No abstract

Nusinersen is the first approved drug for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Treatment of SMA with nusinersen is based on a fixed dosing regimen. For other motoneuron diseases, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), biomarkers are available for clinical diagnostics; however, no such biomarkers have yet been found for SMA. Serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples of 11 patients with adult SMA type 3 were prospectively collected and analyzed during loading with nusinersen. Neurofilament heavy chain, tau protein, S100B protein, and neuron-specific enolase were investigated as potential biomarkers of motor neuron destruction. No significant pathological alterations in levels of neurofilament heavy chain, tau protein, or S100B protein were detected in the CSF or blood samples under baseline conditions or during loading with nusinersen. Neuron-specific enolase was marginally elevated in CSF and blood samples without significant alteration during treatment. In a mixed cohort of adult patients with SMA type 3, neurofilament heavy chain, tau protein, S100B protein, and neuron-specific enolase do not serve as potential biomarkers during the loading phase of nusinersen. The slow progression rate of SMA type 3 may not lead to detectable elevation of levels of these common markers of axonal degradation.

Background:Nusinersen is an intrathecally administered antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) and the first approved drug for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). However, progressive neuromyopathic scoliosis and the presence of spondylodesis can impede lumbar punctures in SMA patients. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and safety of the treatment in adults with SMA.Methods:For the intrathecal administration of nusinersen, we performed conventional, fluoroscopy-assisted and computer tomography (CT)-guided lumbar punctures in adult patients with type 2 and type 3 SMA. We documented any reported adverse events and performed blood tests.Results:We treated a total of 28 adult SMA patients (9 patients with SMA type 2 and 19 patients with SMA type 3) aged between 18–61 years with nusinersen. The mean Revised Upper Limb Module (RULM) score at baseline in SMA type 2 and SMA type 3 patients was 9.9 ± 4.6 and 29.5 ± 8.5, respectively. The mean Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE) score at baseline was 3.1 ± 2.5 and 31.2 ± 18.1, respectively. Half of the SMA type 3 patients were ambulatory at treatment onset. In total, we performed 122 lumbar punctures with 120 successful intrathecal administrations of nusinersen. Lumbar punctures were well tolerated, and no serious adverse events occurred.Conclusions:Our data demonstrate the feasibility and tolerability of intrathecal treatment with nusinersen in adults with SMA type 2 and type 3. However, treatment can be medically and logistically challenging, particularly in patients with SMA type 2 and in patients with spondylodesis.

Background and purpose In patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), functional disease scores are frequently used to evaluate the course of the disease and the efficacy of treatment. The aim of the present study was to propose minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for motor scores in order to estimate the degree of change within a functional score that can be considered clinically meaningful. Methods To estimate the MCID, distribution‐based approaches were used. For each assessment [Revised Upper Limb Module (RULM), Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE) and 6‐min walk test (6MWT)] and subgroup (SMA type 2, SMA type 3, ambulatory and non‐ambulatory), the following MCID values based on a cohort of 51 adults with SMA were calculated: standard error of measurement (SEm), one‐half of standard deviation (1/2 SD) and one‐third of standard deviation (1/3 SD) of patients' baseline scores. Results For the overall cohort, the SEm, 1/2 SD and 1/3 SD MCID values were 2.9, 6.4 and 4.3 for the RULM and 4.3, 10.6 and 7.0 for the HFMSE, respectively. Subgroup analysis led to generally lower standard deviations and consecutively lower MCID values due to the significantly different motor functions of the groups. The respective MCID values for the 6MWT were 55.5 m, 71.1 m and 47.8 m. Conclusions Our data provide MCID values for functional motor scores commonly used in adults with SMA in order to distinguish statistical effects from ‘real’ changes. A complementary systematic consensus process could help to further adjust the MCID values we propose.

No abstract