4.2 Article

Revised upper limb module in type II and III spinal muscular atrophy: 24-month changes

Journal

NEUROMUSCULAR DISORDERS
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 36-42

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2021.10.009

Keywords

Spinal muscular atrophy; Outcome measures; Revised upper limb module; Neuromuscular disorders; Natural history

Funding

  1. SMA Trust
  2. SMA Foundation
  3. Italian Telethon

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to assess the 24-month changes in upper limb function in a large cohort of type II and III SMA patients. The results showed an overall decline in upper limb function over 24 months, with the most notable changes observed in type II patients and relative stability in ambulant type III patients.
The aim of the study was to establish 24-month changes in a large cohort of type II and III spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) patients assessed with the Revised Upper Limb Module (RULM), a tool specifically developed to assess upper limb function in SMA. We included 107 patients (54 type II and 53 type III) with at least 24-months follow up. The overall RULM 24-month changes showed a mean decline of -0.79 points. The difference between baseline and 24 months was significant in type II but not in type III patients. There was also a difference among functional subgroups but not in relation to age. Most patients had 24-month mean changes within 2 points, with 23% decreasing more than 2 points and 7% improving by >2 points. Our results suggest an overall progressive decline in upper limb function over 24 months. The negative changes were most notable in type II, in non-ambulant type III and with a different pattern of progression, also in non-sitter type II. In contrast, ambulant type III showed relative stability within the 24-month follow up. These findings will help in the interpretation of the real world data collected following the availability of new therapeutic approaches. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available