Digital gait measures capture 1-year progression in early-stage spinocerebellar ataxia type 2

Jens Seemann, Lina Daghsen, Mathieu Cazier, Jean-Charles Lamy, Marie-Laure Welter, Martin A. Giese, Matthis Synofzik, Alexandra Durr, Winfried Ilg, Giulia Coarelli
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.08.23296692

Abstract

BACKGROUND With disease-modifying drugs in reach for cerebellar ataxias, fine-grained digital health measures are highly warranted to complement clinical and patient-reported outcome measures in upcoming treatment trials and treatment monitoring. These measures need to demonstrate sensitivity to capture change, in particular in the early stages of the disease.

OBJECTIVE To unravel gait measures sensitive to longitudinal change in the - particularly trial-relevant- early stage of spinocerebellar ataxia type 2 (SCA2).

METHODS Multi-center longitudinal study with combined cross-sectional and 1-year interval longitudinal analysis in early-stage SCA2 participants (n=23, including 9 pre-ataxic expansion carriers; median ATXN2 CAG repeat expansion 38±2; median SARA [Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia] score 4.83±4.31). Gait was assessed using three wearable motion sensors during a 2-minute walk, with analyses focusing on gait measures of spatiotemporal variability shown sensitive to ataxia severity, e.g. lateral step deviation.

RESULTS We found significant changes for gait measures between baseline and 1-year follow-up with large effect sizes (lateral step deviation p=0.0001, effect size rprb=0.78), whereas the SARA score showed no change (p=0.67). Sample size estimation indicates a required cohort size of n=43 to detect a 50% reduction in natural progression. Test-retest reliability and Minimal Detectable Change analysis confirm the accuracy of detecting 50% of the identified 1-year change.

CONCLUSIONS Gait measures assessed by wearable sensors can capture natural progression in early-stage SCA2 within just one year – in contrast to a clinical ataxia outcome. Lateral step deviation thus represents a promising outcome measure for upcoming multi-centre interventional trials, particularly in the early stages of cerebellar ataxia.

Introduction

With disease-modifying drugs on the horizon for degenerative ataxias1-4, sensitive performance measures are highly warranted. Gait disturbance often presents as a first sign of cerebellar ataxia5-7 and is one of the most patient-reported disabling features throughout the disease course8-10; thus suggesting a high potential for gait performance measures as both progression and response markers in upcoming treatment trials3.

To date, gait measures, including step variability, have demonstrated their sensitivity to ataxia severity mostly in cross-sectional studies of degenerative cerebellar diseases (see reviews in 6, 11-13), including also specifically SCA214, 15. However, correlations with clinical scores could be strongly influenced by the range of disease severity16. In cohorts spanning a wide range of disease stages, many gait measures – including non-specific ones such as speed – show correlations with disease severity that are often predominantly driven by subjects at both ends of the disease severity spectrum16. Notably, in interventional trials, the aim of assessing motor performance measures is qualitatively different: namely to quantify individual change in short trial-like time frames (e.g. one year) – and here often only in a rather specific disease severity stratum

Therefore, to serve as valid markers for capturing change – whether natural history or treatment response change –, gait measures need to demonstrate their sensitivity to individual longitudinal change over those time frames and in those disease severity strata that are relevant for interventional trials 3, 17. Here, we present longitudinal gait data from a multi-centre SCA2 cohort collected using wearable sensors in a trial-relevant time frame and disease severity stratum. Specifically, we show that digital measures of motor performance allow to capture longitudinal changes within 1-year in an early-stage SCA2 population where clinical ataxia scores failed to show sensitivity to change.

Methods

Patients

Spinocerebellar ataxia type 2 (SCA2) individuals were recruited from the French National Reference Center for Rare Diseases “Neurogenetics” in Paris, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital (n=15, assessed 2020-2022) and from the Ataxia Clinic of the University Hospital Tübingen (n=8, assessed 2020-2022). Individuals were included based on the following inclusion criteria: 1.) presence of a CAG repeat in the AXTN2 gene ≥32; 2.) age: 18-75 years; 3.) SARA score ≤15; 4.) able to walk without walking aids. The exclusion criteria were: severe visual or hearing impairment, cognitive impairment, or orthopaedic limitations. The study population comprised 15 participants at the ataxic stage as defined by a Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA)18 score of ≥3 (subgroup SCA2ATX), and 9 subjects in the pre-ataxic stage (SARA score <3)18 (subgroup SCA2PRE).

Estimated time from onset was defined as the dicerence between current age and estimated age at onset19, with estimated disease onset calculated based on the individual’s CAG repeats, as described in20. Negative values denote estimated disease onset in the future, positive values denote estimated disease onset in the past.

Healthy controls (n=33) consisted of expansion-negative first-degree relatives of SCA2 carriers and unrelated healthy individuals, all without signs of neurodegenerative disease upon clinical examination. SARA assessments were performed by expert neurologists (Paris: GC, Tübingen: MS).

The study was approved by the local institutional review boards of both participating centres (NCT04288128, IRCB 2018-A02563-52, CPP 19081-60311 for Paris and 598/2011BO1 for Tübingen). Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants before enrolment.

Gait assessment

Participants performed a 2-minute walk test on quiet, non-public indoor floors in institutional settings by walking back and forth across lines on the floor that were 20 m apart. Participants were instructed to walk at a comfortable and natural pace. Three Opal inertial sensors (APDM, Inc., Portland, US) were attached to both feet, and the posterior trunk at the level of L5 using elastic Velcro straps. Inertial sensor data were collected and wirelessly streamed to a laptop for automatic generation of gait and balance metrics using Mobility Lab software (APDM, Inc., Portland, US). Stride events, as well as spatiotemporal gait parameters from the motion sensors, were extracted using APDM’s Mobility Lab software (Version 2)21, which has been shown to provide good-to-excellent accuracy and repeatability22, 23. For each detected stride, the following features were extracted: stride length, stride time, lateral step deviation, and foot angles at initial contact. Turning movements and one stride before and after the turns are excluded from the analysis.

From the rich source of possible gait measures, we adopted a hypothesis-driven approach here, selecting only those measures that were considered promising candidate features based on previous studies:

Stride length and stride time variability

Measures of spatiotemporal gait variability, such as step length/stride length and step time/stride time variability, have been shown in cross-sectional studies15, 24-28 and a longitudinal study in SCA3 29 to be sensitive to ataxia-related gait changes and to be associated with an increased risk of falls30. Variability measures were calculated using the coefficient of variation CV=σ/μ, with the standard deviation normalized to the mean31. On this basis, stride length CV (StrideLCV) and stride time CV (StrideTCV) were determined.

Lateral step deviation

In a previous cross-sectional study examining ataxic gait characteristics in laboratory and real-life assessments32, we identified lateral step deviation (LatStepDev) and a composite measure of spatial step variability (SPcmp, combining StrideLCV and LatStepDev), as most sensitive to ataxia severity32. In addition, LatStepDev has recently been shown to be sensitive to short-term therapy-induced improvements in SCA27B 33. LatStepDev was determined based on three consecutive steps by calculating the absolute perpendicular deviation of the midfoot position from the line connecting the first and the third step 21, 32. LatStepDev was normalized by stride length and averaged over all strides.

Toe-out angle variability

Motivated by15, we examined an additional feature of variability, namely toe-out angleSD. Toe-out angle was determined as the lateral angle of the foot during the stance phase, relative to the forward motion of the gait cycle34. Increased toe-out angle has been shown to be associated with increased stride width, and variability in stride width is associated with dynamic postural instability15.

We also included gait speed as a general indicator of functional mobility.

Statistics

Differences between groups were determined using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, with post-hoc analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test. Effect sizes were determined using Cliff’s delta35. For longitudinal analyses, repeated measures analyses were performed using the non-parametric Friedman test to determine within-group differences between assessments, with post-hoc analysis using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes for repeated measures were determined by matched-pairs rank biserial correlation 36. We report three levels of significance: (i) uncorrected *:p<0.05: (ii) Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons **:p<0.05/n with n=6: number of gait features analysed; (iii) ***:p<0.001. Spearman’s ρ was used to examine the correlation between gait measures and SARA scores. Statistical analysis was performed using MATLAB (version R2020B). Based on the effect size of longitudinal change, a sample size estimation was performed using G*power 3.137 to determine the required cohort size for different levels of reduction of natural progression by a hypothetical intervention. Test–retest reliability of gait measures was calculated using ICC(2, 1) intraclass correlation coefficient 38, 39 and calculating the split-half reliability (dividing the walking task into two 1 minute segments). ICC values <0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and >0.90 were considered as poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively38. The ICC is used to determine the minimum detectable change (MDC), which is critical in determining whether a treatment-related slowing of disease progression can be reliably detected or is lost in the measurement noise40, 41. Embedded Image With 1.65 is the z-score of 90 % level of confidence.

Results

The mean age at baseline assessment was 41.4 ± 12 years [21–66] (SCA2ATX: 43.7 ± 9.7 years [28–66]), the mean SARA score was 4.83 ± 6.75 [0–13.5] (SCA2ATX: 43.7 ± 9.7 [3.5–13.5]) (Table1+2). In addition, the entire SCA2 population present a mean CAG repeat size of 37.4±2 [32-42], (SCA2ATX: 38.2±1.5 [35-42]) and a mean estimated time from onset of 1.78±13.7 years (SCA2ATX: 5.34±5.6 years). SARA score was correlated with CAG repeat size (r=0.53, p=0.0088**) and estimated time from onset (r=0.61, p=0.0019**) (Table 1+2).

View this table:
Table 1. Results of cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses for the SCA2 population.

Cross-sectional analyses: Between-group differences in healthy controls (HC) and SCA2 participants for clinical and gait measures. Stars indicate significant between-group differences (*≡ p<0.05, **≡ p<0.0083 Bonferroni-corrected, ***≡ p<0.001). δ indicates the effect size as determined by Cliff’s delta. Correlations between gait measures and clinical ataxia severity (SARA total score, SARAp&g posture&gait subscore) are shown for the SCA2 group. The 3 items of the SARA assessing gait and posture (gait, stance, sitting) were grouped into the SARA posture&gait (SARAp&g)subscore 62, 63. Effect sizes of correlations are reported using Spearman’s ρ. Longitudinal analyses of 1-year follow-up assessments: Paired statistics for within-subject comparisons of clinical scores and gait measures for the two walking conditions (p-values, Wilcoxon signed-rank test; effect sizes rprb determined by matched pairs rank biserial correlation 36). m: mean; sd: standard deviation. Analyses are shown for the group of SCA2 subjects at baseline (SCA2BL) and 1-year follow-up (SCA2FU). Estimated time from onset was defined as the di□erence between present age and estimated age at onset19, with estimated disease onset calculated based on the individual’s CAG repeats, as described in20.

Cross-sectional analysis of gait measures capturing ataxia severity

Cross-sectional analysis revealed group differences between SCA2 vs HC in all gait measures examined except gait speed (e.g. LatStepDev: p=0.01*, δ=0.4; SPcmp: p=0.02*, δ=0.35; StrideTCV: p=0.008**, δ=0.42; Table1). As expected, effect sizes of the group differences became larger for the subpopulation SCA2ATX vs. HC when the pre-ataxic SCA2 mutation carriers were excluded (LatStepDev: δ=0.67; SPcmp: δ=0.61; StrideTCV: δ=0.67; see Table 2). No group differences were found between pre-ataxic SCA2 mutation carriers (SCA2PRE) and healthy controls for any of the gait parameters (p>0.35).

View this table:
Table 2. Results of cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses for the SCA2ATX population.

Cross-sectional analyses: Differences between groups of healthy controls (HC) and SCA2 subjects for clinical and gait measures. Stars indicate significant between-group differences (*≡ p<0.05, **≡ p<0.0083 Bonferroni corrected, ***≡ p<0.001). δ indicates the effect size as determined by Cliff’s delta. Correlations between gait measures and clinical ataxia severity (SARA total score, SARAp&g posture&gait subscore) are given for the SCA2 group. The 3 items of the SARA assessing gait and posture (gait, stance, sitting) were grouped into the SARA posture&gait (SARAp&g) subscore 62, 63. Effect sizes of correlations are reported using Spearman’s ρ. Longitudinal analyses of 1-year follow-up assessments: Paired statistics for within-subject comparisons of clinical scores and gait measures for the two walking conditions (p-values, Wilcoxon signed-rank test; effect sizes rprb determined by matched pairs rank biserial correlation 36). m: mean; sd: standard deviation. Shown are analyses for the group of SCA2 subjects at baselineEmbedded Imageand 1-year follow-upEmbedded Image. Estimated time from onset was defined as the di□erence between present age and estimated age at onset19, with estimated disease onset calculated based on the individual’s CAG repeats, as described in20.

Concurrent validity was confirmed for all the ataxia-specific gait measures showing highly significant correlations with the SARA score (e.g. LatStepDev: p<0.0001***, r=0.74; SPcmp: p=0.00011***, r=0.72; StrideTCV: p<0.0001***, r=0.82; Figure 1 +Table 1). For these correlation analyses, the effect sizes of the correlations became smaller (but still remained significant) for the subpopulation SCA2ATX, due to the smaller range of ataxia severity (Table 2). In addition, gait measures showed correlations to CAG repeat size (LatStepDev: r=0.44, p=0.035*; StrideTCV:r=0.65,p=0.0007**) and estimated time from onset (LatStepDev: r=0.44, p=0.037*; StrideTcv: r=0.58, p=0.0041**).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Relationship between the gait measure LatStepDev and the SARA score separately colour coded for participants from both sites, Paris (red) and Tübingen (blue). The lines represent linear fits of the data for each site. Participants from both centers together show a close relationship between LatStepDev and SARA (r=0.74 p<0.0001)***.

Sensitivity of gait measures to longitudinal change at one year

We next analysed the ability of gait measures to detect longitudinal changes at a 1-year follow-up assessment (time interval: 373±22 days; follow-up data available for all 23 SCA2 participants). While ataxia measured by SARA failed to detect longitudinal change (p=0.67, effect size rprb=0.05) (Table1), paired statistics revealed differences between baseline and follow-up for the gait measures LatStepDev (p=0.001**, rprb=0.76) and SPcmp (p=0.03*, rprb=0.5; Table1, Figure 2A).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

(A) Longitudinal analyses of the 1-year follow-up assessments: Within-subject changes between baseline and 1-year follow-up for the group of SCA2 subjects. Upper panel: Within-subject changes in SARA score and the gait measure LatStepDev at baseline (BL) and 1-year follow-up (FU). Lower panel: Within-subject changes between baseline and 1-year follow-up, expressed as delta (Δ). In all panels, SARA scores of individual cerebellar subjects are colour coded. Black dotted line = mean change across all subjects. Stars indicate significant differences between time points (*≡ p<0.05, **≡ p<0.0083 Bonferroni corrected, ***≡ p<0.001). Effect sizes rprb were determined by matched-pairs rank biserial correlation. (B) Sample size estimates were performed for future intervention trials showing different levels of progression reduction for the gait measure LatStepDev for both the entire SCA2 population and the subpopulation SCA2ATX. The estimated number of subjects per study arm is plotted against the hypothesized therapeutic effect for reducing the 1-year progression in SCA2 subjects. Concrete numbers of sample sizes are given to detect a 50% reduction in natural history progression with a hypothetical intervention (80% power and two-sided 5% type I error). For comparison, sample sizes of n=97 (42, red cross), and n=98 (43, black cross) have recently been reported.

Given the largest effect size, LatStepDev was selected for sample size calculation. To detect a 50% reduction in natural progression with a hypothetical intervention (80% power and two-sided 5% type I error), n=43 subjects would be required using the LatStepDev as the primary outcome measure (Figure 2B). Subgroup analyses revealed an even higher effect size on longitudinal change for the ataxic Embedded Image (LatStepDev, rprb=0.771) (Table 2), resulting in a reduced estimated sample size of n=37 (Figure 2B). Test-retest reliability and Minimal Detectable Change (MCD) analysis confirm the accuracy of detecting a 50% reduction in identified 1-year change (Table 1).

In contrast, it was not possible to calculate a sample size estimate for the SARA score because it did not show a 1-year change. For comparison, we have included in Figure 2B the sample sizes of recent studies (42, n=97, red cross) and (43, n=98, black cross) which were reported for SCA2 populations with more advanced disease stages (e.g.: median 10.5 SARA points in43) (Figure 2).

Discussion

Gait disturbance often presents as first sign of cerebellar ataxia5, 6 and is one of the most disabling patient-relevant feature throughout the disease course8-10, suggesting a high potential as a marker for capturing change-whether related to disease progression or treatment response -in upcoming treatment trials1, 2, 4, 44.

This study aimed to test the sensitivity of gait measures to detect ataxia-related longitudinal changes in a time-relevant time frame (one year) and disease severity stratum (early stage) in a SCA2 population in a multicentre setting. Analyses showed that gait measures (i) correlate with cross-sectional clinical ataxia severity, indicating a valid capture of clinical ataxia dysfunction; and in particular (ii) capture longitudinal change between baseline and 1-year follow-up with high effect sizes, substantially outperforming the currently most widely used clinical ataxia scale.

Gait measures are sensitive to cross-sectional ataxia severity

Our analysis of gait variability measures confirmed the cross-sectional results of previous studies (reviews in6, 11, 13), including SCA2 14, 15, which showed (i) a significant difference between healthy controls and ataxia patients and (ii) a high correlation with ataxia severity as measured by the SARA score (Table 1+2).

Importantly, our results validate these findings in a multi-centre setting and in an early-stage SCA2 cohort (SARA score: mean 4.7 points), suggesting their applicability to early disease stages of SCA, which presents the disease severity stratum targeted by upcoming interventional trials3, 4, 45.

At the same time, our cross-sectional results illustrate the impact of ataxia severity even within the early-stage study population. When distinguishing between SCA2 patients and healthy subjects, the SCA2ATX subpopulation increased the effect size compared to the overall population SCA2, as pre-ataxic participants SCA2 showed less change in gait measures compared to healthy subjects. (see Tables 1 and 2).

In contrast, the overall SCA2 population shows a larger effect size (compared to SCA2ATX) in the correlation of gait measures with the severity of ataxia as measured by the SARA score, due to the wider range of disease stages (namely, including the pre-ataxic stage) (Tables 1 +2).

Gait measures, not SARA score, capture longitudinal change within one year

In addition to the concurrent validity shown by the correlation with the SARA score, it is crucial for future interventional studies that sensitivity to change is demonstrated by quantifying individual changes in short, trial-like time frames. To date, very few longitudinal gait studies have been conducted in cerebellar ataxia29, 46-48, most of them monocentric with heterogeneous populations and gait assessment approaches that are not easily transferable to international multicentre trials. Wearable IMU (inertial measurement unit) sensor technology for quantifying gait has recently become feasible and reliable for large, multicenter clinical trials without sophisticated gait laboratories or expert researchers, making IMUs are easy to use in clinical settings17.

Here we now show in a multi-centre setting using wearable motion sensors that the gait measure LatStepDev can quantify these longitudinal changes within a 1-year duration in an early-stage SCA2 population (SARA 4.87±4.28, including 9 pre-ataxic mutation carriers). Effect size was even slightly higher in the subpopulation SCAATX with manifest ataxia (SARA 7.1±3.6).

In contrast, we did not observe a 1-year longitudinal change in the SARA score in either the entire SCA2 population or the subpopulation SCA2ATX. Previous studies in SCA2 that found a longitudinal change in SARA score 42,49,43 were performed with more advanced disease stages (e.g.: mean SARA ≥10). These differences can be explained by previous results50, reporting an annual delta in SARA of 2.45 points in SCA2 for patients with a disease duration of more than 10 years, but only an average progression of 0.35 SARA points for patients with a disease duration of less than 10 years. This finding again highlights the need to analyse the performance metrics of outcome measures (clinical, digital-motor, etc) in a disease stage-specific fashion.

Sample size estimates for future trials and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

For future disease-modifying drug trials in SCA, the primary goal will be to slow disease progression in a limited trial period, ideally within 1 year3, 4, 44. To demonstrate a 50% reduction in natural history with a hypothetical intervention using LatDevStep as the primary outcome measure, n=43 subjects would be required for an early SCA2 population including pre-ataxic mutation carriers, and n=37 for an ataxic SCA2 population including only ataxic mutation carriers. Minimal detectable change (MDC) analysis confirms the accuracy of detecting a 50% reduction in identified 1-year changes (Table 1).

In summary, the large effect sizes and good reliability of this digital-motor measure also in multi-centre settings allow for substantially reduced sample size estimates compared to the SARA for the detection of reduced disease progression within one year (Figure 2). This reduction in sample size could be decisive for the feasibility of a treatment trial: while trials with e.g. 100 SCA2 subjects per trial arm (as required for SARA as outcome) are almost impossible, 37 SCA2 subjects (as required for the gait performance measure LatStepDev in SCA2ATX) are well feasible.

Meaningfulness and ecological validity

To properly evaluate treatment effects in both clinical trials and individual patient treatment settings, it is crucial to identify outcome measures that can detect meaningful changes for patients 51, 52. Gait assessment can provide meaningful outcome measures for evaluating treatment interventions, as cerebellar ataxia patients report gait and functional mobility impairments as having the greatest impact on their daily lives8-10. While longitudinal studies relating differences in gait measures to patient-reported outcomes are still lacking, we have shown in32 that the gait performance measure LatStepDev is highly correlated with the patient-reported subjective balance confidence (ABC score53). In particular, LatStepDev has been shown to capture ataxia-related gait impairments in real-life walking behavior, the latter being particularly important for demonstrating ecological relevance 32, 54, 55. In addition, LatStepDev has recently been shown to be sensitive to short-term therapy-induced improvements in SCA27B33 in correspondence with a change in a key patient reported outcome (Patient Global Impression, PGI) 52.

Study limitations

Our findings are limited by the relatively small cohort size. In particular, our study cohort was not sufficiently powered for detecting longitudinal change within the pre-ataxic group only. Thus, larger future studies, including a larger number of pre-ataxic subjects, are needed to further validate the promises of gait measures and relate longitudinal changes in gait to patient-centered outcomes and patient-meaningful aspects of health52, 56 as well as to corresponding changes in molecular (such as blood neurofilament light chain 57, 58) and imaging biomarkers59.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that digital gait measures allow to capture natural history progression change of SCA2 within one year, with effect sizes exceeding the main clinical rating scale (SARA) -which is still the most widely established outcome measure in this field. The proposed gait measures can be reliably captured by wearable motion sensors in multi-centre studies including centres without sophisticated motion laboratories and expert researchers. In particular the digital gait measure LatStepDev represents a promising performance outcome for future SCA intervention trials, particularly in the early stages of the disease, which are also more representative of the disease strata that will be enrolled in future trials than the advanced stages of the disease 4, 45, 60, 61

Data Availability

Data will be made available upon reasonable request. The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article. Raw data regarding human subjects (e.g. clinical data) are not shared freely to protect the privacy of the human subjects involved in this study; no consent for open sharing has been obtained.

Author Roles

  1. Research project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution;

  2. Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique;

  3. Manuscript Preparation: A. Writing of the first draft, B. Review and Critique;

W.I.: 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A

J.S.: 1C, 2C, 3B

M.S.: 1A, 2C, 3A

G.C.: 1B, 1C, 3B

A.D.: 1B, 2C, 3B

L.D.: 1B, 1C, 3B

M.C.: 1B, 1C, 3B

J.C.L.: 1B, 1C, 3B

M.L.W.: 1B, 1C, 3B

M.G.: 1B, 1C, 3B

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the participants including in this study. We would like to thank BIOGEN and IONIS which funded the NCT04288128 study and INSERM, which sponsored the NCT04288128 study (to A. D.). This work was supported by the International Max Planck Research School for Intelligent Systems (IMPRS-IS) (to J.S.) and the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung Medical Scientist programme ‘ClinbrAIn’ (to W.I.). as well as the Else Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung Clinician Scientist programme “PRECISE.net” (to M.S.). Work on this project was supported, in part, by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) No 441409627, as part of the PROSPAX consortium under the frame of EJP RD, the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases, under the EJP RD COFUND-EJP N° 825575 (to M.S. and A.D.).

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: J. Seemann, L. Daghsen, M. Cazier, J. Lamy, ML. Welter, A. Giese, and G. Coarelli report no disclosures.

    Prof. Durr serves as an advisor to Critical Path Ataxia Therapeutics Consortium and her institution (Paris Brain institute) receives her consulting fees from Pfizer, Huntix, UCB, Reata, PTC Therapeutics as well as research grants from the NIH, Biogen, Servier, and the National Clinical Research Program and she holds partly a Patent B 06291873.5 on “Anaplerotic Therapy of Huntington’s Disease and other polyglutamine diseases (2006).

    Prof. Synofzik has received consultancy honoraria from Ionis, UCB, Prevail, Orphazyme, Servier, Reata, GenOrph, AviadoBio, Biohaven, Zevra, and Lilly, all unrelated to the present manuscript.

    Dr. Ilg received consultancy honoraria by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to the present work.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Ashizawa T, Oz G, Paulson HL. Spinocerebellar ataxias: prospects and challenges for therapy development. Nat Rev Neurol 2018;14(10):590–605.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    Scoles DR, Pulst SM. Antisense therapies for movement disorders. Mov Disord 2019;34(8):1112–1119.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    Klockgether T, Ashizawa T, Brais B, et al. Paving the Way Toward Meaningful Trials in Ataxias: An Ataxia Global Initiative Perspective. Mov Disord 2022;37(6):1125–1130.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    Coarelli G, Coutelier M, Durr A. Autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxias: new genes and progress towards treatments. The Lancet Neurology 2023;22(8):735–749.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Globas C, du Montcel ST, Baliko L, et al. Early symptoms in spinocerebellar ataxia type 1, 2, 3, and 6. Mov Disord 2008;23(15):2232–2238.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Ilg W, Branscheidt M, Butala A, et al. Consensus Paper: Neurophysiological Assessments of Ataxias in Daily Practice. Cerebellum 2018;17(5):628–653.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Luo L, Wang J, Lo RY, et al. The Initial Symptom and Motor Progression in Spinocerebellar Ataxias. Cerebellum 2017;16(3):615–622.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    Rosen A, Hagen S, Trace K, Compton A. The Voice of the Patient: Living with Polglutamine Spinocerebellar Ataxias (SCA) and Dentatorubal-Pallidoluysion Atrophy (DRPLA). https://www.ataxia.org/ataxiapfdd/: National Ataxia Foundation 2021 January 2021.
  9. 9.
    Lowit A, Greenfield J, Cutting E, Wallis R, Hadjivassiliou M. Symptom burden of people with progressive ataxia, and its wider impact on their friends and relatives: a cross-sectional study AMRC Health Open Research 2023;3(28).
  10. 10.↵
    Gorcenco S, Karremo C, Puschmann A. Patients’ Perspective in Hereditary Ataxia. Cerebellum 2022.
  11. 11.↵
    Milne SC, Murphy A, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Yiu EM, Delatycki MB, Corben LA. Psychometric properties of outcome measures evaluating decline in gait in cerebellar ataxia: A systematic review. Gait & posture 2018;61:149–162.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.
    Ilg W, Timmann D. Gait ataxia--specific cerebellar influences and their rehabilitation. Mov Disord 2013;28(11):1566–1575.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Buckley E, Mazza C, McNeill A. A systematic review of the gait characteristics associated with Cerebellar Ataxia. Gait & posture 2018;60:154–163.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Velazquez-Perez L, Rodriguez-Labrada R, Gonzalez-Garces Y, et al. Prodromal Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 2 Subjects Have Quantifiable Gait and Postural Sway Deficits. Mov Disord 2021;36(2):471–480.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Shah VV, Rodriguez-Labrada R, Horak FB, et al. Gait Variability in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Assessed Using Wearable Inertial Sensors. Mov Disord 2021;36(12):2922–2931.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Janse RJ, Hoekstra T, Jager KJ, et al. Conducting correlation analysis: important limitations and pitfalls. Clin Kidney J 2021;14(11):2332–2337.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Byrom B, Watson C, Doll H, et al. Selection of and Evidentiary Considerations for Wearable Devices and Their Measurements for Use in Regulatory Decision Making: Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium. Value Health 2018;21(6):631–639.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Schmitz-Hubsch T, du Montcel ST, Baliko L, et al. Scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia: development of a new clinical scale. Neurology 2006;66(11):1717–1720.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Jacobi H, Reetz K, du Montcel ST, et al. Biological and clinical characteristics of individuals at risk for spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3, and 6 in the longitudinal RISCA study: analysis of baseline data. The Lancet Neurology 2013;12(7):650–658.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Tezenas du Montcel S, Durr A, Rakowicz M, et al. Prediction of the age at onset in spinocerebellar ataxia type 1, 2, 3 and 6. J Med Genet 2014;51(7):479–486.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Mancini M, King L, Salarian A, Holmstrom L, McNames J, Horak FB. Mobility Lab to Assess Balance and Gait with Synchronized Body-worn Sensors. J Bioeng Biomed Sci 2011;Suppl 1:007.
  22. 22.↵
    Washabaugh EP, Kalyanaraman T, Adamczyk PG, Claflin ES, Krishnan C. Validity and repeatability of inertial measurement units for measuring gait parameters. Gait & posture 2017;55:87–93.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Morris R, Stuart S, McBarron G, Fino PC, Mancini M, Curtze C. Validity of Mobility Lab (version 2) for gait assessment in young adults, older adults and Parkinson’s disease. Physiol Meas 2019;40(9):095003.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Serrao M, Pierelli F, Ranavolo A, et al. Gait pattern in inherited cerebellar ataxias. Cerebellum 2012;11(1):194–211.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.
    Wuehr M, Schniepp R, Ilmberger J, Brandt T, Jahn K. Speed-dependent temporospatial gait variability and long-range correlations in cerebellar ataxia. Gait & posture 2013;37(2):214–218.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.
    Rochester L, Galna B, Lord S, Mhiripiri D, Eglon G, Chinnery PF. Gait impairment precedes clinical symptoms in spinocerebellar ataxia type 6. Mov Disord 2014;29(2):252–255.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    Ilg W, Christensen A, Mueller OM, Goericke SL, Giese MA, Timmann D. Effects of cerebellar lesions on working memory interacting with motor tasks of different complexities. Journal of neurophysiology 2013;110(10):2337–2349.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Zhou H, Nguyen H, Enriquez A, et al. Assessment of gait and balance impairment in people with spinocerebellar ataxia using wearable sensors. Neurol Sci 2022;43(4):2589–2599.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Ilg W, Muller B, Faber J, et al. Digital Gait Biomarkers Allow to Capture 1-Year Longitudinal Change in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 3. Mov Disord 2022;37(11):2295–2301.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Schniepp R, Wuehr M, Schlick C, et al. Increased gait variability is associated with the history of falls in patients with cerebellar ataxia. Journal of neurology 2014;261(1):213–223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Winter DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human gait: normal, elderly and pathological. second ed. Waterloo, Canada: Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1991.
  32. 32.↵
    Ilg W, Seemann J, Giese M, et al. Real-life gait assessment in degenerative cerebellar ataxia: Toward ecologically valid biomarkers. Neurology 2020;95(9):e1199–e1210.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Seemann J, Traschutz A, Ilg W, Synofzik M. 4-Aminopyridine improves real-life gait performance in SCA27B on a single-subject level: a prospective n-of-1 treatment experience. Journal of neurology 2023.
  34. 34.↵
  35. 35.↵
    Cliff N. Answering Ordinal Questions with Ordinal Data Using Ordinal Statistics. Multivariate behavioral research 1996;31(3):331–350.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    Kerby DS. The Simple Difference Formula: An Approach to Teaching Nonparametric Correlation. Comprehensive Psychology 2014;3:11.IT.13.11.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009;41(4):1149–1160.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155–163.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86(2):420–428.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    Mohandas Nair P, George Hornby T, Louis Behrman AJTiscir. Minimal detectable change for spatial and temporal measurements of gait after incomplete spinal cord injury. 2012;18(3):273–281.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becher JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek AL. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2001;10(7):571–578.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    Diallo A, Jacobi H, Tezenas du Montcel S, Klockgether T. Natural history of most common spinocerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of neurology 2021;268(8):2749–2756.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Moulaire P, Poulet PE, Petit E, et al. Temporal Dynamics of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia in Spinocerebellar Ataxias. Mov Disord 2023;38(1):35–44.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Klockgether T, Mariotti C, Paulson HL. Spinocerebellar ataxia. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2019;5(1):24.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Saute JAM, Jardim LB. Planning Future Clinical Trials for Machado-Joseph Disease. In: Nóbrega C, Pereira de Almeida L, eds. Polyglutamine Disorders. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018:321–348.
  46. 46.↵
    Serrao M, Chini G, Casali C, et al. Progression of Gait Ataxia in Patients with Degenerative Cerebellar Disorders: a 4-Year Follow-Up Study. Cerebellum 2017;16(3):629–637.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.
    Shirai S, Yabe I, Takahashi-Iwata I, et al. The Responsiveness of Triaxial Accelerometer Measurement of Gait Ataxia Is Higher than That of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia in the Early Stages of Spinocerebellar Degeneration. Cerebellum 2019;18(4):721–730.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Morton SM, Tseng YW, Zackowski KM, Daline JR, Bastian AJ. Longitudinal tracking of gait and balance impairments in cerebellar disease. Mov Disord 2010;25(12):1944–1952.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Jacobi H, du Montcel ST, Bauer P, et al. Long-term disease progression in spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3, and 6: a longitudinal cohort study. The Lancet Neurology 2015;14(11):1101–1108.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Monte TL, Reckziegel EdR, Augustin MC, et al. The progression rate of spinocerebellar ataxia type 2 changes with stage of disease. Orphanet journal of rare diseases 2018;13(1):20.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    FDA. Patient-Focused Drug Development: Incorporating Clinical Outcome Assessments Into Endpoints for Regulatory Decision-Making. https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2023-D-0026: U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA); 2023.
  52. 52.↵
    Byrom B, Breedon P, Tulkki-Wilke R, Platko JV. Meaningful change: Defining the interpretability of changes in endpoints derived from interactive and mHealth technologies in healthcare and clinical research. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2020;7:2055668319892778.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 1995;50A(1):M28–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 54.↵
    Cabaraux P, Agrawal SK, Cai H, et al. Consensus Paper: Ataxic Gait. Cerebellum 2022.
  55. 55.↵
    Thierfelder A, Seemann J, John N, et al. Real-Life Turning Movements Capture Subtle Longitudinal and Preataxic Changes in Cerebellar Ataxia. Mov Disord 2022;37(5):1047–1058.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Manta C, Patrick-Lake B, Goldsack JC. Digital Measures That Matter to Patients: A Framework to Guide the Selection and Development of Digital Measures of Health. Digit Biomark 2020;4(3):69–77.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Wilke C, Haas E, Reetz K, et al. Neurofilaments in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3: blood biomarkers at the preataxic and ataxic stage in humans and mice. EMBO Mol Med 2020;12(7):e11803.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Coarelli G, Darios F, Petit E, et al. Plasma neurofilament light chain predicts cerebellar atrophy and clinical progression in spinocerebellar ataxia. Neurobiol Dis 2021;153:105311.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.↵
    Faber J, Schaprian T, Berkan K, et al. Regional Brain and Spinal Cord Volume Loss in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 3. Mov Disord 2021;36(10):2273–2281.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    Maas R. Preparing for Disease-Modification Trials in Degenerative Cerebellar Ataxias: Which Endpoints to Choose? Mov Disord 2023;38(6):917–923.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Matilla-Duenas A, Ashizawa T, Brice A, et al. Consensus paper: pathological mechanisms underlying neurodegeneration in spinocerebellar ataxias. Cerebellum 2014;13(2):269–302.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. 62.↵
    Lawerman TF, Brandsma R, Verbeek RJ, et al. Construct Validity and Reliability of the SARA Gait and Posture Sub-scale in Early Onset Ataxia. Front Hum Neurosci 2017;11:605.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    Ilg W, Fleszar Z, Schatton C, et al. Individual changes in preclinical spinocerebellar ataxia identified via increased motor complexity. Mov Disord 2016;31(12):1891–1900.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted October 09, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Digital gait measures capture 1-year progression in early-stage spinocerebellar ataxia type 2
Jens Seemann, Lina Daghsen, Mathieu Cazier, Jean-Charles Lamy, Marie-Laure Welter, Martin A. Giese, Matthis Synofzik, Alexandra Durr, Winfried Ilg, Giulia Coarelli
medRxiv 2023.10.08.23296692; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.08.23296692
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area