An item response analysis of the motor and behavioral subscales of the unified Huntington's disease rating scale in huntington disease gene expansion carriers

Although the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) is widely used in the assessment of Huntington disease (HD), the ability of individual items to discriminate individual differences in motor or behavioral manifestations has not been extensively studied in HD gene expansion carriers without a motor-defined clinical diagnosis (ie, prodromal-HD or prHD). To elucidate the relationship between scores on individual motor and behavioral UHDRS items and total score for each subscale, a nonparametric item response analysis was performed on retrospective data from 2 multicenter longitudinal studies. Motor and behavioral assessments were supplied for 737 prHD individuals with data from 2114 visits (PREDICT-HD) and 686 HD individuals with data from 1482 visits (REGISTRY). Option characteristic curves were generated for UHDRS subscale items in relation to their subscale score. In prHD, overall severity of motor signs was low, and participants had scores of 2 or above on very few items. In HD, motor items that assessed ocular pursuit, saccade initiation, finger tapping, tandem walking, and to a lesser extent, saccade velocity, dysarthria, tongue protrusion, pronation/supination, Luria, bradykinesia, choreas, gait, and balance on the retropulsion test were found to discriminate individual differences across a broad range of motor severity. In prHD, depressed mood, anxiety, and irritable behavior demonstrated good discriminative properties. In HD, depressed mood demonstrated a good relationship with the overall behavioral score. These data suggest that at least some UHDRS items appear to have utility across a broad range of severity, although many items demonstrate problematic features.

Speech therapy after stroke: trial shows only that practice varies

Bowen and colleagues’ methods and conclusions raise concerns.1 At best, the trial evaluates the variability in current practice. In no way is it a robust test of treatment. Two communication impairments (aphasia and dysarthria) were included. In the post-acute stage spontaneous recovery is highly unpredictable, and changes in the profile of impairment during this time are common.2 Both impairments manifest in different forms,3 which may be more or less responsive to treatment. A third kind of impairment, apraxia of speech, was not excluded but was not targeted in therapy. All three impairments can and do co-occur. Whether randomised controlled trial designs can effectively cope with such complex disorders has been discussed elsewhere.4 Treatment was defined within terms of current practice but was unconstrained. Therefore, the treatment group would have received a variety of therapeutic approaches and protocols, some of which may indeed be ineffective. Only 53% of the contact time with a speech and language therapist was direct (one to one), the rest was impairment based therapy. In contrast, all of the visitors’ time was direct contact, usually in conversation. In both groups, the frequency and length of contact time varied. We already know that the transfer from impairment based therapy to functional communication can be limited and varies across individuals.5 However, it is not possible to conclude from this trial that one to one impairment based therapy should be replaced. For that, a well defined impairment therapy protocol must be directly compared with a similarly well defined functional communication therapy, with an attention control.