Validity and reliability of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) in multiple sclerosis patients with ataxia.

BACKGROUND: Ataxia is an extremely common problem in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Thus, appropriate scales are required for detailed assessment of this issue. The aim of our study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), which are widely used in ataxia evaluation in the context of other cerebellar diseases. METHOD: This cross-sectional study included 80 MS patients with Kurtzke cerebellar functional system score (C-FSS) greater than zero and slight pyramidal involvement. The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), C-FSS, and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) were administered. SARA and ICARS were assessed on first admission by two physical therapists. Seven days later, second assessments were repeated in same way for reliability. RESULTS: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were found to be high for both ICARS and SARA (p< 0.001) The Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.922 and 0.921 for SARA (reviewer 1 and reviewer 2 respectively) and 0.952 and 0.952 for ICARS (reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively). There were no floor or ceiling effects determined for either scale except for item 17 of ICARS (p= 0.055). The EDSS total score had significant correlations with both SARA and ICARS (rho: 0.557 and 0.707, respectively). C-FSS had moderate correlation with SARA and high correlation with ICARS (rho: 0.469 and 0.653, respectively). BBS had no significant correlation with SARA and ICARS. (rho: -0.048 and -0.008 respectively). According to the area under the curve (AUC) value, ICARS is the best scale to discriminate mild and moderate ataxia. (AUC: 0.875). Factor analyses of ICARS showed that the rating results were determined by five different factors that did not coincide with the ICARS sub-scales. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that ICARS and SARA are both reliable in MS patients with ataxia. Although ICARS has some structural problems, it seems to be more valid given its high correlations with EDSS and C-FSS. SARA also can be preferred as a brief assessment.

Assessment of the effect of cigarette smoking on regional brain volumes and lesion load in patients with clinically isolated syndrome.

PURPOSE: Smoking has been associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis, disease progression and clinical disability. We detected the effects of smoking on regional brain volumes and lesion load in patients with clinically isolated syndrome using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Smoker patients (n = 16), smoker healthy controls (n = 13), non-smoker patients (n = 17) and non-smoker healthy controls (n = 14) underwent magnetic resonance imaging and neocortical volumes were measured. Lesion load was calculated in terms of number and volume of white matter hyperintensities. RESULTS: Smoking was associated with increased gray matter volumes in several regions of the brain. A tendency towards greater lesion load in smoker patients was found. Smoking duration was significantly negatively correlated with intracranial volume and left hemisphere cortical gray matter volume. There was no relationship between regional brain volumes and clinical disability scores, lesion load duration of the disease and degree of smoking exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically isolated syndrome related regional brain atrophy might vary in extent and severity with smoking. Despite increased lesion load, less cortical and deep gray matter damage with a possible neuroprotective effect occurs in smoking.

Treatment experience, burden and unmet needs (TRIBUNE) in MS study: results from Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic burden of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Turkey, including the relapses and disease severity, and to evaluate the quality-of-life of MS patients. METHODS: The Treatment Experience, Burden and Unmet Needs (TRIBUNE) study was a multi-national, cross-sectional, retrospective, burden-of-illness survey. Total costs were calculated using unit costs derived from price lists or published literature, where relevant, and inflated to 2011 TL prices. RESULTS: A total of 295 MS patients (74% females) were included in the analysis. The population had a mean age of 36 years; 73% had the relapsing-remitting form. Mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2.2. Twenty-two per cent of the MS patients required hospitalization in the past year and spent an average of 29.2 days/year in hospital. These values were 43% and 5.6 days for the outpatients, respectively. Total cost per patient/year was 18,700 TL (Turkish Lira). Total costs for patients with mild, moderate, and severe disability were 15,418 TL, 26,002 TL, and 44,208 TL per patient/year, respectively. The mean EuroQol 5D scores in the same groups were 0.73, 0.52, and 0.05, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple sclerosis imposes a significant economic burden on patients and society in Turkey.

A comparative assessment of cerebral white matter by magnetization transfer imaging in early- and adult-onset multiple sclerosis patients matched for disease duration.

A more favorable clinical course in early-onset (EO) multiple sclerosis (MS) than adult-onset (AO) disease is reported. Our aim was to assess white matter with/without lesions by magnetization transfer (MT) imaging in EO and AO MS patients matched for duration of the disease. Relapsing-remitting MS patients with disease onset at age < or =18 years and >18 years (n = 11 for each) were matched according to sex, age, disease duration, and 22 sex-and age-matched healthy subjects were studied with MT imaging. MT ratios (MTR) of manually outlined ROIs from T1-hypointense, T1-isointense lesions and perilesional normal appearing white matter (NAWM) as well as NAWM of the left frontal lobe of the patients and healthy subjects were calculated. MTR differences between two patient groups and control subjects, and correlation of MTR with EDSS, disease onset age, disease duration and relapse rate were analyzed statistically. In comparison with NAWM of the patients and healthy subjects, the greatest MTR reductions were observed in T1-hypointense lesions followed by T1-isointense lesions and perilesional NAWM, respectively, in EO and AO MS. Both groups' NAWM MTR were reduced; greater and more significantly in EO patients. No correlation was found between MTR of any ROI and EDSS, duration of the disease, disease onset age, or relapse rate. Although normalization does not occur, abnormality of white matter in MS decreases as distance from the lesions increases. Greater NAWM abnormality in EO MS may relate to inherent myelin abnormalities and different repair/reorganization processes in this particular group.

Integrating an evidence-based assessment of benefit and risk in disease-modifying treatment of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: As results from an increasing number of clinical trials with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) become available, the challenge for the treating neurologist is how to decide on the appropriate therapy for an individual patient. OBJECTIVE: An International Working Group for Treatment Optimization in MS met to consider how the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) should be used to assess the current best evidence regarding the treatment of MS. This report summarizes the outcome from the workshop at which this topic was addressed. RESULTS: Class I evidence from head-to-head studies provides the best tool for direct comparisons of DMDs. However, other EBM approaches to data analysis from placebo-controlled trials can be used to help determine the benefits and risks of a particular DMD relative to placebo by calculating the number needed to treat to achieve a positive outcome, such as avoiding a relapse, and the number needed to harm to produce an additional adverse event, such as having a therapy-related dropout. This provides a structured basis for comparisons between DMDs. CONCLUSION: While such comparisons have their limitations, particularly when drugs with substantially different side-effect profiles are to be compared, they can provide useful information to guide treatment decisions.