Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The Cerebellum
Published in: The Cerebellum 2/2012

01-06-2012 | Review Article

Ataxia Rating Scales—Psychometric Profiles, Natural History and Their Application in Clinical Trials

Authors: Jonas Alex Morales Saute, Karina Carvalho Donis, Carmen Serrano-Munuera, David Genis, Luís Torres Ramirez, Pilar Mazzetti, Luis Velázquez Pérez, Pilar Latorre, Jorge Sequeiros, Antoni Matilla-Dueñas, Laura Bannach Jardim, On behalf of the Iberoamerican Multidisciplinary Network for the Study of Movement Disorders (RIBERMOV) Study Group

Published in: The Cerebellum | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
Klockgether T. Sporadic ataxia with adult onset: classification and diagnostic criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:94–104.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Kieling C, Morales Saute JA, Jardim LB. When ataxia is not just ataxia. Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2007;3:E2.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Trouillas P, Takayanagi T, Hallett M, Currier RD, Subramony SH, Wessel K, et al. International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale for pharmacological assessment of the cerebellar syndrome. The Ataxia Neuropharmacology Committee of the World Federation of Neurology. J Neurol Sci. 1997;145:205–11.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Tison F, Yekhlef F, Balestre E, Chrysostome V, Quinn N, Wenning, et al. Application of the International Cooperative Ataxia Scale rating in multiple system atrophy. Mov Disord. 2002;17:1248–54.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Storey E, Tuck K, Hester R, Hughes A, Churchyard A. Inter-rater reliability of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS). Mov Disord. 2004;19:190–2.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Schmitz-Hübsch T, Tezenas du Montcel S, Baliko L, Boesch S, Bonato S, Fancellu R, et al. Reliability and validity of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale: a study in 156 spinocerebellar ataxia patients. Mov Disord. 2006;21:699–704.PubMedCrossRef
7.
D’Abreu A, Franca Jr M, Lopes-Cendes I, Cendes F. The international cooperative ataxia rating scale in Machado–Joseph disease. Comparison with the unified multiple system atrophy rating scale. Mov Disord. 2007;22:1976–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Bürk K, Mälzig U, Wolf S, Heck S, Dimitriadis K, Schmitz-Hübsch T, et al. Comparison of three clinical rating scales in Friedreich ataxia (FRDA). Mov Disord. 2009;24:1779–84.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Fahey MC, Corben L, Collins V, Churchyard AJ, Delatycki MB. How is disease progress in Friedreich’s ataxia best measured? A study of four rating scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:411.PubMedCrossRef
10.
França Jr MC, D’Abreu A, Nucci A, Cendes F, Lopes-Cendes I. Progression of ataxia in patients with Machado–Joseph disease. Mov Disord. 2009;24:1387–90.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Di Prospero NA, Baker A, Jeffries N, Fischbeck KH. Neurological effects of high-dose idebenone in patients with Friedreich’s ataxia: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:878–86.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Lynch DR, Perlman SL, Meier T. A phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of idebenone in Friedreich ataxia. Arch Neurol. 2010;67:941–7.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ristori G, Romano S, Visconti A, Cannoni S, Spadaro M, Frontali M, et al. Riluzole in cerebellar ataxia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial. Neurology. 2010;74:839–45.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Bier JC, Dethy S, Hildebrand J, Jacquy J, Manto M, Martin JJ, et al. Effects of the oral form of ondansetron on cerebellar dysfunction. A multi-center double-blind study. J Neurol. 2003;250:693–7.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Mori M, Adachi Y, Mori N, Kurihara S, Kashiwaya Y, Kusumi M, et al. Double-blind crossover study of branched-chain amino acid therapy in patients with spinocerebellar degeneration. J Neurol Sci. 2002;195:149–52.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Heo JH, Lee ST, Chu K, Kim M. The efficacy of combined estrogen and buspirone treatment in olivopontocerebellar atrophy. J Neurol Sci. 2008;271:87–90.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Assadi M, Campellone JV, Janson CG, Veloski JJ, Schwartzman RJ, Leone P. Treatment of spinocerebellar ataxia with buspirone. J Neurol Sci. 2007;260:143–6.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Cooper JM, Korlipara LV, Hart PE, Bradley JL, Schapira AH. Coenzyme Q10 and vitamin E deficiency in Friedreich’s ataxia: predictor of efficacy of vitamin E and coenzyme Q10 therapy. Eur J Neurol. 2008;15:1371–9.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Mariotti C, Solari A, Torta D, Marano L, Fiorentini C, Di Donato S. Idebenone treatment in Friedreich patients: 1-year-long randomized placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 2003;60:1676–9.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Schöls L, Vorgerd M, Schillings M, Skipka G, Zange J. Idebenone in patients with Friedreich ataxia. Neurosci Lett. 2001;306:169–72.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Schmitz-Hübsch T, du Montcel ST, Baliko L, Berciano J, Boesch S, Depondt C, et al. Scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia: development of a new clinical scale. Neurology. 2006;66:1717–20.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Braga-Neto P, Godeiro-Junior C, Dutra LA, Pedroso JL, Barsottini OG. Translation and validation into Brazilian version of the Scale of the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA). Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2010;68:228–30.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Weyer A, Abele M, Schmitz-Hübsch T, Schoch B, Frings M, Timmann D, et al. Reliability and validity of the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia: a study in 64 ataxia patients. Mov Disord. 2007;22:1633–7.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Schmitz-Hübsch T, Fimmers R, Rakowicz M, Rola R, Zdzienicka E, Fancellu R, et al. Responsiveness of different rating instruments in spinocerebellar ataxia patients. Neurology. 2010;74:678–84.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Chan E, Charles P, Ribai P, Goizet C, Marelli C, Vincitorio CM, et al. Quantitative assessment of the evolution of cerebellar signs in spinocerebellar ataxias. Mov Disord. 2011;26:534–8. doi:10.​1002/​mds.​23531.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Gazulla J, Benavente I. Single-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of pregabalin for ataxia in cortical cerebellar atrophy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2007;116:235–8.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Schmahmann JD, Gardner R, MacMore J, Vangel MG. Development of a brief ataxia rating scale (BARS) based on a modified form of the ICARS. Mov Disord. 2009;24:1820–8.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Wenning GK, Tison F, Seppi K, Sampaio C, Diem A, Yekhlef F, et al. Multiple System Atrophy Study Group. Development and validation of the Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale (UMSARS). Mov Disord. 2004;19:1391–402.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Schwab R, England A. Projection technique for evaluating surgery in Parkinson’s disease. In: Gillingham F, Donaldson I, editors. Third symposium on Parkinson’s disease. Edinburgh: Livingstone; 1969. p. 152–75.
30.
Geser F, Seppi K, Stampfer-Kountchev M, Köllensperger M, Diem A, Ndayisaba JP, et al. The European Multiple System Atrophy-Study Group (EMSA-SG). J Neural Transm. 2005;112:1677–86.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Geser F, Wenning GK, Seppi K, Stampfer-Kountchev M, Scherfler C, Sawires M, et al. Progression of multiple system atrophy (MSA): a prospective natural history study by the European MSA Study Group (EMSA SG). Mov Disord. 2006;21:179–86.PubMedCrossRef
32.
May S, Gilman S, Sowell BB, Thomas RG, Stern MB, Colcher A, et al. Potential outcome measures and trial design issues for multiple system atrophy. Mov Disord. 2007;22:2371–7.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Dodel R, Spottke A, Gerhard A, Reuss A, Reinecker S, Schimke N, et al. Minocycline 1-year therapy in multiple-system-atrophy: effect on clinical symptoms and [(11)C] (R)-PK11195 PET (MEMSA-trial). Mov Disord. 2010;25:97–107.PubMed
34.
Holmberg B, Johansson JO, Poewe W, Wenning G, Quinn NP, Mathias C, et al. Safety and tolerability of growth hormone therapy in multiple system atrophy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Mov Disord. 2007;22:1138–44.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Subramony SH, May W, Lynch D, Gomez C, Fischbeck K, Hallett M, et al. Measuring Friedreich ataxia: interrater reliability of a neurologic rating scale. Neurology. 2005;64:1261–2.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Lynch DR, Farmer JM, Tsou AY, Perlman S, Subramony SH, Gomez CM, et al. Measuring Friedreich ataxia: complementary features of examination and performance measures. Neurology. 2006;66:1711–6.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Friedman LS, Farmer JM, Perlman S, Wilmot G, Gomez CM, Bushara KO, et al. Measuring the rate of progression in Friedreich ataxia: implications for clinical trial design. Mov Disord. 2010;25(4):426–32.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Kieling C, Rieder CR, Silva AC, Saute JA, Cecchin CR, Monte TL, et al. A neurological examination score for the assessment of spinocerebellar ataxia 3 (SCA3). Eur J Neurol. 2008;15:371–6.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Jardim LB, Hauser L, Kieling C, Saute JA, Xavier R, Rieder CR, et al. Progression rate of neurological deficits in a 10-year cohort of SCA3 patients. Cerebellum. 2010;9:419–28.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Schmitz-Hübsch T, Coudert M, Bauer P, Giunti P, Globas C, Baliko L, et al. Spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3, and 6: disease severity and nonataxia symptoms. Neurology. 2008;71:982–9.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Després C, Lamoureux D, Beuter A. Standardization of a neuromotor test battery: the CATSYS system. Neurotoxicology. 2000;21(5):725–35.PubMed
42.
Aguilar D, Sigford KE, Soontarapornchai K, Nguyen DV, Adams PE, Yuhas JM, et al. A quantitative assessment of tremor and ataxia in FMR1 premutation carriers using CATSYS. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A(5):629–35.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Allen EG, Juncos J, Letz R, Rusin M, Hamilton D, Novak G, et al. Detection of early FXTAS motor symptoms using the CATSYS computerised neuromotor test battery. J Med Genet. 2008;45(5):290–7.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Juncos JL, Lazarus JT, Graves-Allen E, Shubeck L, Rusin M, Novak G, et al. New clinical findings in the fragile X-associated tremor ataxia syndrome (FXTAS). Neurogenetics. 2011;12(2):123–35.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Assadi M, Leone P, Veloski JJ, Schwartzman RJ, Janson CG, Campellone JV. Validating an Ataxia Functional Composite Scale in spinocerebellar ataxia. J Neurol Sci. 2008;268(1–2):136–9.PubMedCrossRef
46.
du Montcel ST, Charles P, Ribai P, Goizet C, Le Bayon A, Labauge P, et al. Composite cerebellar functional severity score: validation of a quantitative score of cerebellar impairment. Brain. 2008;131:1352–61.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Schmitz-Hübsch T, Giunti P, Stephenson DA, Globas C, Baliko L, Saccà F, et al. SCA Functional Index: a useful compound performance measure for spinocerebellar ataxia. Neurology. 2008;71:486–92.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Cano SJ, Riazi A, Schapira AH, Cooper JM, Hobart JC. Friedreich’s ataxia impact scale: a new measure striving to provide the flexibility required by today’s studies. Mov Disord. 2009;24:984–92.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
50.
Molnar FJ, Man-Son-Hing M, Fergusson D. Systematic review of measures of clinical significance employed in randomized controlled trials of drugs for dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(3):536–46.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Metadata
Title
Ataxia Rating Scales—Psychometric Profiles, Natural History and Their Application in Clinical Trials
Authors
Jonas Alex Morales Saute
Karina Carvalho Donis
Carmen Serrano-Munuera
David Genis
Luís Torres Ramirez
Pilar Mazzetti
Luis Velázquez Pérez
Pilar Latorre
Jorge Sequeiros
Antoni Matilla-Dueñas
Laura Bannach Jardim
On behalf of the Iberoamerican Multidisciplinary Network for the Study of Movement Disorders (RIBERMOV) Study Group
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
The Cerebellum / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1473-4222
Electronic ISSN: 1473-4230
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-011-0316-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

The Cerebellum 2/2012 Go to the issue

BriefCommunication

Specification and Differentiation of Cerebellar GABAergic Neurons

Review

From Movement to Thought: Executive Function, Embodied Cognition, and the Cerebellum

ReviewPaper

In vivo Structural Imaging of the Cerebellum, the Contribution of Ultra-High Fields

Original Paper

The Functional Role of the Cerebellum in Visually Guided Tracking Movement

BriefCommunication

Diversity of Neuronal Elements and Circuitry in the Cerebellar Nuclei

OriginalPaper

Functional Imaging and the Cerebellum: Recent Developments and Challenges. Editorial