Skip Navigation


Brain Advance Access originally published online on March 31, 2008
Brain 2008 131(5):1352-1361; doi:10.1093/brain/awn059
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
131/5/1352    most recent
awn059v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by du Montcel, S. T.
Right arrow Articles by Durr, A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by du Montcel, S. T.
Right arrow Articles by Durr, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Composite cerebellar functional severity score: validation of a quantitative score of cerebellar impairment

Sophie Tezenas du Montcel1,2, Perrine Charles3,4,5,6, Pascale Ribai3,4,5, Cyril Goizet4,5,7, Alice Le Bayon8, Pierre Labauge8, Lucie Guyant-Maréchal9, Sylvie Forlani4,5, Celine Jauffret3, Nadia Vandenberghe10, Karine N’Guyen11, Isabelle Le Ber4,5,6, David Devos12, Carlo-Maria Vincitorio3, Mario-Ubaldo Manto13, François Tison7, Didier Hannequin9, Merle Ruberg3,4,5, Alexis Brice3,4,5,6,14 and Alexandra Durr3,4,5

1AP-HP, Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics and Pitié-Salpêtrière Charles-Foix Clinical Research Unit, 2University Pierre et Marie Curie, EA 3974, Modelling in Clinical Research, 3AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Department of Genetics and Cytogenetics, 4INSERM, UMR_S679 Neurologie & Thérapeutique Expérimentale, 5Federative Institute for Neuroscience Research (IFR70), Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, 6AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Federation of Neurology, F-75013 Paris, 7Bordeaux CHU Hospitals, Pellegrin Hospital, Department of Medical Genetics and Federation of Clinical Neurosciences, Bordeaux, 8Nîmes Hospitals, Carémeau Hospital, Service of Neurology, Nîmes, 9Rouen Hospitals, Charles Nicolle Hospital, Clinical Genetics Unit, Rouen, 10Lyon Hospitals, Pierre Wertheimer Neurological Hospital, Service of Neurology C, Lyon, 11Marseille Hospitals, La Timone Hospital, Department of Genetics, Marseille, 12Lille CHU Hospitals, Roger Salengro Hospital, Service of Neurology, Lille, France, 13FNRS, ULB Erasme, Service of Neurology, Brussels, Belgium and 14UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR_S679, F-75005, Paris, France

Correspondence to: Alexandra Dürr, MD, PhD, INSERM UMR_S679 and Department of Genetics and Cytogenetics, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47-83 boulevard de l'Hopital, 75651 Paris Cedex 13- France E-mail: durr{at}ccr.jussieu.fr

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

The CCFS score was significantly higher in ADCA patients compared to controls (1.12 ± 0.18 versus 0.85 ± 0.05, Pc < 0.0001) and ADSP patients (1.12 ± 0.18 versus 0.90 ± 0.08, Pc < 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 (Pc < 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.

Key Words: cerebellar ataxia; spastic paraplegia; Composite Cerebellar Functional Severity (CCFS) score; natural history

Abbreviations: ADCA, autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia; ADSP, autosomal dominant spastic paraplegia; CCFS, composite cerebellar functional severity; ICARS, International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale; MSFC, multiple sclerosis functional composite; PASAT, paced auditory serial addition test; SARA, Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia; VAS, visual analogue scale.

Received October 26, 2007. Revised February 20, 2008. Accepted February 25, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.