Determining minimal clinically important differences in the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded for untreated spinal muscular atrophy patients: An international study
Giorgia Coratti,Francesca Bovis,Maria Carmela Pera,Mariacristina Scoto,Jacqueline Montes,Amy Pasternak,Anna Mayhew,Robert Muni‐Lofra,Tina Duong,Annemarie Rohwer,Sally Dunaway Young,Matthew Civitello,Francesca Salmin,Irene Mizzoni,Simone Morando,Marika Pane,Emilio Albamonte,Adele D'Amico,Noemi Brolatti,Maria Sframeli,Chiara Marini‐Bettolo,Valeria Ada Sansone,Claudio Bruno,Sonia Messina,Enrico Bertini,Giovanni Baranello,John Day,Basil T. Darras,Darryl C. De Vivo,Michio Hirano,Francesco Muntoni,Richard Finkel,Eugenio Mercuri,the ISMAC group
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.16309
2024-04-26
European Journal of Neurology
Abstract:Background and purpose Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a rare and progressive neuromuscular disorder with varying severity levels. The aim of the study was to calculate minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal detectable change (MDC), and values for the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE) in an untreated international SMA cohort. Methods The study employed two distinct methods. MDC was calculated using distribution‐based approaches to consider standard error of measurement and effect size change in a population of 321 patients (176 SMA II and 145 SMA III), allowing for stratification based on age and function. MCID was assessed using anchor‐based methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve analysis and standard error) on 76 patients (52 SMA II and 24 SMA III) for whom the 12‐month HFMSE could be anchored to a caregiver‐reported clinical perception questionnaire. Results With both approaches, SMA type II and type III patients had different profiles. The MCID, using ROC analysis, identified optimal cutoff points of −2 for type II and −4 for type III patients, whereas using the standard error we found the optimal cutoff points to be 1.5 for improvement and −3.2 for deterioration. Furthermore, distribution‐based methods uncovered varying values across age and functional status subgroups within each SMA type. Conclusions These results emphasize that the interpretation of a single MCID or MDC value obtained in large cohorts with different functional status needs to be made with caution, especially when these may be used to assess possible responses to new therapies.
neurosciences,clinical neurology