Atormac
Neurology India
Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 728  
 Home | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (537 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Functional Tests
 »  Lower Limb Funct...
 »  Upper Limb Funct...
 » Functional Scales
 » Strength Testing
 » Conclusion
 »  References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed177    
    Printed11    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded22    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
GUEST COMMENTARY
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 66  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 1279-1285

Commonly available outcome measures for use in Indian boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy


Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Date of Web Publication17-Sep-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Harneet Arora
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.241363

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked recessive disorder. It is still an incurable disease and many clinical trials are going on to find the cure for this disease. There is a need for sensitive and reliable measures for detecting the disease progression. This manuscript focuses on reviewing the different outcome measures which can be used in the Indian DMD patients.


Keywords: Duchenne muscular dystrophy, functional tests, outcome measures, strength tests
Key Messages: Functional and strength tests are commonly used by physiotherapists to track disease progression in DMD. The advantages of these tests are that they are easy to use, inexpensive, and time efficient. The disadvantages are they can be subjective and not sensitive enough for all the age groups. Since disease progression in Indian patients is similar to the western population, the same functional and strength tests could be used for evaluating the disease progression in different parts of the world.


How to cite this article:
Arora H. Commonly available outcome measures for use in Indian boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurol India 2018;66:1279-85

How to cite this URL:
Arora H. Commonly available outcome measures for use in Indian boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurol India [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 23];66:1279-85. Available from: http://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2018/66/5/1279/241363




Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) is currently incurable, but many potential therapies are undergoing clinical trials.[1],[2] These therapies have been successful pre-clinically in animals and are in different phases of clinical trials. All these clinical trials need sensitive and reliable outcome measures that can detect the disease progression and the potential effects of therapeutic drugs. These clinical outcome measures should also have the ability to detect changes even in young patients with DMD. As DMD is a rare disease with heterogeneous manifestations, the design of a clinical trial for it is often difficult.[3] A lack of sensitive clinical outcome measures makes it even more challenging. Most of these clinical outcome measures have been designed in Western countries. However, in India, the clinical features are observed without using the outcome measures. There is a need to use clinical outcome measures which are commonly used in rest of the world in the Indian DMD population. This would help in comparing the natural history of disease progression of Indian patients with patients from other parts of the world. This manuscript will review the commonly used clinical outcome measures used globally, which can also be specifically used in the Indian boys with DMD.


 » Functional Tests Top


Functional tests, which are commonly used by a physiotherapist for evaluating function of lower limbs and upper limbs, have been used in clinical trials. These functional tests are low-cost tests that are reproducible, and easy to use in clinical trials.[4] These tests can give a quick assessment of how the disease is progressing in boys with DMD. It has already been shown that disease progression in India is comparable to that of Western population.[5] Thus, similar tests can be used in India as well as in western countries to track the progression of the disease. Different tests are used for assessing lower limb and upper limb function as described below.


 » Lower Limb Function Tests Top


Most clinical trials related to DMD focus on changes in lower limb muscle function since they target the ambulatory population. Due to this, many functional tests have been developed by physiotherapists and clinicians over the years to assess the function of lower limbs. These tests have been extensively used in the DMD population, both clinically and in the research studies; clinical trials are, therefore, using them for testing the efficacy of their drugs. It has been observed that there is lower limb muscle weakness often with contractures present in patients with DMD, that was demonstrable in the study done in the South Indian population.[6] Clinically, it has been observed that the proximal lower limb muscles are affected before the upper limb muscles.[7] Thus, lower limbs have been the focus of attention for a long time. Below are some of the functional tests that can be used to assess the function of lower limbs in the Indian DMD population:

Timed function tests

Different timed function tests (TFTs) are used for assessing lower limb function in the DMD population. Some of the recently used TFTs measure the time taken: to walk/run 10 meters, to get up from the floor (supine-to-stand test), and to climb four stairs.[8] In the 10 meter walk/run test, the subject is asked to either walk or run for 10 meters, whichever he thinks is faster, while the time is recorded. In the climbing four stairs test, the subject is asked to climb four stairs, either with or without the use of railings, while the time is recorded. In the supine-to-stand test, the subject is asked to get up from a lying down position on the floor and the time is recorded until he is standing upright with his hands at his sides. Qualitative grades ranging from 1 to 6 are used to assess each TFT, with grade 1 being an inability to perform the test and grade 6 indicating an ability to perform the test without any compensatory movement.[9] These tests have been used to illustrate the disease progression in DMD. For example, it has been reported that if the time taken to walk/run 10 meters is more than 12 seconds or the time taken to climb four stairs is greater than 8 seconds, then the subject has a higher chance of losing ambulation within 12 months.[8],[10] TFTs have also been demonstrated to be reliable outcome measures for use in multi-center clinical trials.[8],[11] They have been used to test the efficacy of corticosteroids in DMD.[12],[13],[14],[15] However, these tests are limited to ambulatory DMD patients.[8] Moreover, the performance on these tests is dependent upon the motivation and co-operation of the patients, which makes them unsuitable for use in the younger age groups.

Six-minute walk test

The six-minute walk test (6 MWT) is another functional test commonly used in the DMD population, which has shown its reliability, validity, and reproducibility in assessing DMD patients.[9],[16],[17],[18],[19] It is presently a primary endpoint for clinical trials in ambulatory DMD patients.[10],[17],[18],[19] In the 6 MWT, the subject is asked to walk as far as possible without running in six minutes, and the total distance covered is recorded. To achieve a clinically meaningful functional change, a therapeutic drug in clinical trials has to show a difference of 30 meters in 6 MWT within a time period of one year between the treatment and placebo groups.[9],[16] This test can demonstrate disease progression in DMD. For example, it has been reported that a baseline 6 MWT distance of 330 meters and above decreases the chances of ambulation loss within 2 years in DMD patients.[20]

Though 6 MWT is commonly used in clinical trials, it is dependent on the motivation and age of the patient. Alfano et al., demonstrated a performance improvement of 44m in the 6 MWT distance, with a financial reward of $50 in boys with DMD.[21] This distance exceeds the clinical meaningful threshold targeted in several clinical trials.[22],[23] Moreover, over a one-year period, DMD patients less than 7 years old show improvement in their 6 MWT distance, due to maturational effects, compared to those who are 7 years or older.[2],[10],[16],[24] Both these age groups would, therefore, require different clinical outcome measures for clinical trials.[2] This shows that the 6 MWT is not a good test for use in younger DMD patients. Like TFTs, the 6 MWT can only be used in ambulatory DMD patients and cannot be used in clinical trials for non-ambulatory patients.


 » Upper Limb Function Tests Top


Since most of the literature concerning DMD has focused on assessing the function and strength of lower limbs, very little is known about the rate of loss of upper limb functions. Researchers and the DMD community have recently started focusing on evaluating upper limb functions. This is necessary so that non-ambulatory DMD patients can also participate in the clinical trials.[25],[26] Upper limb functions are necessary for performing daily living activities like eating, brushing teeth, and bathing.[27],[28] These functions are maintained for a period of time after a DMD patient loses his ambulation.[25],[27] It has been observed that there is a wasting of shoulder girdle muscles and weakness in upper limb muscles such as deltoid, biceps, triceps, and pectorals in the DMD patients.[6] Below is a summary of some of the upper limb function tests that can be used by physiotherapists to assess the function in the Indian DMD population:

Performance of upper limb

The performance of upper limb (PUL) has recently been developed to evaluate the function of upper limbs in the DMD population. This is a reliable and valid scale that can be used for both ambulatory and non-ambulatory DMD patients. It has the ability to assess the extent and the severity of the disease. It consists of 22 items, divided into 3 level dimensions – shoulder, elbow, and wrist, which can help in tracking impairments in upper limb function.[25],[29],[30] The scores can vary from 0 to 1 or from 0 to 6, depending upon the item being evaluated. PUL has shown good intra-observer and inter-observer reliability in a multi-center study. This test is suitable for use in DMD patients of age 5 years and older.[30] The results of PUL have shown that impairment in the upper limbs starts even while DMD patients are still ambulatory.[31]

Jebsen hand function test

Jebsen Hand Function Test (JHFT) is a timed test, that has shown its sensitivity in evaluating hand function in DMD patients.[27],[32] In this test, the subject performs 7 tasks that include activities that are commonly used in daily living.[27],[32],[33],[34] The tasks include: “writing a sentence, turning over cards, picking up small common objects, simulating eating, stacking checkers, moving large light objects, and moving large heavy objects”, which are commonly used in the activities of daily living.[27],[32],[33],[34] However, it does not include tasks that measure the function of proximal muscles of the upper limb, which are important for activities such as bathing, grooming, etc. The writing task in JHFT is also not very reliable, since its results may be indicative of learning disabilities rather than poor hand function in patients with DMD.[26]

9-Hole peg test

The 9-hole peg test is a quantitative measure for evaluating upper limb function.[14],[27] Subjects are asked to put the 9 pegs in holes, one at a time, and then take them out the same way. It is a timed test and is done for each hand.[27] The use of this reliable and valid test has been reported in DMD patients.[14],[27]

Microsoft kinect gaming

Microsoft kinect gaming is a newly developed outcome measure for assessing upper limbs in DMD.[35],[36] It is a reliable and valid test that has the ability to evaluate upper limb impairment in both ambulatory and non-ambulatory patients with DMD or Becker muscular dystrophy [BMD].[25],[35],[36],[37] Kinect gaming can be used to determine the reachable workspace [35] or the functional reaching volume, the velocity of movement, and the fatigue rate while playing video games.[36] However, the major disadvantages of this outcome measure are the cost and the complexity of the setup. The complexity of the setup makes it harder for physiotherapists and clinicians to easily use this tool in clinics for assessing upper limb function in the DMD population.

Arm elevation assessment

The arm elevation assessment (AREA) has been used for evaluating the range of motion (ROM) of upper limbs, which is required for the performance of activities of daily living.[38] It is also used to evaluate the quality of movement of upper limbs in patients with neuromuscular (NMD) diseases.[38] There are 10 levels, ranging from 0 to 9, of normal 180 degrees of range of movement (ROM) of arm elevation. In this test, the subjects sit up straight on a chair, with arms by their sides. They are then instructed to elevate their arms (abduction-flexion) without bending the elbows.[39] The ROM of arm elevation is measured by a goniometer and then scoring is done, which is called the “arm elevation score (AES).”[38],[39] Further, the movement quality is evaluated by noticing any compensatory movement during elevation of the arm and the score obtained is called “arm elevation quality score (AEQS).” A movement with compensation is scored as 1, and a movement without compensation is scored as 2.[38],[39] The total score is obtained by multiplying AES and AEQS of the movement. The total score can vary anywhere from 0 (minimum score where there is an inability of arms to elevate from the trunk level) to 18 (maximum score where the ROM of arm elevation is 161-180 degrees without the presence of any compensatory movement).[39] In a preliminary study in DMD patients, AREA has shown its validity for evaluating the range and quality of movement of the upper limbs.[38]


 » Functional Scales Top


The functional scales are used to determine the quality of movements.[40] They are very easy to use in clinics by physiotherapists and give a quick assessment of the quality of movements of both upper and lower limbs. Below are some of the functional scales used in DMD:

Brooke scale

The Brooke scale is used for grading both upper limb and lower limb functions. These scales are commonly used outcome measures in DMD.[12],[27] The Brooke scale for upper limb has grades ranging from 1 to 6. Grade 1 is given to the subject who can keep both his arms by his sides in the starting position and is then able to abduct the arms fully so that both the arms are touching over the head. Grade 6 is given when the subject is unable to raise his hands to his mouth, and the hands show no functional usefulness. [12, 27, 33, 41-44] The Brooke scale for the lower limbs has grades ranging from 1 to 10, with grade 1 being that the subject can walk and climb stairs without any support, and grade 10 being that the subject is confined to a bed. [12, 41, 42, 44-46] They are very easy to use and are a quick way to evaluate the quality of movements to determine whether or not the patient is performing compensatory movements. However, these scales are very subjective and do not provide much information about the ability to perform various activities of daily living.

North star ambulatory assessment

The North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) is a relatively new scale, developed in Europe over the last decade.[47] The purpose for designing this scale was to include tasks that are focused more on activities of daily living in the DMD population. This clinical outcome measure contains 17 activities involving lower limbs, varying from easy tasks such as standing, to difficult tasks like running a distance of 10 meters.[16],[48] Each activity is scored from 0 to 2, with a score of 0 indicating an inability to perform the activity and a score of 2 indicating that the activity is performed normally, without any compensatory movement.[2],[39],[48] The total score varies from 0 (inability to perform any of the activities) to 34 (all activities are performed normally).[39],[48] It is a valid and reliable scale, and is used in ambulatory DMD patients to evaluate functional performance. [16, 39, 47, 49-51] For example, it has been reported that a baseline NSAA score of 18 or above indicates a reduced risk of losing ambulation within a 2-year period in DMD patients.[16],[20] This scale has also been frequently used in new clinical trials.[2] This scale has the disadvantage of being age-dependent. It has been shown that NSAA scores tend to increase for DMD patients who are less than 7 years old, and decrease for those who are of 7 years of age or will become older than that age within one year.[24] Therefore, this scale might not be useful for younger DMD patients.

Motor function measure

The motor function measure (MFM) scale was developed for objectively evaluating motor function in neuromuscular diseases.[52],[53] This scale was developed so that it can be easily used by physiotherapists and clinicians for determining function of patients with neuromuscular diseases. This scale has the advantage that it can be used for both ambulatory and non-ambulatory patients.[3],[16],[53] It consists of 32 items, which are divided into three dimensions; dimension 1 (13 items) assesses standing position and transfers, dimension 2 (12 items) evaluates axial and proximal motor function, and dimension 3 (7 items) tests distal motor function.[3],[8],[52],[53] Scores range from 0 to 3 where a score of 0 represents no initiation of the movement and a score of 3 denotes ability to perform the task normally. The total score can vary from 0 to 96.[52] In patients with DMD, MFM is valuable in indicating the disease stage and in assessing whether the patient's motor function is improving, stabilizing, or declining. MFM can be used to assess the effect of steroids or other therapies on DMD patients.[54] However, since physiotherapists determine the assignment of grades in this scale, its results can be subjective and are prone to inter-rater variability. Moreover, this test is time consuming, and may be physically tiring for patients who are weak, and may be mentally exhausting for those who have attention deficit disorder.[55] However, the standard MFM scale has not been validated for subjects less than 6 years of age. This is because some of the items in this scale are not appropriate for young children since some motor and cognitive skills have not been developed by that age. A shorter version of MFM with 20 items has been validated for use in very young NMD patients.[53]

Egen-Klassification scale

The Egen-Klassification (EK) scale is a valid scale for use in non-ambulatory DMD patients. [8, 14, 16, 27, 40, 56] This scale is comprised of 10 categories ranging from the use of a wheelchair to overall physical well-being. Each category is scored from 0 to 3 and the total score ranges from 0 to 30. A higher score indicates a lower functional level in a patient.[27]

Muscular dystrophy functional rating scale

The muscular dystrophy functional rating scale (MDFRS) was developed to evaluate function in muscular dystrophy patients. This scale is comprised of 33 items which are further subdivided into the 4 domains of mobility, basic daily living activities, arm function, and impairment. MDFRS has shown its reliability and validity for use in muscular dystrophy patients of age 6 years and above.[57]

Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale

The Hammersmith functional motor scale (HFMS) was first developed for DMD.[58] It has good inter-observer reliability in DMD.[59] This scale is comprised of 20 items and is scored from 0 to 2, with 0 being an inability to perform the activity and 2 being unassisted performance of the activity. The total score varies from 0 (inability to perform any of the activities) to 40 (ability to perform all the activities independently). This scale is reliable and reproducible, and can be used in non-ambulatory patients with either spinal muscular atrophy or other NMDs.[60],[61]

Barthel Index

The Barthel index (BI) is a reliable and valid scale which is used for determining function in personal care and mobility domains in muscular dystrophy patients. This scale consists of 10 items with the total score varying from 0 (inability to perform any activity) to 100 (ability to perform all activities without any assistance).[62] BI has been used to evaluate the problems in activities of daily living experienced by DMD patients.[63]

Bayley-III scale of infant and toddler development

Since there are delayed developmental milestones in DMD, neither 6 MWT nor NSAA are suitable for DMD patients under the age of four. Therefore, the Bayley-III scale of infant and toddler development could be an appropriate alternative in very young patients with DMD.[2] This scale evaluates cognitive function, language, and motor function skills.[48] It is a reliable measure to evaluate development in infants and very young patients with DMD over a period of time.[64] It is being used in clinical trials which are determining the effects of steroids in very young patients with DMD.[2]


 » Strength Testing Top


Muscle strength can be measured either manually or by using quantitative devices. Manual muscle testing (MMT) has been used to measure muscle strength manually for a long time.[45] MMT is used to clinically evaluate the muscle strength of patients with neuromuscular diseases.[65] It has been used to evaluate the muscle strength for both upper and lower limb muscles, [32, 43, 44, 65-68] and subsequently, to assess changes in muscle strength in patients with DMD over a period of time.[65],[69] It was used as one of the outcome measures to determine the efficacy of therapeutic drugs in DMD,[65] like in the earlier clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of prednisone in treating DMD.[12],[13] A high intra-rater reliability is found in the MMT grades.[65] The major disadvantage of using MMT is that it is too subjective in nature.[11],[70],[71] The MMT grades greater than 3 depend heavily on the resistance provided by individual physiotherapists to the patient. Thus, there is a lot of inter-rater variability, making MMT a less accurate and a less sensitive method of assessment.[72] Extensive training and experience is required to decrease the variability in using the MMT method.[11],[71],[73] Moreover, it is difficult to apply MMT in young boys with DMD as they are unable to cooperate.[59]

Quantitative muscle testing is an alternative to traditional MMT for evaluating muscle strength.[11] It is a validated outcome measure for assessing muscle strength in patients with DMD.[74] Being a sensitive outcome measure, it has the capability of recording even small changes in muscle strength and is thereby able to test specific muscles.[75] It has been demonstrated that this is a reliable and accurate tool for assessing muscle strength and can be used for multi-center clinical trials.[71] The hand-held dynamometer can be objectively used to measure muscle strength.[28], 73, [76],[77],[78] Its ease of use and limited space requirement make it a desirable option.[76] It has shown intra-rater reliability [76] and can thus be used in measuring isometric muscle strength in patients with DMD.[39],[76],[79],[80] It is, however, not sensitive enough to detect the measurements in weak patients.[55] A myometer can quantitatively measure muscle strength for various upper and lower limb muscles. [9, 10, 13, 74, 81, 82] Being lightweight and small in size,[83] it can easily be used anywhere. However, it is not a very sensitive tool for measuring strength in the weak DMD patients. An isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex system) has been used to measure isometric peak torque of hip flexors,[84] hip extensors,[84] knee flexors,[84] knee extensors,[84] plantar flexors, and dorsiflexors.[84] For this test, the patients are asked to push or pull as hard as they can for a few seconds, while their performance is simultaneously being viewed on a computer screen. This visual feedback motivates the patients to give their best effort.[84] Although the test objectively measures the strength of different muscles, the elaborate set up required is a major disadvantage. The set up also requires a lot of space and so it cannot be easily used by physiotherapists in clinics.

All the above described quantitative tools have been used by physiotherapists for a long time for assessing muscle strength of upper and lower limbs. However, there was a need to develop easy-to-use tools that do not require a lot of space, and may be used even in very weak non-ambulatory DMD patients.[55] To meet these requirements, new tools have recently been developed for assessing upper limb strength in non-ambulatory patients with DMD. They measure the isometric grip strength using a myogrip, and the key pinch force using a myopinch device.[55], 82, [85],[86],[87] These tools have been proposed as outcome measures in non-ambulatory patients with DMD because of their sensitivity and reliability.[55] They are easy to use and do not require a lot of space. They have the ability to detect strength in weak non-ambulatory patients with DMD. The only disadvantage of these tools is their cost. Being very costly, they may not be easily available for physiotherapists to use in clinics.


 » Conclusion Top


In conclusion, it can be said that there are many different clinical outcome measures, which can be used for assessing the function and strength of the patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurologists and physiotherapists in India can use these tests to assess the disease progression in DMD patients. It is important that parents bring their children to the physiotherapists at regular intervals of 6 months to 1 year so that disease progression can be tracked and proper management can be provided. An increased awareness regarding DMD and its management practices is needed to overcome the prevalent psychosocial issues in the Indian society.[88] The tests described here will improve our understanding of the disease progression and provide tools to detect the efficacy of the potential therapeutic drugs.



 
 » References Top

1.
Blat Y, Blat S, Drug discovery of therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J Biomol Screen 2015;20:1189-203.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Shieh PB, Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Clinical trials and emerging tribulations. Curr Opin Neurol 2015;28:542-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bonati U, Hafner P, Schadelin S, Schmid M, Naduvilekoot Devasia A, Schroeder J, et al. Quantitative muscle MRI: A powerful surrogate outcome measure in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 2015; 25:679-85.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Moxley RT, 3rd, Functional testing. Muscle Nerve 1990;13 Suppl: S26-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Singh RJ, Manjunath M, Preethish-Kumar V, Polavarapu K, Vengalil S, Thomas PT, et al. Natural history of a cohort of Duchenne muscular dystrophy children seen between 1998 and 2014: An observational study from South India. Neurol India 2018. 66:77-82.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Swaminathan B, Shubha GN, Shubha D, Murthy AR, Kiran Kumar HB, Shylashree S et al., Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A clinical, histopathological and genetic study at a neurology tertiary care center in Southern India. Neurol India 2009;57:734-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
7.
Yiu EM, Kornberg AJ, Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurol India 2008;56:236-47.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Bushby K, Connor E, Clinical outcome measures for trials in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Report from International Working Group meetings. Clin Investig (Lond) 2011;1:1217-35.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
McDonald CM, Henricson EK, Abresch RT, Florence J, Eagle M, Gappmaier E, et al. The 6-minute walk test and other clinical endpoints in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Reliability, concurrent validity, and minimal clinically important differences from a multicenter study. Muscle Nerve 2013;48:357-68.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
McDonald CM, Henricson EK, Abresch RT, Florence JM, Eagle M, Gappmaier E, et al. The 6-minute walk test and other endpoints in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Longitudinal natural history observations over 48 weeks from a multicenter study. Muscle Nerve 2013;48:343-56.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mayhew JE, Florence JM, Mayhew TP, Henricson EK, Leshner RT, McCarter RJ, et al. Reliable surrogate outcome measures in multicenter clinical trials of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 2007;35:36-42.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Brooke MH, Fenichel GM, Griggs RC, Mendell JR, Moxley RT, 3rd, Miller JP, et al. Clinical investigation of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Interesting results in a trial of prednisone. Arch Neurol 1987;44:812-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Griggs RC, Moxley RT, 3rd, Mendell JR, Fenichel GM, Brooke MH, Pestronk A, et al. Prednisone in Duchenne dystrophy. A randomized, controlled trial defining the time course and dose response. Clinical investigation of Duchenne Dystrophy Group. Arch Neurol 1991;48:383-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Henricson EK, Abresch RT, Cnaan A, Hu F, Duong T, Arrieta A, et al. The Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Duchenne natural history study: Glucocorticoid treatment preserves clinically meaningful functional milestones and reduces rate of disease progression as measured by manual muscle testing and other commonly used clinical trial outcome measures. Muscle Nerve 2013;48:55-67.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Pradhan S, Ghosh D, Srivastava NK, Kumar A, Mittal B, Pandey CM, et al. Prednisolone in Duchenne muscular dystrophy with imminent loss of ambulation. J Neurol 2006;253:1309-16.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Govoni A, Magri F, Brajkovic S, Zanetta C, Faravelli I, Corti S, et al. Ongoing therapeutic trials and outcome measures for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Cell Mol Life Sci 2013;70:4585-602.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Goemans N, van den Hauwe M, Wilson R, van Impe A, Klingels K, Buyse G. Ambulatory capacity and disease progression as measured by the 6-minute-walk-distance in Duchenne muscular dystrophy subjects on daily corticosteroids. Neuromuscul Disord 2013;23:618-23.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Henricson E, Abresch R, Han JJ, Nicorici A, Goude Keller E, de Bie E, et al. The 6-minute walk test and person-reported outcomes in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and typically developing controls: Longitudinal comparisons and clinically-meaningful changes over one year. PLoS Curr, 2013. 5. doi: 10.1371/currents.md. 9e17658b007eb79fcd6f723089f79e06.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
McDonald CM, Henricson EK, Han JJ, Abresch RT, Nicorici A, Elfring GL, et al. The 6-minute walk test as a new outcome measure in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 2010;41:500-10.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Mazzone ES, Pane M, Sormani MP, Scalise R, Berardinelli A, Messina S, et al. 24 month longitudinal data in ambulant boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. PLoS One 2013;8:e52512.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Alfano LN, Lowes LP, Berry KM, Dvorchik YH, Flanigan I, Cripe L, et al. Pilot study evaluating motivation on the performance of timed walking in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscular Disorders 2014;24:860.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Bushby K, Finkel R, Wong B, Barohn R, Campbell C, Comi GP, et al. Ataluren treatment of patients with nonsense mutation dystrophinopathy. Muscle Nerve 2014;50:477-87.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Mendell JR, Goemans N, Lowes LP, Alfano LN, Berry K, Shao J, et al. Longitudinal effect of eteplirsen versus historical control on ambulation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Ann Neurol, 2016. 79(2):p. 257-71.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Mazzone E, Vasco G, Sormani MP, Torrente Y, Berardinelli A, Messina S et al. Functional changes in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A 12-month longitudinal cohort study. Neurology 2011;77:250-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Han JJ, de Bie E, Nicorici A, Abresch RT, Anthonisen C, Bajcsy R, et al. Reachable workspace and performance of upper limb (PUL) in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 2016;53:545-54.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Mazzone ES, Vasco G, Palermo C, Bianco F, Galluccio C, Ricotti V, et al. A critical review of functional assessment tools for upper limbs in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2012;54:879-85.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Connolly AM, Malkus EC, Mendell JR, Flanigan KM, Miller JP, Schierbecker JR, et al. Outcome reliability in non-ambulatory boys/men with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 2015;51:522-32.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Connolly AM, Florence JM, Zaidman CM, Golumbek PT, Mendell JR, Flanigan KM, et al. Clinical trial readiness in non-ambulatory boys and men with DMD: MDA-DMD network follow-up. Muscle Nerve 2016:54:681-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Mayhew A, Mazzone ES, Eagle M, Duong T, Ash M, Decostre V, et al. Development of the performance of the upper limb module for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2013;55:1038-45.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Pane M, Mazzone ES, Fanelli L, De Sanctis R, Bianco F, Sivo S, et al., Reliability of the performance of upper limb assessment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 2014;24:201-6.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Pane M, Mazzone ES, Sivo S, Fanelli L, De Sanctis R, D'Amico A, et al. The 6 minute walk test and performance of upper limb in ambulant Duchenne muscular dystrophy boys. PLoS Curr, 2014. 6. doi: 10.1371/currents.md.a93d9904d57dcb08936f2ea89bca6fe6.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Wagner MB, Vignos PJ, Jr., Carlozzi C, Hull AL. Assessment of hand function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:801-4.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Hiller LB, Wade CK. Upper extremity functional assessment scales in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A comparison. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:527-34.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA, An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1969;50:311-9.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Han JJ, Kurillo G, Abresch RT, De Bie E, Nicorici A, Bajcsy R. Upper extremity 3-dimensional reachable workspace analysis in dystrophinopathy using kinect. Muscle Nerve 2015;52:344-55.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Lowes LP, Alfano LN, Yetter BA, Worthen-Chaudhari L, Hinchman W, Savage J, et al., Proof of concept of the ability of the kinect to quantify upper extremity function in dystrophinopathy. PLoS Curr, 2013. 5. doi: 10.1371/currents.md. 9ab5d872bbb944c6035c9f9bfd314ee2.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Lowes LP, Alfano LN, Crawfis R, Berry K, Yin H, Dvorchik I, et al., Reliability and validity of active-seated: An outcome in dystrophinopathy. Muscle Nerve 2015;52:356-62.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Karaduman AA, Alemdaroglu I, Yilmaz O, Topaloglu H. T.P. 14: Arm elevation assessment (area) for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Preliminary study of a practical instrument for professionals. Neuromuscular Disorders 2014;24:864.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Alemdaroglu I, Karaduman A, Yilmaz OT, Topaloglu H, Different types of upper extremity exercise training in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Effects on functional performance, strength, endurance, and ambulation. Muscle Nerve 2015;51:697-705.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Bushby K, Muntoni F, Urtizberea A, Hughes R, and Griggs R. Report on the 124th ENMC International Workshop. Treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy;defining the gold standards of management in the use of corticosteroids. 2-4 April 2004, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord 2004;14:526-34.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Brooke MH, Griggs RC, Mendell JR, Fenichel GM, Shumate JB, Pellegrino RJ, Clinical trial in Duchenne dystrophy. I. The design of the protocol. Muscle Nerve 1981;4:186-97.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Florence JM, Pandya S, King WM, Robison JD, Signore LC, Wentzell M, et al. Clinical trials in Duchenne dystrophy. Standardization and reliability of evaluation procedures. Phys Ther 1984;64:41-5.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Lord JP, Portwood MM, Lieberman JS, Fowler WM, Jr., Berck P. Upper extremity functional rating for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987;68:151-4.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Lord JP, Portwood MM, Fowler WM, Lieberman JS, Carson R. Upper vs lower extremity functional loss in neuromuscular disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987;68:8-9.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Allsop KG, Ziter FA. Loss of strength and functional decline in Duchenne's dystrophy. Arch Neurol 1981;38:406-11.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Vignos PJ, Jr., Spencer GE, Jr., Archibald KC. Management of progressive muscular dystrophy in childhood. JAMA 1963;184:89-96.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Mazzone ES, Messina S, Vasco G, Main M, Eagle M, D'Amico A, et al., Reliability of the North Star Ambulatory Assessment in a multicentric setting. Neuromuscul Disord 2009;19:458-61.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Connolly AM, Florence JM, Cradock MM, Malkus EC, Schierbecker JR, Siener CA, et al., Motor and cognitive assessment of infants and young boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Results from the Muscular Dystrophy Association DMD Clinical Research Network. Neuromuscul Disord 2013;23:529-39.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Mayhew A, Cano S, Scott E, Eagle M, Bushby K, Muntoni F, Moving towards meaningful measurement: Rasch analysis of the North Star Ambulatory Assessment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2011;53:535-42.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Mazzone E, Martinelli D, Berardinelli A, Messina S, D'Amico A, Vasco G, et al. North Star Ambulatory Assessment, 6-minute walk test and timed items in ambulant boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 2010;20:712-6.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Scott E, Eagle M, Mayhew A, Freeman J, Main M, Sheehan J et al. Development of a functional assessment scale for ambulatory boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Physiother Res Int 2012;17:101-9.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Berard C, Payan C, Hodgkinson I, Fermanian J. A motor function measure for neuromuscular diseases. Construction and validation study. Neuromuscul Disord 2005;15:463-70.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
de Lattre C, Payan C, Vuillerot C, Rippert P, de Castro D, Berard C, et al., Motor function measure: validation of a short form for young children with neuromuscular diseases. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013;94:2218-26.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Silva EC, Machado DL, Resende MB, Silva RF, Zanoteli E, Reed UC. Motor function measure scale, steroid therapy and patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2012;70:191-5.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Servais L, Deconinck N, Moraux A, Benali M, Canal A, Van Parys F, et al. Innovative methods to assess upper limb strength and function in non-ambulant Duchenne patients. Neuromuscul Disord 2013;23:139-48.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Steffensen B, Hyde S, Lyager S, and Mattsson E, Validity of the EK scale: A functional assessment of non-ambulatory individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy or spinal muscular atrophy. Physiother Res Int, 2001. 6(3): p. 119-34.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Lue YJ, Su CY, Yang RC, Su WL, Lu YM, Lin RF et al., Development and validation of a muscular dystrophy-specific functional rating scale. Clin Rehabil 2006;20:804-17.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Scott OM, Hyde SA, Goddard C, Dubowitz V, Quantitation of muscle function in children: A prospective study in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 1982;5:291-301.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Smith RA, Newcombe RG, Sibert JR, Harper PS. Assessment of locomotor function in young boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 1991;14:462-9.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Mazzone E, De Sanctis R, Fanelli L, Bianco F, Main M, van den Hauwe M, et al. Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale and Motor Function Measure-20 in non ambulant SMA patients. Neuromuscul Disord 2014;24:347-52.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Main M, Kairon H, Mercuri E, Muntoni F. The Hammersmith functional motor scale for children with spinal muscular atrophy: A scale to test ability and monitor progress in children with limited ambulation. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2003;7:155-9.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Lue YJ, Lin RF, Chen SS, Lu YM. Measurement of the functional status of patients with different types of muscular dystrophy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2009;25:325-33.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Nair KP, Vasanth A, Gourie-Devi M, Taly AB, Rao S, Gayathri N, et al., Disabilities in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A profile. J Rehabil Med 2001;33:147-9.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Connolly AM, Florence JM, Cradock MM, Eagle M, Flanigan KM, McDonald CM, et al. One year outcome of boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy using the Bayley-III scales of infant and toddler development. Pediatr Neurol 2014;50:557-63.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Florence JM, Pandya S, King WM, Robison JD, Baty J, Miller JP, et al. Intrarater reliability of manual muscle test (Medical Research Council scale) grades in Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. Phys Ther 1992;72:115-26.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Yilmaz O, Karaduman A, Topaloglu H. Prednisolone therapy in Duchenne muscular dystrophy prolongs ambulation and prevents scoliosis. Eur J Neurol 2004;11:541-4.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Uchikawa K, Liu M, Hanayama K, Tsuji T, Fujiwara T, Chino N. Functional status and muscle strength in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy living in the community. J Rehabil Med 2004;36:124-9.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Diniz GP, Lasmar LM, Giannetti JG, Motor assessment in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2012;70:416-21.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
McDonald CM, Abresch RT, Carter GT, Fowler WM, Jr., Johnson ER, Kilmer DD et al., Profiles of neuromuscular diseases. Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995;74(5 Suppl): S70-92.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
James WV, Orr JF, Upper limb weakness in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy-a neglected problem. Prosthet Orthot Int 1984;8:111-3.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Escolar DM, Henricson EK, Mayhew J, Florence J, Leshner R, Patel KM, et al. Clinical evaluator reliability for quantitative and manual muscle testing measures of strength in children. Muscle Nerve 2001;24:787-93.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Brussock CM, Haley SM, Munsat TL, Bernhardt DB. Measurement of isometric force in children with and without Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. Phys Ther 1992;72:105-14.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Mattar FL, Sobreira C. Hand weakness in Duchenne muscular dystrophy and its relation to physical disability. Neuromuscul Disord 2008;18:193-8.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Angelini C. The role of corticosteroids in muscular dystrophy: A critical appraisal. Muscle Nerve 2007;36:424-35.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Lerario A, Bonfiglio S, Sormani M, Tettamanti A, Marktel S, Napolitano S, et al. Quantitative muscle strength assessment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Longitudinal study and correlation with functional measures. BMC Neurol 2012;12:91.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Stuberg WA, Metcalf WK. Reliability of quantitative muscle testing in healthy children and in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy using a hand-held dynamometer. Phys Ther 1988;68:977-82.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Connolly AM, Schierbecker J, Renna R, Florence J. High dose weekly oral prednisone improves strength in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 2002;12:917-25.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
van der Ploeg RJ, Oosterhuis HJ, Reuvekamp J. Measuring muscle strength. J Neurol 1984;231:200-3.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Wokke BH, van den Bergen JC, Versluis MJ, Niks EH, Milles J, Webb AG, et al. Quantitative MRI and strength measurements in the assessment of muscle quality in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 2014;24:409-16.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Merlini L, Cicognani A, Malaspina E, Gennari M, Gnudi S, Talim B, et al. Early prednisone treatment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 2003;27:222-7.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Goemans N, Klingels K, van den Hauwe M, Boons S, Verstraete L, Peeters C, et al. Six-minute walk test: Reference values and prediction equation in healthy boys aged 5 to 12 years. PLoS One 2013;8:e84120.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Ricotti V, Evans MR, Sinclair CD, Butler JW, Ridout DA, Hogrel JY, et al. Upper Limb evaluation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Fat-water quantification by MRI, muscle force and function define endpoints for clinical trials. PLoS One 2016;11: p. e0162542.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Newman LB. A new device for measuring muscle strength; the myometer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1949;30:234-7.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Buckon C, Sienko S, Bagley A, Sison-Williamson M, Fowler E, Staudt L, et al. Can quantitative muscle strength and functional motor ability differentiate the influence of age and corticosteroids in ambulatory boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy? PLoS Curr, 2016. 8. doi: 10.1371/currents.md. 1ced64dff945f8958221fddcd4ee60b0.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Lynn S, Aartsma-Rus A, Bushby K, Furlong P, Goemans N, De Luca A, et al. Measuring clinical effectiveness of medicinal products for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 2015;25:96-105.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Hogrel JY, Wary C, Moraux A, Azzabou N, Decostre V, Ollivier G, et al. Longitudinal functional and NMR assessment of upper limbs in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurology 2016;86:1022-30.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
Seferian AM, Moraux A, Annoussamy M, Canal A, Decostre V, Diebate O, et al. Upper limb strength and function changes during a one-year follow-up in non-ambulant patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: An observational multicenter trial. PLoS One, 2015. 10: p. e0113999.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
Nadkarni JJ, Dastur RS, Viswanathan V, Gaitonde PS, Khadilkar SV. Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies: an Indian update on genetics and rehabilitation. Neurol India 2008. 56:248-53.  Back to cited text no. 88
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow