4.5 Article

Retrospective study of a TTR FAP cohort to modify NIS+7 for therapeutic trials

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 344, Issue 1-2, Pages 121-128

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.06.041

Keywords

Transthyretin amyloidosis polyneuropathy (TTR FAP); Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS); Ceiling effects; Polyneuropathy signs and tests; Smart Somatotopic QSTing; Modified NIS+7

Funding

  1. Mayo Foundation Funds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Protein stabilization and oligonucleotide therapies are being tested in transthyretin amyloid polyneuropathy (TTR FAP) trials. From retrospective analysis of 97 untreated TTR PAP patients, we test the adequacy of Neuropathy Impairment Score + 7 tests (NIS + 7) and modifications to comprehensively score impairments for use in such therapeutic trials. Our data confirms that TTR PAP usually is a sensorimotor polyneuropathy with autonomic features which usually is symmetric, length dependent, lower limb predominant and progressive. NIS + 7 adequately assesses weakness and muscle stretch reflexes without ceiling effects but not sensation loss, autonomic dysfunction or nerve conduction abnormalities. Three modifications of NIS + 7 are suggested: I) use of Smart Somatotopic Quantitative Sensation Testing (S ST QSTing); 2) choice of new autonomic assessments, e.g., sudomotor testing of distributed anatomical sites; and 3) use of only compound muscle action potential amplitudes (of ulnar, peroneal and tibial nerves) and sensory nerve action potentials of ulnar and sural nerve - than the previously recommended attributes suggested for the sensitive detection of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy. These modifications of NIS + 7 if used in therapeutic trials should improve characterization and quantification of sensation and autonomic impairment in TTR FAP and provide better nerve conduction tests. (C) 2014 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available