Bayon Alice, Labauge Pierre, Guyant-Maréchal Lucie, Forlani Sylvie, Jauffret Celine, Vandenberghe Nadia, N'guyen Karine, Le Ber Isabelle, Devos David, Vincitorio Carlo-Maria, Manto Mario-Ubaldo, Tison François, Hannequin Didier, Ruberg Merle, Brice Alexis, Durr Alexandra
AP-HP, Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Pitié-Salpêtrière Charles-Foix Clinical Research Unit, University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.
Brain. 2008 May;131(Pt 5):1352-61. doi: 10.1093/brain/awn059. Epub 2008 Mar 31.
Reliable and easy to perform functional scales are a prerequisite for future therapeutic trials in cerebellar ataxias. In order to assess the specificity of quantitative functional tests of cerebellar dysfunction, we investigated 123 controls, 141 patients with an autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia (ADCA) and 53 patients with autosomal dominant spastic paraplegia (ADSP). We evaluated four different functional tests (nine-hole pegboard, click, tapping and writing tests), in correlation with the scale for the assessment and rating of cerebellar ataxia (SARA), the scale of functional disability on daily activities (part IV of the Huntington disease rating scale), depression (the Public Health Questionnaire PHQ-9) and the EQ-5D visual analogue scale for self-evaluation of health status. There was a significant correlation between each functional test and a lower limb score. The performance of controls on the functional tests was significantly correlated with age. Subsequent analyses were therefore adjusted for this factor. The performances of ADCA patients on the different tests were significantly worse than that of controls and ADSP patients; there was no difference between ADSP patients and controls. Linear regression analysis showed that only two independent tests, the nine-hole pegboard and the click test on the dominant side (P < 0.0001), accounted for the severity of the cerebellar syndrome as reflected by the SARA scores, and could be represented by a composite cerebellar functional severity (CCFS) score calculated as follows: [Formula: see text]. The CCFS score was significantly higher in ADCA patients compared to controls (1.12 +/- 0.18 versus 0.85 +/- 0.05, P(c) < 0.0001) and ADSP patients (1.12 +/- 0.18 versus 0.90 +/- 0.08, P(c) < 0.0001) and was correlated with disease duration (P < 0.0001) but independent of self-evaluated depressive mood in ADCA. Among genetically homogeneous subgroups of ADCA patients (Spinocerebellar ataxia 1, 2, 3), SCA3 patients had significantly lower (better) CCFS scores than SCA2 (P(c) < 0.04) and the same tendency was observed in SCA1. Their CCFS scores remained significantly worse than those of ADSP patients with identified SPG4 mutations (P < 0.0001). The pegboard and click tests are easy to perform and accurately reflect the severity of the disease. The CCFS is a simple and validated method for assessing cerebellar ataxia over a wide range of severity, and will be particularly useful for discriminating paucisymptomatic carriers from affected patients and for evaluating disease progression in future therapeutic trials.
可靠且易于实施的功能量表是未来小脑共济失调治疗试验的前提条件。为了评估小脑功能障碍定量功能测试的特异性,我们调查了123名对照者、141名常染色体显性小脑共济失调(ADCA)患者和53名常染色体显性痉挛性截瘫(ADSP)患者。我们评估了四种不同的功能测试(九孔插板试验、点击试验、敲击试验和书写试验),并将其与小脑共济失调评估与评分量表(SARA)、日常活动功能残疾量表(亨廷顿舞蹈病评定量表第四部分)、抑郁量表(患者健康问卷PHQ - 9)以及用于自我健康状况评估的EQ - 5D视觉模拟量表进行相关性分析。每项功能测试与下肢评分之间均存在显著相关性。对照者在功能测试中的表现与年龄显著相关。因此,后续分析对此因素进行了校正。ADCA患者在不同测试中的表现显著差于对照者和ADSP患者;ADSP患者与对照者之间无差异。线性回归分析表明,只有两项独立测试,即优势侧的九孔插板试验和点击试验(P < 0.0001),能够反映SARA评分所体现的小脑综合征严重程度,并且可以用如下计算的综合小脑功能严重程度(CCFS)评分来表示:[公式:见原文]。与对照者(1.12±0.18对0.85±0.05,P(c) < 0.0001)和ADSP患者(1.12±0.18对0.90±0.08,P(c) < 0.0001)相比,ADCA患者的CCFS评分显著更高,且与病程相关(P < 0.0001),但与ADCA患者自我评估的抑郁情绪无关。在ADCA患者的基因同质亚组(脊髓小脑共济失调1型、2型、3型)中,SCA3患者的CCFS评分显著低于SCA2患者(P(c) < 0.04),SCA1患者也有相同趋势。他们的CCFS评分仍显著差于已鉴定出SPG4突变的ADSP患者(P < 0.0001)。插板试验和点击试验易于实施,且能准确反映疾病严重程度。CCFS是一种简单且经过验证的方法,可在广泛的严重程度范围内评估小脑共济失调,对于区分症状轻微的携带者与患病患者以及在未来治疗试验中评估疾病进展将特别有用。