Advertisement

Six-minute walk test is reliable and sensitive in detecting response to therapy in CIDP

  • Emanuele SpinaEmail author
  • Antonietta Topa
  • Rosa Iodice
  • Stefano Tozza
  • Lucia Ruggiero
  • Raffaele Dubbioso
  • Marcello Esposito
  • Pasquale Dolce
  • Lucio Santoro
  • Fiore ManganelliEmail author
Original Communication
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

The current clinical measures (ONLS, R-ODS, mRS, and MRC) may not be so sensitive in capturing minimal variations or measuring fatigue in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). Our aim was to assess if 6-min walk test (6MWT) is able to increase the sensitivity in detecting response to therapy and to capture fatigue in CIDP patients.

Methods

We tested 6MWT in 42 CIDP patients. Using both anchor-based and distribution-based approaches, we estimated the meaningful clinical change after therapy by calculating the minimum improvement cutoff (Minimal Clinically Important Difference Score—MCID) required for considering a patient as responder. We calculated the sensitivity of the 6MWT versus the other clinical outcomes. We analysed fatigue by comparing the velocities between first and sixth minutes of the 6MWT and the effect of treatment on fatigue using an ANOVA model for repeated measures.

Results

MCID resulted equal to 20 m. The combination of 6MWT-MCID cutoff with the other clinical measures led to identify 74% of responders. The sensitivity of the 6MWT was 90% versus 77% of the other clinical measures. The 6MWT was also sensitive in capturing fatigue-related changes, even though fatigue was not influenced by treatment.

Conclusions

The combination of the 6MWT with the other clinical measures increased the chance to detect the quote of responders. We propose to include the 6MWT in the routine assessment of CIDP patients and the MCID cutoff at 20 m could be set for identifying the responders and properly guiding the therapy management.

Keywords

CIDP MCID 6MWT Fatigue 

Notes

Author contributions

ES: study design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting the manuscript, ES: statistical analysis was performed. AT: study design, acquisition of data, and interpretation of data, revising the manuscript. RI: acquisition and interpretation of data, revising the manuscript; ST: acquisition and interpretation of data, revising the manuscript; LR: acquisition and interpretation of data, revising the manuscript; RD: acquisition and interpretation of data, revising the manuscript; ME: acquisition and interpretation of data, revising the manuscript; PD: analysis and interpretation of data; LS: study conceptualization, interpretation of data, and revising the manuscript; FM: study design, acquisition and interpretation of data, and drafting and revising the manuscript.

Funding

No funding sources.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Spina reports no disclosures; Dr. Topa reports no disclosures; Dr. Iodice reports no disclosures; Dr. Tozza reports no disclosures; Dr. Ruggiero reports no disclosures; Dr. Dubbioso reports no disclosure; Dr. Esposito reports no disclosure; Dr. Dolce reports no disclosure; Dr. Santoro reports no disclosure; and Dr. Manganelli reports no disclosures. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Merkies IS, Schmitz PI, van der Meché FG, van Doorn PA (2000) Psychometric evaluation of a new sensory scale in immune-mediated polyneuropathies. Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) Group. Neurology 54(4):943–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graham RC, Hughes RA (2006) A modified peripheral neuropathy scale: the overall neuropathy limitations scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77(8):973–976 (Epub 2006 Mar 30)CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Nes SI, Vanhoutte EK, van Doorn PA et al (2011) Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (R-ODS) for immune-mediated peripheral neuropathies. Neurology 76(4):337–345.  https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318208824b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bamford JM, Sandercock PA, Warlow CP, Slattery J (1989) Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 20(6):828 (No abstract available)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kleyweg RP, van der Meché FG, Schmitz PI (1991) Interobserver agreement in the assessment of muscle strength and functional abilities in Guillain–Barré syndrome. Muscle Nerve 14(11):1103–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Padua L, Pazzaglia C, Pareyson D et al (2016) CMT-TRIAAL Group. Novel outcome measures for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: validation and reliability of the 6-min walk test and StepWatch(™) Activity Monitor and identification of the walking features related to higher quality of life. Eur J Neurol 23(8):1343–1350.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13033 (Epub 2016 May 10)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pazzaglia C, Camerota F, Germanotta M, Di Sipio E, Celletti C, Padua L (2016 Jul) Efficacy of focal mechanic vibration treatment on balance in Charcot-Marie-Tooth 1A disease: a pilot study. J Neurol 263(7):1434–1441.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-016-8157-5 (Epub 2016 May 13)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bennett SE, Bromley LE, Fisher NM, Tomita MR, Niewczyk P (2017) Validity and reliability of four clinical gait measures in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care 19(5):247–252.  https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2015-006 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Angelini C, Semplicini C, Ravaglia S et al (2012) Italian Group on GSDII. New motor outcome function measures in evaluation of late-onset Pompe disease before and after enzyme replacement therapy. Muscle Nerve 45(6):831–834.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunaway Young S, Montes J, Kramer SS et al (2016) Six-minute walk test is reliable and valid in spinal muscular atrophy. Muscle Nerve 54(5):836–842.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25120 (Epub 2016 May 13)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fulk GD, Echternach JL, Nof L, O’Sullivan S (2008) Clinometric properties of the six-minute walk test in individuals undergoing rehabilitation poststroke. Physiother Theory Pract 24(3):195–204.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09593980701588284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eichinger K, Heatwole C, Heininger S et al (2017) FSHD Clinical Trials Research Network. Validity of the 6 minute walk test in facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 55(3):333–337.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25251 (Epub 2016 Dec 5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McDonald CM, Henricson EK, Han JJ et al (2010) The 6-minute walk test in Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy: longitudinal observations. Muscle Nerve 42(6):966–974.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.21808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kobayashi E, Himuro N, Takahashi M (2017) Clinical utility of the 6-min walk test for patients with moderate Parkinson’s disease. Int J Rehabil Res 40(1):66–70.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10(4):407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7(5):541–546 (Epub 2007 Apr 2. Review)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joint Task Force of the EFNS and the PNS. European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on management of paraproteinemic demyelinating neuropathies (2010) Report of a Joint Task Force of the European Federation of Neurological Societies and the Peripheral Nerve Society–first revision. J Peripher Nerv Syst 15(3):185–195.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8027.2010.00278.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories (2002) ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 166(1):111-117 (No abstract available. Erratum in: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 May 15;193(10):1185)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nobile-Orazio E, Cocito D, Jann S et al (2015) IMC Trial Group. Frequency and time to relapse after discontinuing 6-month therapy with IVIg or pulsed methylprednisolone in CIDP. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 86(7):729–734.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2013-307515 (Epub 2014 Sep 22)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merkies IS, van Nes SI, Hanna K, Hughes RA, Deng C (2010) Confirming the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in CIDP through minimum clinically important differences: shifting from statistical significance to clinical relevance. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 81(11):1194–1199.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2009.194324 (Epub 2010 Jul 20)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE (2012) Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther 20(3):160–166.  https://doi.org/10.1179/2042618612Y.00000000001 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hughes RA, Lunn MP (2016) Regarding the past, what is the trial you have always been dreaming of in CIDP? Rev Neurol (Paris) 172(10):620–626.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2016.07.020 (Epub 2016 Sep 13. Review)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montes J, McDermott MP, Martens WB et al (2010) Muscle Study Group and the Pediatric Neuromuscular Clinical Research Network. Six Minute Walk Test demonstrates motor fatigue in spinal muscular atrophy, Neurology 74(10):833–838.  https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181d3e308
  24. 24.
    Goldman MD, Marrie RA, Cohen JA (2008) Evaluation of the six-minute walk in multiple sclerosis subjects and healthy controls. Mult Scler 14(3):383–390 (Epub 2007 Oct 17)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pera MC, Luigetti M, Pane M et al (2017) 6MWT can identify type 3 SMA patients with neuromuscular junction dysfunction. Neuromuscul Disord 27(19):879–882.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmd.2017.07.007 (Epub 2017 Jul 14)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gilmore KJ, Allen MD, Dhoerty TJ, Kimpinski K, Rice CL (2017) Electrophysiological and neuromuscolar stability of persons with chronic inflammatory demylinating polyneuropathy. Muscle Nerve 56(3):413–420.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25516 (Epub 2017 Mar 23)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurosciences, Odontostomatology and Reproductive SciencesUniversity of Naples “ Federico II ”NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthUniversity of Naples “ Federico II ”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations