Abstract
Multiple system atrophy-cerebellar type (MSA-C) exhibits faster disease progression than does hereditary spinocerebellar degeneration (hSCD). In this study, we aimed to investigate the differences in the treatment effects and sustainability of intensive rehabilitation between patients with hSCD and those with MSA-C. Forty-nine patients (hSCD = 30, MSA-C = 19) underwent a 2- or 4-week intensive rehabilitation program. Balance function was evaluated using the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 6-month follow-up. Notably, both groups demonstrated beneficial effects from the rehabilitation intervention. However, differences were observed in the magnitude and duration of these effects. In the hSCD group, the SARA scores at follow-up remained similar to those at baseline, indicating sustained benefits. However, the MSA-C group showed some deterioration in SARA scores compared with baseline scores but maintained improvements on the BESTest, demonstrating partial sustainability. Differences, mainly in sustainability, were observed between the hSCD and MSA-C groups. This may be due to varying rates of symptom progression. The findings of this study are significant when considering the frequency of follow-ups based on disease type.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD) is a disorder primarily characterized by progressive cerebellar degeneration, resulting in impairments in coordination and balance [1]. SCD can be classified into hereditary (hSCD) and sporadic forms [2]. Among the sporadic forms, multiple system atrophy-cerebellar type (MSA-C) is noteworthy for its rapid progression compared with the hereditary forms of SCD (hSCD) [3]. Recent studies have indicated that patients with MSA-C experience faster disease progression and shorter survival. For example, the 10-year survival rate for patients with spinocerebellar ataxia type 6 (SCA6), a type of hSCD with relatively slow progression, is > 80%. However, the average lifespan of patients with MSA-C post-diagnosis is approximately 10 years [4, 5].
Notably, patients with hSCD and MSA-C present with cerebellar ataxia as a primary symptom; however, it is crucial to note that they are fundamentally different conditions. MSA-C is a rapidly progressive neurodegenerative disorder affecting multiple systems, including the autonomic nervous system, basal ganglia, and the cerebellum [3]. Therefore, the shorter survival time in patients with MSA-C is primarily due to these extensive systemic effects, particularly autonomic dysfunction, rather than cerebellar symptoms alone. However, many forms of hSCD, such as SCA6, primarily affect the cerebellum with limited involvement of other systems [6]. This fundamental difference in pathology may influence disease progression and response to rehabilitation interventions.
MSA-C and hSCD distinctly differ in disease progression; therefore, these variations may influence the effectiveness and sustainability of rehabilitation interventions. Rehabilitation programs, including vibration stimulation, aerobic exercises, and Tai Chi, have been widely studied and implemented as therapeutic approaches for patients with SCD [7, 8]. Intensive rehabilitation programs spanning 2–4 weeks have demonstrated significant benefits in several studies [9,10,11]. However, further research is required to compare the immediate and long-term effects of these interventions in patients with hSCD and MSA-C.
Considering the progressive nature of SCD, the long-term sustainability of rehabilitation programs is clinically important. Previous studies have reported mixed outcomes regarding the durability of rehabilitation effects across various SCD types. For example, Miyai et al. found that patients with SCA6 and idiopathic cerebellar ataxia who underwent intensive rehabilitation returned to baseline levels of function within 6 months [10]. Conversely, other studies have shown that continued rehabilitation can sustain benefits over an extended period, especially in specific types of hSCD, such as SCA7 and SCA2 [9, 12].
However, despite the documented benefits of rehabilitation, comprehensive studies that directly compare rehabilitation outcomes between patients with hSCD and those with MSA-C are lacking. This comparison is crucial for developing tailored intervention strategies and determining the appropriate follow-up frequency for each disease subtype.
Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate the effects and sustainability of intensive rehabilitation programs on balance function in patients with hSCD and MSA-C. We assessed the immediate and 6-month post-intervention outcomes using standardized measures of ataxia and balance function. By comparing hSCD and MSA-C, we aimed to elucidate how different cerebellar pathologies influence rehabilitation outcomes and their sustainability, considering varying disease progression rates and potential differences in neuroplasticity. This approach enables us to develop more effective, tailored rehabilitation strategies for each patient group and optimize intervention protocols. Therefore, in this comparative study, we seek to enhance our understanding of cerebellar ataxia rehabilitation, potentially improving patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life through more targeted and efficient approaches.
Patients and Methods
Participants
In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the electronic medical records of patients with SCD who participated in an intensive rehabilitation program at the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry (Tokyo, Japan) between June 2015 and April 2021. The program at the center was limited to those who could walk independently, although the use of assistive devices was permitted. Therefore, participants could live independently or with minimal assistance at home. The study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry (Approval No. A2018-104). Volunteers were given verbal explanations about the purpose, methods, safety considerations, and risks of the experiment and provided informed consent in advance.
Rehabilitation Training Procedure
The participants underwent a 4- or 2-week intensive rehabilitation program conducted five times weekly. Each daily schedule comprised 1 h of individual training with a physical therapist, 1 h with an occupational therapist or speech therapist, and 1 h of self-balance training. The personal training with the physical therapist focused on movement balance and muscle-strengthening exercises performed on a mat, as well as standing and walking without special equipment. This component adhered to the rehabilitation program of the Research Committee for Ataxia Disease (research team under the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare in Japan; http://ataxia.umin.ne.jp/rehabilitation/). Occupational therapy sessions included manual dexterity training, while speech therapy sessions focused on improving articulation for patients with speech disorders. The self-balance training was mainly conducted on a mat and featured exercises that could be safely performed based on the individual physical therapy sessions, including kneeling and crawling.
Outcomes
Outcomes were assessed at three-time points: baseline (pre-intervention), end of the intervention (post-intervention), and 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) score, which quantifies the severity of cerebellar ataxia symptoms on a scale ranging from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms [13]. Based on previous research [14], the minimal detectable change (MDC) for SARA was established at 1.0 point.
Balance impairment in patients with SCD is multifactorial [15, 16]. Therefore, the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) was used as a secondary outcome measure to comprehensively assess the balance function. The BESTest evaluates balance function across six systems, with a total score ranging from 0 to 108, where higher scores represent better balance capabilities. The six subcategories assessed were biomechanical constraints, stability limits/verticality, anticipatory postural adjustments, postural responses, sensory orientation, and stability in gait. Each subcategory independently evaluates critical aspects of the balance function [17]. The reliability and validity of the BESTest in individuals with SCD have been established [18], and the MDC for the BESTest was calculated to be 8.7 points.
To minimize evaluator bias, the individuals administering the training were different from those conducting the assessments. Seven evaluators who had undergone thorough training in the assessment methods performed the outcome measurements. Furthermore, to ensure consistency, the same evaluator conducted each patient’s assessments throughout the study period.
Statistics
All statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.0.2) [19]. We initially examined the differences in demographic data between the hSCD and MSA-C groups using Pearson’s chi-squared test for categorical variables and Welch’s t-test for continuous variables. Furthermore, a three-way (2 × 2 × 3) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to observe the main and interaction effects of two between-patient factors (diagnosis: hSCD vs. MSA-C, and intervention term: 2 weeks vs. 4 weeks) and one within-patient factor (time: pre vs. post vs. follow-up). Greenhouse–Geisser epsilon corrections were used as needed to meet the sphericity assumption. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted using Bonferroni significant difference tests, with family-wise alpha levels set at 0.05. The effect size was determined using generalized eta squared (η2G), and percentage changes with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The Anovakun function in R was used for the analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using complete case analysis without missing data imputation. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results
Total Patient Population
Notably, 160 patients were enrolled during the designated study period. For individuals who participated in the program multiple times, only data from their initial participation were considered. At this stage, data from 74 participants remained viable for further evaluation. Of these, 49 patients with complete pre- and post-intervention outcome data and 6-month follow-up information were included in the study. One patient was excluded because he sustained a fracture while participating in the program.
Consequently, the final cohort for analysis comprised 49 patients (Fig. 1). This group included 30 patients with hSCD, specifically 15 with SCA6, 10 with SCA31, and 5 with SCA3. Additionally, 19 patients were diagnosed with MSA-C. The baseline characteristics of both groups are detailed in Table 1, which shows no significant differences in sex, age, baseline SARA scores, or baseline BESTest scores.
We also calculated the prevalence of non-cerebellar symptoms in each group. In the MSA-C group, the prevalence of autonomic dysfunction and Parkinsonism was 32% and 21%, respectively. In the hSCD group, the prevalence of both autonomic dysfunction and Parkinsonism was 3%. The MSA-C group showed a higher prevalence of autonomic dysfunction than did the hSCD group. However, in all patients, the autonomic symptoms were mild and did not significantly impact daily activities. Similarly, regarding Parkinsonism, all affected individuals only exhibited mild rigidity upon examination, without gait freezing, bradykinesia, or akinesia severe enough to interfere with daily living.
The average disease duration from onset was 3 years and 10 years in the MSA-C and hSCD groups, respectively. The MSA-C group primarily consisted of patients in the early stages of the disease, predominantly exhibiting cerebellar symptoms.
During the 6-month follow-up period post-program completion, none of the 49 patients participated in alternative treatment programs or clinical trials of novel therapeutics.
Differences in SARA Score Changes between the hSCD and MSA-C Groups
The analysis indicated that SARA scores improved due to the intervention; however, the extent of improvement varied between disease types (hSCD or MSA-C). A three-way repeated ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of time (F(1, 89) = 15.012, p = 0.001, η²G = 0.039) (Table 2). This effect was moderated by a significant interaction between diagnosis and time (F(1, 89) = 7.266, p = 0.001, η²G = 0.019). Subsequent simple main effect tests showed a significant effect of disease type at the 6-month follow-up (F(1, 45) = 12.193, p = 0.001, η²G = 0.213), indicating differences in the temporal changes in SARA scores between the hSCD and MSA-C groups.
For the hSCD group (left panel of Fig. 2), post-hoc tests revealed a mean score improvement of 1.02 points after the intervention compared with pre-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.024). However, at the 6-month follow-up, the mean score declined by 0.97 points from the post-intervention score (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.028), resulting in a score that was essentially back to baseline levels, with a mean difference of only 0.04 points compared with pre-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.921).
In contrast, the MSA-C group demonstrated a minor mean improvement of 0.53 points post-intervention compared with pre-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.498). However, at the 6-month follow-up, their scores had declined by an average of 2.77 points from the post-intervention scores (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.001) and by 3.3 points compared with the pre-intervention scores (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.001). This result is illustrated in the right panel of Fig. 2.
Differences in BESTest Score Changes between the hSCD and MSA-C Groups
The analysis revealed that the intervention had different effects on the BESTest scores between the hSCD and MSA-C groups. A three-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect of time (F(1, 71) = 33.982, p = 0.001, η²G = 0.0746) (Table 2). This effect was moderated by a significant interaction between diagnosis and time (F(1, 71) = 5.484, p = 0.01, η²G = 0.012). Additionally, a significant simple main effect of disease type was observed at the 6-month follow-up (F(1, 45) = 4.549, p = 0.038, η²G = 0.091), indicating differences in the temporal changes of BESTest scores between the hSCD and MSA-C groups.
Post-hoc tests for the hSCD group demonstrated a mean improvement of 9.17 points in BESTest scores after the intervention compared with pre-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.001). However, at the 6-month follow-up, the scores declined by an average of 6.74 points from the post-intervention scores (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.001). Despite this decline, the scores at the 6-month follow-up remained an average of 2.43 points higher than the pre-intervention scores (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.05). This result is illustrated in the right panel of Fig. 2.
In contrast, the MSA-C group exhibited a mean improvement of 7.56 points in BESTest scores after the intervention compared with pre-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.001). However, at the 6-month follow-up, the scores deteriorated by an average of 13.26 points from the post-intervention scores (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.001) and by 5.71 points compared with pre-intervention scores, although this latter difference was not statistically significant (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.114). This result is illustrated in the right panel of Fig. 2.
Subcategory-specific Intervention Outcomes in the BESTest Scores
The subcategory analysis of BESTest scores revealed distinct outcomes across different domains (Table 3). A significant difference was observed in the “Biomechanical Constraints” domain based on diagnosis (F(1, 45) = 11.592, p = 0.001, η² = 0.134). The hSCD group showed mean scores of 13.1 ± 1.9 (pre), 13.9 ± 1.4 (post), and 13.6 ± 1.6 (follow-up), whereas the MSA-C group had mean scores of 12.4 ± 1.5 (pre), 12.8 ± 1.3 (post), and 11.9 ± 2.2 (follow-up).
A significant effect of time was found in the “Stability Limits/Verticality” domain (F(1, 71) = 6.298, p = 0.005, η² = 0.06). Scores improved by 0.96 points from pre- to post-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.002). However, they declined by 1.1 points at the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.002), with no significant change from pre-intervention to the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.738).
In the “Anticipatory Postural Adjustment” domain, significant effects were observed for diagnosis (F(1, 45) = 6.524, p = 0.014, η² = 0.106) and time (F(1, 90) = 10.796, p = 0.001, η² = 0.04). The hSCD group scores were 11.1 ± 2.3 (pre), 12.4 ± 2.0 (post), and 11.2 ± 2.7 (follow-up), whereas the MSA-C group scores were 9.5 ± 3.2 (pre), 10.5 ± 2.3 (post), and 9.1 ± 2.9 (follow-up). Scores improved by 1.24 points from pre- to post-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.003). However, they declined by 1.23 points at the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.002), with no significant change from pre-intervention to the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.984).
Furthermore, a significant effect of time was observed for the “Postural Response” domain (F(1, 79) = 12.783, p = 0.001, η² = 0.069). Scores improved by 2.16 points from pre- to post-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.002). They declined by 3.07 points from post-intervention to the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.002), with no significant change from pre-intervention to the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.180).
A significant time effect was observed in the “Sensory Orientation” domain (F(1, 74) = 9.163, p = 0.0006, η² = 0.036). Scores improved by 1.41 points from pre- to post-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.001) and worsened by 1.35 points from post-intervention to the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.001), with no significant change from pre-intervention to the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.880).
Finally, a significant effect of time was observed in the “Stability in Gait” domain (F(1, 78) = 12.510, p = 0.0001, η² = 0.031). Scores improved by 1.79 points from pre- to post-intervention (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.0001). They declined by 2.40 points from post-intervention to the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.0001), with no significant change from pre-intervention to the 6-month follow-up (Bonferroni-corrected p-value = 0.259).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effects of intensive rehabilitation on hSCD and MSA-C using the SARA and BESTest scores, which are typically used outcome measures in previous research. The results reveal that the effects of rehabilitation became distinctly apparent during the follow-up period. A detailed discussion of these findings is presented below.
Differential Intervention Outcomes in the hSCD and MSA-C Groups
The hSCD group demonstrated an improvement of 1.02 points in SARA scores after the intervention (Fig. 2), whereas the MSA-C group showed a smaller improvement of 0.53 points. Only the hSCD group showed a statistically significant improvement. Additionally, the change in the hSCD group exceeded the MDC. Regarding the BESTest results, the hSCD group improved by 9.17 points, compared with a 7.56-point improvement in the MSA-C group. Notably, both groups showed statistically significant improvements; however, only the change in the hSCD group exceeded the MDC. These results indicate that intensive rehabilitation significantly improved ataxia symptoms and balance function in the hSCD group.
The MSA-C group showed no significant improvement in SARA scores or changes beyond the MDC in the BESTest scores. These results suggest potential differences in the learning effects of rehabilitation interventions for cerebellar ataxia symptoms between patients with hSCD and those with MSA-C. A study investigating the relationship between motor learning effects using upper limb reaching tasks and changes in brain gray matter volume in patients with hSCD found an increase in premotor cortex volume after training [20]. This change is considered compensatory remodeling associated with dysfunction in the cerebello-cerebral motor system. However, a study using transcranial magnetic stimulation suggested impaired plasticity in the primary motor cortex in patients with MSA [21]. This indicates that patients with MSA may have reduced compensatory brain function compared with that in patients with hSCD.
The MSA-C group showed significant improvement in BESTest scores, although not reaching MDC, highlighting the test’s comprehensive evaluation of balance function beyond the cerebellar ataxia symptoms assessed using SARA [22]. In this study, we investigated the intervention effects across BESTest subdomains and observed improvements in all areas except “biomechanical constraints” (Fig. 3). These findings suggest that intensive rehabilitation in patients with MSA-C and hSCD may enhance balance function through factors beyond cerebellar ataxia, including postural stability and vestibular function [15, 23, 24]. The sensitivity of the BESTest to these changes elucidates its potential value in assessing rehabilitation outcomes for these disorders, particularly in capturing improvements in extracerebellar symptoms that contribute to overall balance function.
Divergent Long-term Effects in the SCD and MSA-C Groups at the 6-month Follow-up
The results of this study clearly demonstrated differences in outcome changes at the 6-month follow-up between the hSCD and MSA-C groups. For individuals with hSCD, the SARA score at the 6-month follow-up remained similar to or better than the baseline scores. In contrast, those with MSA-C exhibited apparent deterioration compared with baseline (Fig. 2). This difference can be attributed to the varying speeds of disease progression; MSA-C progresses much more rapidly than do other SCDs. The annual increase in SARA scores was reported to be 1.5 points for SCA3, 0.8 points for SCA6, and 0.8 points for SCA31, a pure cerebellar SCD unique to Japan [1, 25, 26].
In comparison, the annual increase in SARA scores for MSA is approximately 4 points [27]. Differences were also observed in the rate of decline in mobility. Previous studies have shown that individuals with MSA typically require a walking aid approximately 3 years after onset [28]. Conversely, those with SCA6 generally need a walking aid 11.2 years after onset and a wheelchair after a median of 24 years [29, 30]. Furthermore, individuals with SCA31 typically require a wheelchair 20 years after onset [26]. However, SCA3, a form of hSCD known for its relatively rapid progression, necessitates the use of a walking aid 6 years after onset and a wheelchair 7.1 years after onset [30]. Our results showed a clear difference in score changes at the 6-month follow-up between the hSCD and MSA-C groups. The MSA-C group exhibited worse scores at the 6-month follow-up compared with baseline scores.
However, the BESTest scores for both groups did not show a significant decline at the 6-month follow-up compared with baseline despite improvements after the intervention (Fig. 2). The hSCD group scored 2.43 points higher than the baseline scores, whereas the MSA-C group maintained scores comparable to baseline scores.
SCD is a progressive disease [30]; therefore, its natural course may result in declining outcome scores over time [31]. Maintaining baseline scores over a long-term follow-up period can indicate an intervention’s efficacy [32]. Patients with MSA-C show a faster rate of cerebellar ataxia symptom deterioration than do those with hSCD [33]. The 6-month follow-up SARA scores in this study reflect these differences in the natural progression of the disease. From these results, it can be inferred that SARA is sensitive to changes in cerebellar ataxia, which is central to SCD pathology. In contrast, BESTest scores were maintained at or above baseline in both groups. Studies using voxel-based morphometry to investigate brain volume changes before and after balance training in patients with SCD have found that the SCD group showed an increase in the volume of compensatory brain regions, such as the supplementary motor area, rather than the cerebellum [34]. The retention of compensatory improvements in balance function beyond cerebellar ataxia symptoms may explain the stable BESTest results.
Limitations
The MSA group experienced a decline in function at the 6-month follow-up compared with that at baseline. In contrast, the hSCD group maintained their baseline function levels. Maintaining these functions in progressive diseases is essential for effective interventions. Nevertheless, the duration for which these functions can be maintained at baseline levels remains unclear. Therefore, this survey is significant for patients with SCD who require continuous rehabilitation. In addition, the hSCD group was analyzed as a single entity. However, within hSCD, diseases such as SCA6, which is a pure cerebellar form, may have different prognoses compared with those for multisystem atrophy types such as SCA3. Therefore, further investigations with larger sample sizes are necessary. Furthermore, the composition of our hSCD group, which primarily included patients with SCA6 and SCA31, limits our ability to generalize these findings to all forms of hSCD. Future studies should aim to include a broader range of SCA subtypes, particularly those with significant extra-cerebellar involvement, to provide a more comprehensive comparison with MSA-C and better represent the full spectrum of hereditary SCAs.
Conclusions
The results of this study revealed differences in the effects of intensive rehabilitation programs between the hSCD and MSA-C groups. The hSCD group showed improvements in ataxia symptoms and balance, whereas the MSA-C group exhibited improvements only in balance function. Notably, these differences were still evident at the 6-month follow-up. The SARA scores in the hSCD group returned to approximately baseline levels, whereas the MSA-C group showed scores lower than baseline scores. However, the BESTest scores were maintained at or above baseline scores in both groups. These differences are likely due to variations in the rate of disease progression and the presence of symptoms other than cerebellar ataxia. Therefore, our results provide critical insights for planning rehabilitation programs for specific disease types.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Diallo A, Jacobi H, Tezenas du Montcel S, Klockgether T. Natural history of most common spinocerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol. 2021;268:2749–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-020-09815-2.
Pilotto F, Del Bondio A, Puccio H. Hereditary ataxias: from bench to clinic, where do we stand? Cells. 2024;13:319. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells13040319.
Liu M, Wang Z, Shang H. Multiple system atrophy: an update and emerging directions of biomarkers and clinical trials. J Neurol. 2024;271:2324–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-024-12269-5.
Wenning GK, Geser F, Krismer F, Seppi K, Duerr S, Boesch S, Köllensperger M, Goebel G, Pfeiffer KP, Barone P, Pellecchia MT, Quinn NP, Koukouni V, Fowler CJ, Schrag A, Mathias CJ, Giladi N, Gurevich T, Dupont E, Ostergaard K, Nilsson CF, Widner H, Oertel W, Eggert KM, Albanese A, del Sorbo F, Tolosa E, Cardozo A, Deuschl G, Hellriegel H, Klockgether T, Dodel R, Sampaio C, Coelho M, Djaldetti R, Melamed E, Gasser T, Kamm C, Meco G, Colosimo C, Rascol O, Meissner WG, Tison F, Poewe W, European Multiple System Atrophy Study Group. The natural history of multiple system atrophy: a prospective European cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12:264–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70327-7.
Diallo A, Jacobi H, Cook A, Labrum R, Durr A, Brice A, Charles P, Marelli C, Mariotti C, Nanetti L, Panzeri M, Rakowicz M, Sobanska A, Sulek A, Schmitz-Hübsch T, Schöls L, Hengel H, Melegh B, Filla A, Antenora A, Infante J, Berciano J, van de Warrenburg BP, Timmann D, Boesch S, Pandolfo M, Schulz JB, Bauer P, Giunti P, Kang J-S, Klockgether T. Tezenas Du Montcel S. Survival in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3, and 6 (EUROSCA): a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:327–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30042-5.
Iwabuchi K, Koyano S, Yagishita S. Simple and clear differentiation of spinocerebellar degenerations: overview of macroscopic and low-power view findings. Neuropathology. 2022;42:379–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/neup.12823.
Winser SJ, Pang M, Tsang WWN, Whitney SL. Tai Chi for dynamic balance training among individuals with cerebellar ataxia: an assessor-blinded randomized-controlled trial. J Integr Complement Med. 2022;28:146–57. https://doi.org/10.1089/jicm.2021.0222.
Ayvat E, Kılınç M, Ayvat F, Onursal Kılınç Ö, Aksu Yıldırım S. The effect of whole body vibration on postural control of ataxic patients: a randomized controlled cross-over study. Cerebellum. 2021;20:533–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-021-01233-y.
Tercero-Pérez K, Cortés H, Torres-Ramos Y, Rodríguez-Labrada R, Cerecedo-Zapata CM, Hernández-Hernández O, Pérez-González N, González-Piña R, Leyva-García N, Cisneros B, Velázquez-Pérez L, Magaña JJ. Effects of physical rehabilitation in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia type 7. Cerebellum. 2019;18:397–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-019-1006-1.
Miyai I, Ito M, Hattori N, Mihara M, Hatakenaka M, Yagura H, Sobue G, Nishizawa M. Cerebellar Ataxia Rehabilitation trialists collaboration. Cerebellar ataxia rehabilitation trial in degenerative cerebellar diseases. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:515–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968311425918.
Winser SJ, Chan AYY, Whitney SL, Chen CH, Pang MYC. Effectiveness and cost of integrated cognitive and balance training for balance and falls in cerebellar ataxia: a blinded two-arm parallel group RCT. Front Neurol. 2024;14:1267099. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2023.1267099.
Rodríguez-Díaz JC, Velázquez-Pérez L, Rodríguez Labrada R, Aguilera Rodríguez R, Laffita Pérez D, Canales Ochoa N, Medrano Montero J, Estupiñán Rodríguez A, Osorio Borjas M, Góngora Marrero M, Reynaldo Cejas L, González Zaldivar Y, Almaguer Gotay D. Neurorehabilitation therapy in spinocerebellar ataxia type 2: a 24-week, rater-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Mov Disord. 2018;33:1481–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27437.
Schmitz-Hübsch T, du Montcel ST, Baliko L, Berciano J, Boesch S, Depondt C, Giunti P, Globas C, Infante J, Kang J-S, Kremer B, Mariotti C, Melegh B, Pandolfo M, Rakowicz M, Ribai P, Rola R, Schöls L, Szymanski S, van de Warrenburg BP, Dürr A, Klockgether T, Fancellu R. Scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia: development of a new clinical scale. Neurology. 2006;66:1717–20. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000219042.60538.92.
Barbuto S, Kuo S-H, Winterbottom L, Lee S, Stern Y, O’Dell M, Stein J. Home aerobic training for cerebellar degenerative diseases: a randomized controlled trial. Cerebellum. 2023;22:272–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-022-01394-4.
Bakker M, Allum JHJ, Visser JE, Grüneberg C, van de Warrenburg BP, Kremer BHP, Bloem BR. Postural responses to multidirectional stance perturbations in cerebellar ataxia. Exp Neurol. 2006;202:21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.05.008.
Marquer A, Barbieri G, Pérennou D. The assessment and treatment of postural disorders in cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;57:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2014.01.002.
Horak FB, Wrisley DM, Frank J. The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) to differentiate balance deficits. Phys Ther. 2009;89:484–98. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080071.
Kondo Y, Bando K, Ariake Y, Katsuta W, Todoroki K, Nishida D, Mizuno K, Takahashi Y. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of the balance evaluation systems test and its two abbreviated versions in persons with mild to moderate spinocerebellar ataxia: a pilot study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2020;47:479–86. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-203154.
Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna. 2023. https://www.R-project.org/
Draganova R, Konietschke F, Steiner KM, Elangovan N, Gümüs M, Göricke SM, Ernst TM, Deistung A, van Eimeren T, Konczak J, Timmann D. Motor training-related brain reorganization in patients with cerebellar degeneration. Hum Brain Mapp. 2022;43:1611–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25746.
Suppa A, Marsili L, Di Stasio F, Latorre A, Parvez AK, Colosimo C, Berardelli A. Primary motor cortex long-term plasticity in multiple system atrophy. Mov Disord. 2014;29:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25668.
Miyata K, Kondo Y, Bando K, Hara T, Takahashi Y. Structural validity of the mini-balance evaluation systems test in individuals with spinocerebellar ataxia: a Rasch analysis study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2024;105:742–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2023.12.015.
Gordon CR, Zivotofsky AZ, Caspi A. Impaired vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 (SCA3): bedside and search coil evaluation. J Vestib Res. 2014;24:351–5. https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-140527.
Yoshizawa T, Nakamagoe K, Ueno T, Furusho K, Shoji S. Early vestibular dysfunction in Machado-Joseph disease detected by caloric test. J Neurol Sci. 2004;221:109–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2004.02.014.
Jacobi H, du Montcel ST, Bauer P, Giunti P, Cook A, Labrum R, Parkinson MH, Durr A, Brice A, Charles P, Marelli C, Mariotti C, Nanetti L, Panzeri M, Rakowicz M, Sulek A, Sobanska A, Schmitz-Hübsch T, Schöls L, Hengel H, Baliko L, Melegh B, Filla A, Antenora A, Infante J, Berciano J, van de Warrenburg BP, Timmann D, Szymanski S, Boesch S, Kang J-S, Pandolfo M, Schulz JB, Molho S, Diallo A, Klockgether T. Long-term disease progression in spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3, and 6: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14:1101–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00202-1.
Nakamura K, Yoshida K, Matsushima A, Shimizu Y, Sato S, Yahikozawa H, Ohara S, Yazawa M, Ushiyama M, Sato M, Morita H, Inoue A, Ikeda S-I. Natural history of spinocerebellar ataxia type 31: a 4-year prospective study. Cerebellum. 2017;16:518–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-016-0833-6.
Matsushima M, Yabe I, Oba K, Sakushima K, Mito Y, Takei A, Houzen H, Tsuzaka K, Yoshida K, Maruo Y, Sasaki H. Comparison of different symptom assessment scales for multiple system atrophy. Cerebellum. 2016;15:190–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-015-0686-4.
Watanabe H, Saito Y, Terao S, Ando T, Kachi T, Mukai E, Aiba I, Abe Y, Tamakoshi A, Doyu M, Hirayama M, Sobue G. Progression and prognosis in multiple system atrophy: an analysis of 230 Japanese patients. Brain. 2002;125:1070–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awf117.
Yasui K, Yabe I, Yoshida K, Kanai K, Arai K, Ito M, Onodera O, Koyano S, Isozaki E, Sawai S, Adachi Y, Sasaki H, Kuwabara S, Hattori T, Sobue G, Mizusawa H, Tsuji S, Nishizawa M, Nakashima K. A 3-year cohort study of the natural history of spinocerebellar ataxia type 6 in Japan. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-014-0118-4.
Jacobi H, Schaprian T, Beyersmann J, Tezenas du Montcel S, Schmid M, Klockgether T, EUROSCA and RISCA Study Groups. Evolution of disability in spinocerebellar ataxias type 1, 2, 3, and 6. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2022;9:286–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51515.
Jacobi H, Schaprian T, Schmitz-Hübsch T, Schmid M, Klockgether T, EUROSCA and RISCA Study Groups. Disease progression of spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3 and 6 before and after ataxia onset. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2023;10:1833–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51875.
Ilg W, Brötz D, Burkard S, Giese MA, Schöls L, Synofzik M. Long-term effects of coordinative training in degenerative cerebellar disease. Mov Disord. 2010;25:2239–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.23222.
Eschlboeck S, Goebel G, Eckhardt C, Fanciulli A, Raccagni C, Boesch S, Djamshidian A, Heim B, Mahlknecht P, Mair K, Nachbauer W, Scherfler C, Stockner H, Poewe W, Seppi K, Kiechl S, Wenning G, Krismer F, the EMSA-SG NHS Investigators, Barone P, Pellecchia MT, Quinn NP, Fowler CJ, Schrag A, Giladi N, Gurevich T, Ostergaard K, Widner H, Oertel W, Albanese A, Tolosa E, Deuschl G, Klockgether T, Dodel R, Sampaio C, Melamed E, Gasser T, Colosimo C, Rascol O, Meissner W, Tison F, Geser F, Duerr S, Boesch S, Köllensperger M, Koukouni V, Mathias CJ, Dupont E, Nilsson CF, Eggert KM, Del Sorbo F, Cardozo A, Hellriegel H, Coelho M, Djaldetti R, Kamm C, Meco G. Development and validation of a prognostic model to predict overall survival in multiple system atrophy. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2023;10:1368–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13822.
Burciu RG, Fritsche N, Granert O, Schmitz L, Spönemann N, Konczak J, Theysohn N, Gerwig M, van Eimeren T, Timmann D. Brain changes associated with postural training in patients with cerebellar degeneration: a voxel-based morphometry study. J Neurosci. 2013;33:4594–604. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3381-12.2013.
Acknowledgements
We thank the patients and their families who participated in this study, as well as Taro Kato, Yosuke Ariake, Kyoko Todoroki, Wakana Oba, and Yu Ogasawara for their contributions to its organization and data collection.
Funding
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grand Number JP21K17485, Intramural Research Grants (Grant Numbers 30 − 4 and 3–4) for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders of NCNP.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
K.B., Y.K., Y.M., T.H., and Y.T. contributed to the conception and design of the study, statistical analysis, drafting of the text, and preparing the figures. K.B. and Y.K. contributed to the acquisition and analysis of data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
This study was approved by the local ethics committee (National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry; Approval No. A2018-104).
Consent to Participate
All participants were briefed on the experiment and signed a consent form before participation.
Consent to Publish
The authors confirm that all participants provided informed consent for the publication of the figures and tables in this paper.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bando, K., Kondo, Y., Miyazaki, Y. et al. Differences in the Impact of Intensive Rehabilitation on Hereditary Ataxias and the Cerebellar Subtype of Multiple System Atrophy. Cerebellum (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-024-01744-4
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-024-01744-4