4.7 Article

Spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3, and 6 -: Disease severity and nonataxia symptoms

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 71, 期 13, 页码 982-989

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000325057.33666.72

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [EUROSCA/LSHM-CT-2004-503304]
  2. German Ministry of Education and Research [GeneMove/01 GM 0503]
  3. Polish Ministry of Scientific Research and Information Technology [3 PO5B 019 24]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify factors that determine disease severity and clinical phenotype of the most common spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs), we studied 526 patients with SCA1, SCA2, SCA3. or SCA6. Methods: To measure the severity of ataxia we used the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia ( SARA). In addition, nonataxia symptoms were assessed with the Inventory of Non-Ataxia Symptoms (INAS). The INAS count denotes the number of nonataxia symptoms in each patient. Results: An analysis of covariance with SARA score as dependent variable and repeat lengths of the expanded and normal allele, age at onset, and disease duration as independent variables led to multivariate models that explained 60.4% of the SARA score variance in SCA1, 45.4% in SCA2, 46.8% in SCA3, and 33.7% in SCA6. In SCA1, SCA2, and SCA3, SARA was mainly determined by repeat length of the expanded allele, age at onset, and disease duration. The only factors determining the SARA score in SCA6 were age at onset and disease duration. The INAS count was 5.0 +/- 2.3 in SCA1, 4.6 +/- 2.2 in SCA2, 5.2 +/- 2.5 in SCA3, and 2.0 +/- 1.7 in SCA6. In SCA1, SCA2, and SCA3, SARA score and disease duration were the strongest predictors of the INAS count. In SCA6, only age at onset and disease duration had an effect on the INAS count. Conclusions: Our study suggests that spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) 1, SCA2, and SCA3 share a number of common biologic properties, whereas SCA6 is distinct in that its phenotype is more determined by age than by disease-related factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据