Life Sciences

Acceptability, validity and responsiveness of inertial measurement units for assessing motor recovery after gene therapy in infants with early onset spinal muscular atrophy: a prospective cohort study

Published on - Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Authors: R. Barrois, B. Tervil, M. Cacioppo, C. Barnerias, E. Deladrière, V. Leloup-Germa, A. Hervé, Laurent Oudre, D. Ricard, P. P. Vidal, N. Vayatis, S. Quijano Roy, S. Brochard, C. Gitiaux, I. Desguerre

© The Author(s) 2024.Background: Onasemnogene abeparvovec gene replacement therapy (GT) has changed the prognosis of patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with variable outcome regarding motor development in symptomatic patients. This pilot study evaluates acceptability, validity and clinical relevance of Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) to monitor spontaneous movement recovery in early onset SMA patients after GT. Methods: Clinical assessments including CHOPINTEND score (the gold standard motor score for infants with SMA) and IMU measurements were performed before (M0) and repeatedly after GT. Inertial data was recorded during a 25-min spontaneous movement task, the child lying on the back, without (10 min) and with a playset (15 min) wearing IMUs. Two commonly used parameters, norm acceleration 95th centile (||A||_95) and counts per minute (||A||_CPM) were computed for each wrist, elbow and foot sensors. Results: 23 SMA-patients were included (mean age at diagnosis 8 months [min 2, max 20], 19 SMA type 1, three type 2 and one presymptomatic) and 104 IMU-measurements were performed, all well accepted by families and 84/104 with a good child participation (evaluated with Brazelton scale). ||A||_95 and ||A||_CPM showed high internal consistency (without versus with a playset) with interclass correlation coefficient for the wrist sensors of 0.88 and 0.85 respectively and for the foot sensors of 0.93 and 0.91 respectively. ||A||_95 and ||A||_CPM were strongly correlated with CHOPINTEND (r for wrist sensors 0.74 and 0.67 respectively and for foot sensors 0.61 and 0.68 respectively, p-values < 0.001). ||A||_95 for the foot, the wrist, the elbow sensors and ||A||_CPM for the foot, the wrist, the elbow sensors increased significantly between baseline and the 12 months follow-up visit (respective p-values: 0.004, < 0.001, < 0.001, 0.006, < 0.001, < 0.001). Conclusion: IMUs were well accepted, consistent, concurrently valid, responsive and associated with unaided sitting acquisition especially for the elbow sensors. This study is the first reporting a large set of inertial sensor derived data after GT in SMA patients and paves the way for IMU-based follow-up of SMA patients after treatment.