4.6 Review

Clinical Trial Designs and Measures in Hereditary Spastic Paraplegias

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01017

Keywords

rating scales; spasticity; therapeutics; neurogenetics; neuromuscular

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSPs) are a large group of genetically-diverse neurologic disorders characterized clinically by a common feature of lower extremity spasticity and gait difficulties. Current therapies are predominantly symptomatic, and even then usually provide inadequate relief of symptoms. Going forward, HSP therapeutics development requires a systematic analysis of quantifiable measures and tools to assess treatment response. This review summarizes promising therapeutic targets, assessment measures, and previous clinical trials for the HSPs. Oxidative stress, signaling pathways, microtubule dynamics, and gene rescue/replacement have been proposed as potential treatment targets or modalities. Quantitative evaluation of preclinical rodent HSP models emphasize rotarod performance, foot base angle, grip strength, stride length, beam walking, critical speed, and body weight. Clinical measures of HSP in humans include 10-m gait velocity, the Spastic Paraplegia Rating Scale (SPRS), Ashworth Spasticity Scale, Fugl-Meyer Scale, timed up-and-go, and the Gillette Functional Assessment Questionnaire. We conducted a broad search for past clinical trials in HSPs and identified trials that investigated pharmacological agents including atorvastatin, gabapentin, L-threonine, botulinum toxin, dalfampridine, methylphenidate, and baclofen. We provide recommendations for future HSP treatment directions based on these prior research experiences as well as regulatory insight.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available