Content Validity of the Modified Functional Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (f-SARA) Instrument in Spinocerebellar Ataxia.

The functional Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (f-SARA) assesses Gait, Stance, Sitting, and Speech. It was developed as a potentially clinically meaningful measure of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) progression for clinical trial use. Here, we evaluated content validity of the f-SARA. Qualitative interviews were conducted among individuals with SCA1 (n = 1) and SCA3 (n = 6) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with SCA expertise (USA, n = 5; Europe, n = 3). Interviews evaluated symptoms and signs of SCA and relevance of f-SARA concepts for SCA. HCP cognitive debriefing was conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed by ATLAS.TI software. Individuals with SCA1 and 3 reported 85 symptoms, signs, and impacts of SCA. All indicated difficulties with walking, stance, balance, speech, fatigue, emotions, and work. All individuals with SCA1 and 3 considered Gait, Stance, and Speech relevant f-SARA concepts; 3 considered Sitting relevant (42.9%). All HCPs considered Gait and Speech relevant; 5 (62.5%) indicated Stance was relevant. Sitting was considered a late-stage disease indicator. Most HCPs suggested inclusion of appendicular items would enhance clinical relevance. Cognitive debriefing supported clarity and comprehension of f-SARA. Maintaining current abilities on f-SARA items for 1 year was considered meaningful for most individuals with SCA1 and 3. All HCPs considered meaningful changes as stability in f-SARA score over 1-2 years, 1-2-point change in total f-SARA score, and deviation from natural history. These results support content validity of f-SARA for assessing SCA disease progression in clinical trials.

Responsiveness of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia and Natural History in 884 Recessive and Early Onset Ataxia Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) is the most widely applied clinical outcome assessment (COA) for genetic ataxias, but presents metrological and regulatory challenges. To facilitate trial planning, we characterize its responsiveness (including subitem-level relations to ataxia severity and patient-focused outcomes) across a large number of ataxias, and provide first natural history data for several of them. METHODS: Subitem-level correlation and distribution-based analysis of 1,637 SARA assessments in 884 patients with autosomal recessive/early onset ataxia (370 with 2-8 longitudinal assessments) were complemented by linear mixed effects modeling to estimate progression and sample sizes. RESULTS: Although SARA subitem responsiveness varied between ataxia severities, gait/stance showed a robust granular linear scaling across the broadest range (SARA < 25). Responsiveness was diminished by incomplete subscale use at intermediate or upper levels, nontransitions ("static periods"), and fluctuating decreases/increases. All subitems except nose-finger showed moderate-to-strong correlations to activities of daily living, indicating that metric properties-not content validity-limit SARA responsiveness. SARA captured mild-to-moderate progression in many genotypes (eg, SYNE1-ataxia: 0.55 points/yr, ataxia with oculomotor apraxia type 2: 1.14 points/yr, POLG-ataxia: 1.56 points/yr), but no change in others (autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay, COQ8A-ataxia). Whereas sensitivity to change was optimal in mild ataxia (SARA < 10), it substantially deteriorated in advanced ataxia (SARA > 25; 2.7-fold sample size). Use of a novel rank-optimized SARA without subitems finger-chase and nose-finger reduces sample sizes by 20 to 25%. INTERPRETATION: This study comprehensively characterizes COA properties and annualized changes of the SARA across and within a large number of ataxias. It suggests specific approaches for optimizing its responsiveness that might facilitate regulatory qualification and trial design. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:470-485.

Exploring the clinical meaningfulness of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia: A comparison of patient and physician perspectives at the item level.

BACKGROUND: The Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) is commonly used as the primary outcome measure in therapeutic trials. Driven by spontaneous comments from ataxia patients participating in a trial, we aimed to examine the clinical meaningfulness of the SARA from their perspective. METHODS: Twenty mildly to moderately affected individuals with spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 (SARA score 11.3 ± 4.1) completed a custom-designed survey. SARA item scores were compared with self-reported complaints in everyday life. Discrepancies between SARA ratings and patients' daily life experiences were reported as "overestimation" (i.e., a SARA item score more than 0, but no corresponding complaints) or "underestimation" (i.e., a SARA item score of 0, yet accompanying complaints). RESULTS: Patient-physician discrepancies were present in essentially all SARA items except for gait. The mean number of overestimated SARA points per patient was 3.1 ± 2.1. Underestimation occurred less frequently, but was relatively common in stance and fast alternating hand movements. Three quarters of patients marked gait as the most valuable SARA item, while the remaining 25% selected stance. CONCLUSION: On average, a quarter of total SARA score does not reflect meaningful impairments from a patient's perspective. Our data suggest that it is doubtful whether potential improvements at some of the items will be perceived as comparably important by mildly to moderately affected ataxia patients. These observations question the utility of delta SARA score as the most appropriate primary endpoint in clinical trials and call for the addition of outcome measures, such as the Patient Global Impression of Change scale and validated ataxia-specific patient-reported outcome measures.

Standardized Assessment of Hereditary Ataxia Patients in Clinical Studies.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary ataxias are a heterogeneous group of degenerative diseases of the cerebellum, brainstem, and spinal cord. They may present with isolated ataxia or with additional symptoms going beyond cerebellar deficits. There are an increasing number of clinical studies with the goal to define the natural history of these disorders, develop biomarkers, and investigate therapeutic interventions. Especially, early and preclinical disease stages are currently of particular interest. METHODS AND RESULTS: Evidence-based, we review standards for sampling and storage of biomaterials, clinical and neuropsychological assessment, as well as neurophysiology and neuroimaging and recommendations for standardized assessment of ataxia patients in multicenter studies. CONCLUSIONS: DNA, RNA, serum, and, if possible, cerebrospinal fluid samples should be processed following established standards. Clinical assessment in ataxia studies must include use of a validated clinical ataxia scale. There are several validated clinical ataxia scales available. There are no instruments that were specifically designed for assessing neuropsychological and psychiatric symptoms in ataxia disorders. We provide a list of tests that may prove valuable. Quantitative performance tests have the potential to supplement clinical scales. They provide additional objective and quantitative information. Posturography and quantitative movement analysis-despite valid approaches-require standardization before implemented in multicenter studies. Standardization of neurophysiological tools, as required for multicenter interventional trials, is still lacking. Future multicenter neuroimaging studies in ataxias should implement quality assurance measures as defined by the ADNI or other consortia. MRI protocols should allow morphometric analyses.