Assessment of bulbar function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: validation of a self-report scale (Center for Neurologic Study Bulbar Function Scale).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Impaired bulbar functions of speech and swallowing are among the most serious consequences of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Despite this, clinical trials in ALS have rarely emphasized bulbar function as an endpoint. The rater-administered Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) or various quality-of-life measures are commonly used to measure symptomatic benefit. Accordingly, we sought to evaluate the utility of measures specific to bulbar function in ALS. METHODS: We assessed bulbar functions in 120 patients with ALS, with clinicians first making direct observations of the degree of speech, swallowing and salivation impairment in these subjects. Clinical diagnosis of bulbar impairment was then compared with ALSFRS-R scores, speech rate, time to swallow liquids and solids, and scores obtained when patients completed visual analog scales (VASs) and the newly-developed 21-question self-administered Center for Neurologic Study Bulbar Function Scale (CNS-BFS). RESULTS: The CNS-BFS, ALSFRS-R, VAS and timed speech and swallowing were all concordant with clinician diagnosis. The self-report CNS-BFS and ALSFRS-R bulbar subscale best predicted clinician diagnosis with misclassification rates of 8% and 14% at the optimal cut-offs, respectively. In addition, the CNS-BFS speech and swallowing subscales outperformed both the bulbar component of the ALSFRS-R and speech and swallowing VASs when correlations were made between these scales and objective measures of timed reading and swallowing. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings and its relative ease of administration, we conclude that the CNS-BFS is a useful metric for assessing bulbar function in patients with ALS.

Phase II screening trial of lithium carbonate in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: examining a more efficient trial design.

OBJECTIVE: To use a historical placebo control design to determine whether lithium carbonate slows progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS: A phase II trial was conducted at 10 sites in the Western ALS Study Group using similar dosages (300-450 mg/day), target blood levels (0.3-0.8 mEq/L), outcome measures, and trial duration (13 months) as the positive trial. However, taking riluzole was not a requirement for study entry. Placebo outcomes in patients matched for baseline features from a large database of recent clinical trials, showing stable rates of decline over the past 9 years, were used as historical controls. RESULTS: The mean rate of decline of the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised was greater in 107 patients taking lithium carbonate (-1.20/month, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.41 to -0.98) than that in 249 control patients (-1.01/month, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.92, p = 0.04). There were no differences in secondary outcome measures (forced vital capacity, time to failure, and quality of life), but there were more adverse events in the treated group. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of therapeutic benefit and safety concerns, taken together with similar results from 2 other recent trials, weighs against the use of lithium carbonate in patients with ALS. The absence of drift over time and the availability of a large database of patients for selecting a matched historical control group suggest that use of historical controls may result in more efficient phase II trials for screening putative ALS therapeutic agents. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provided Class IV evidence that lithium carbonate does not slow the rate of decline of function in patients with ALS over 13 months.

Proximal neuropathies of the upper extremity.

This article provides a comprehensive review of the diagnosis and management of mononeuropathies of the long thoracic, suprascapular, axillary, and musculocutaneous nerves. Although these nerves are frequently injured in conjunction with other portions of the brachial plexus, this discussion focuses on isolated injury to each of these nerves. The anatomy, clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, findings on electrodiagnostic evaluation, origin, management, and prognosis of each mononeuropathy is discussed.