Spatiotemporal gait changes in people with multiple sclerosis with different disease progression subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Gait impairment is common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), but less is known about gait differences between MS disease progression subtypes. The objective here was to examine differences in spatiotemporal gait in MS and between relapsing-remitting and progressive subtypes during the timed-25-ft-walk test. Our specific aims were to investigate (1) spatiotemporal, (2) spatiotemporal variability, and (3) gait modulation differences between healthy controls and MS subtypes at preferred and fast walking speed. METHODS: This study included 27 controls, 18 relapsing-remitting MS, and 13 progressive MS participants. Participants wore six inertial sensors and walked overground without walking aids at preferred and fast-as-possible speeds. FINDINGS: Both MS groups had significantly lower walking speed than controls, with a trend towards lower preferred gait speed in progressive compared to relapsing-remitting MS (ES = 0.502). Although most spatiotemporal gait parameters differed between controls and MS groups, differences were not significant between MS subtypes in these parameters and their variability, with low to moderate effect sizes during preferred and fast walking. Both MS groups showed reduced modulation in gait compared to controls and no significant differences between MS subtypes. INTERPRETATION: Gait in MS is altered compared to controls. Although gait may change with progressive MS, the overall small differences in the gait parameters between the MS subtypes observed in this sample suggests that those with the progressive form of MS who are independently ambulatory and without further clinically meaningful changes in gait speed may not show gait decrements greater than the relapsing-remitting form of the disease.

Non-ambulatory measures of lower extremity sensorimotor function are associated with walking function in Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Disease progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) is often monitored by ambulatory measures, but how non-ambulatory sensorimotor measures differentially associate to walking measures in MS subtypes is unknown. We determined whether there are characteristic differences between relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), progressive MS (PMS), and non-MS controls in lower extremity sensorimotor function and clinical walking tasks and the sensorimotor associations with walking function in each group. METHODS: 18 RRMS, 13 PMS and 28 non-MS control participants were evaluated in their plantar cutaneous sensitivity (vibration perception threshold, Volts), proprioception during ankle joint position-matching (|∆°| in dorsiflexion), motor coordination (rapid foot-tap count/10 s), and walking function with three tests: Timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) at preferred and fast speeds (s), and timed-up-and-go (TUG, s). RESULTS: Foot-tapping (p = 0.039, Mean difference (MD)= 5.65 taps) and plantar cutaneous sensation (p = 0.026, MD= -10.30 V) differed between the MS subtypes. For the RRMS group faster walking was related to better proprioceptive function (preferred T25FW: p = 0.019, Root mean square error (RMSE)=1.94; fast T25FW: p = 0.004, RMSE=1.65; TUG: p = 0.001, RMSE=2.12) and foot-tap performance (preferred T25FW: p = 0.033, RMSE = 2.74; fast T25FW: p = 0.010, RMSE=2.02). These associations were not observed in the PMS group. CONCLUSIONS: Foot-tap performance and plantar cutaneous sensitivity but not ankle proprioception differed between MS subtypes. Lower walking performance was associated with lower foot-tapping and plantar cutaneous sensitivity in the RRMS but not the PMS group. This result suggests a change in the relationship of lower extremity sensorimotor function to walking performance in the PMS subtype.

Muscle architecture, voluntary activation, and low-frequency fatigue do not explain the greater fatigue of older compared with young women during high-velocity contractions.

Although high-velocity contractions elicit greater muscle fatigue in older than young adults, the cause of this difference is unclear. We examined the potential roles of resting muscle architecture and baseline contractile properties, as well as changes in voluntary activation and low-frequency fatigue in response to high-velocity knee extensor work. Vastus lateralis muscle architecture was determined in quiescent muscle by ultrasonography in 8 young (23.4±1.8 yrs) and 8 older women (69.6±1.1). Maximal voluntary dynamic (MVDC) and isometric (MVIC), and stimulated (80Hz and 10Hz, 500ms) isometric contractions were performed before and immediately after 120 MVDCs (240°.s-1, one every 2s). Architecture variables did not differ between groups (p≥0.209), but the half-time of torque relaxation (T1/2) was longer in older than young women at baseline (151.9±6.0 vs. 118.8±4.4 ms, respectively, p = 0.001). Older women fatigued more than young (to 33.6±4.7% vs. 55.2±4.2% initial torque, respectively; p = 0.004), with no evidence of voluntary activation failure (ΔMVIC:80Hz torque) in either group (p≥0.317). Low-frequency fatigue (Δ10:80Hz torque) occurred in both groups (p<0.001), as did slowing of T1/2 (p = 0.001), with no differences between groups. Baseline T1/2 was inversely associated with fatigue in older (r2 = 0.584, p = 0.045), but not young women (r2 = 0.147, p = 0.348). These results indicate that differences in muscle architecture, voluntary activation, and low-frequency fatigue do not explain the greater fatigue of older compared with young women during high-velocity contractions. The inverse association between baseline T1/2 and fatigue in older women suggests that factors related to slower muscle contractile properties may be protective against fatigue during fast, repetitive contractions in aging.

Sensorimotor function in progressive multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: A sensitive test reflecting subtle sensorimotor changes throughout disease progression independent of mobility impairment is currently lacking in progressive multiple sclerosis. OBJECTIVES: We examined non-ambulatory measures of upper and lower extremity sensorimotor function that may reveal differences between relapsing-remitting and progressive forms of multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Cutaneous sensitivity, proprioception, central motor function and mobility were assessed in 32 relapsing-remitting and 31 progressive multiple sclerosis patients and 30 non-multiple sclerosis controls. RESULTS: Cutaneous sensation differed between relapsing-remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis at the foot and to a lesser extent the hand. Proprioception function in the upper but not the lower extremity differed between relapsing-remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis, but was different for both upper and lower extremities between multiple sclerosis patients and non-multiple sclerosis controls. Foot-tap but not hand-tap speed was slower in progressive compared to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, suggestive of greater central motor function impairment in the lower extremity in progressive multiple sclerosis. In addition, the non-ambulatory sensorimotor measures were more sensitive in detecting differences between relapsing-remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis than mobility assessed with the 25-foot walk test. CONCLUSION: This study provides novel information about changes in sensorimotor function in progressive compared with relapsing-remitting forms of multiple sclerosis, and in particular the importance of assessing both upper and lower extremity function. Importantly, our findings showed loss of proprioceptive function in multiple sclerosis but also in progressive compared to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Rapid foot-tapping but not hand-tapping ability is different between relapsing-remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Rapid tapping tests have been shown to be reliable measures of upper motor neuron disease, and effectively examine motor function differences between multiple sclerosis (MS) and non-MS controls (CON), and between relapsing-remitting and progressive MS subtypes. To successfully perform rapid repetitive movements such as tapping, a person must be able to consistently turn on and off motor units to switch between the up and down movement phases. However, it is not clear which specific movement phase that occurs during tapping is different between MS subtypes. The objective of this study was to quantify and characterize performance differences during rapid hand- and foot-tapping tests between relapsing-remitting (RRMS) and progressive (PMS) forms of MS, as well as how both subtypes differ from non-MS controls. METHODS: Participants in this study included 30 non-MS controls, 32 RRMS, and 31 PMS. Participants wore inertial sensors on all hands and feet and were instructed to tap as fast as possible for 10 s. Angular velocity from the gyroscope was used to quantify inter-tap interval (ms), coefficient of variation of inter-tap interval (COV), and up- and down-movement characteristics (duration (ms), COV, peak angular velocity (rad/s)). Differences between groups were examined with ANOVA and independent t-tests. Inter-tap interval was examined for its ability to distinguish between RRMS and PMS by a binary logistic regression analysis. Up-down movement characteristics were further evaluated for within-group directional differences (up- vs. down-phase movement components) with paired-sample t-tests. RESULTS: Inter-tap interval for both hand- and foot-tapping differed between controls and MS, but only foot tapping was different between RRMS and PMS (RRMS = 286.7 ± 83.0 ms; PMS = 379.5 ± 170.9 ms; mean difference (d) = -92.8 ms). Logistic regression analysis showed foot-tap interval but not hand-tap interval has the potential to distinguish between RRMS and PMS (Area under the ROC = 0.71). Both up- and down-movement duration differences were consistent with the results for inter-tap interval, but up-movement duration showed larger mean group differences than down-movement differences. No significant group differences in overall inter-tap interval COV were detected for either hand- or foot-tapping; however, up-movement foot-tapping variation (CON = 18.7 ± 6.1; RRMS = 25.5 ± 11.2; PMS = 23.3 ± 8.6; CON vs RRMS d = -6.8; CON vs PMS d = -4.7), but not down-movement variation was different between controls and MS. Up- and down-peak angular velocity during foot-tapping were different between controls and PMS (CON Up = 1.4 ± 0.5 rad/s; PMS Up = 1.0 ± 0.4 rad/s; Up d = 0.4 rad/s; CON Down= 1.5 ± 0.6 rad/s; PMS Down = 1.2 ± 0.5 rad/s; Down d = 0.3 rad/s), and up-movement peak angular velocity differences showed larger mean group differences than the down-movement peak angular velocity between controls and PMS. CONCLUSION: Foot-tapping differs between MS disease subtypes and has greater potential than hand-tapping to distinguish between subtypes. Performance in the up-movement showed larger group differences than the down-movement, suggesting that the anti-gravity up-movement during tapping may be more important diagnostically. Future studies should be conducted on the nature of the physiological mechanisms underlying impairments in anti-gravity movements in people with MS.