Seward B Rutkove1, Tom R Geisbush2, Aleksandar Mijailovic2, Irina Shklyar2, Amy Pasternak3, Nicole Visyak3, Jim S Wu2, Craig Zaidman4, Basil T Darras3. 1. Division of Neuromuscular Diseases, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: srutkove@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Division of Neuromuscular Diseases, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrical impedance myography and quantitative ultrasound are two noninvasive, painless, and effort-independent approaches for assessing neuromuscular disease. Both techniques have potential to serve as useful biomarkers in clinical trials in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, their comparative sensitivity to disease status and how they relate to one another are unknown. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of electrical impedance myography and quantitative ultrasound in 24 healthy boys and 24 with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, aged 2 to 14 years with trained research assistants performing all measurements. Three upper and three lower extremity muscles were studied unilaterally in each child, and the data averaged for each individual. RESULTS: Both electrical impedance myography and quantitative ultrasound differentiated healthy boys from those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (P < 0.001 for both). Quantitative ultrasound values correlated with age in Duchenne muscular dystrophy boys (rho = 0.45; P = 0.029), whereas electrical impedance myography did not (rho = -0.31; P = 0.14). However, electrical impedance myography phase correlated with age in healthy boys (rho = 0.51; P = 0.012), whereas quantitative ultrasound did not (rho = -0.021; P = 0.92). In Duchenne muscular dystrophy boys, electrical impedance myography phase correlated with the North Star Ambulatory Assessment (rho = 0.65; P = 0.022); quantitative ultrasound revealed a near-significant association (rho = -0.56; P = 0.060). The two technologies trended toward a moderate correlation with one another in the Duchenne muscular dystrophy cohort but not in the healthy group (rho = -0.40; P = 0.054 and rho = -0.32; P = 0.13, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Electrical impedance myography and quantitative ultrasound are complementary modalities for the assessment of boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy; further study and application of these two modalities alone or in combination in a longitudinal fashion are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Electrical impedance myography and quantitative ultrasound are two noninvasive, painless, and effort-independent approaches for assessing neuromuscular disease. Both techniques have potential to serve as useful biomarkers in clinical trials in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, their comparative sensitivity to disease status and how they relate to one another are unknown. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of electrical impedance myography and quantitative ultrasound in 24 healthy boys and 24 with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, aged 2 to 14 years with trained research assistants performing all measurements. Three upper and three lower extremity muscles were studied unilaterally in each child, and the data averaged for each individual. RESULTS: Both electrical impedance myography and quantitative ultrasound differentiated healthy boys from those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (P < 0.001 for both). Quantitative ultrasound values correlated with age in Duchenne muscular dystrophyboys (rho = 0.45; P = 0.029), whereas electrical impedance myography did not (rho = -0.31; P = 0.14). However, electrical impedance myography phase correlated with age in healthy boys (rho = 0.51; P = 0.012), whereas quantitative ultrasound did not (rho = -0.021; P = 0.92). In Duchenne muscular dystrophyboys, electrical impedance myography phase correlated with the North Star Ambulatory Assessment (rho = 0.65; P = 0.022); quantitative ultrasound revealed a near-significant association (rho = -0.56; P = 0.060). The two technologies trended toward a moderate correlation with one another in the Duchenne muscular dystrophy cohort but not in the healthy group (rho = -0.40; P = 0.054 and rho = -0.32; P = 0.13, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Electrical impedance myography and quantitative ultrasound are complementary modalities for the assessment of boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy; further study and application of these two modalities alone or in combination in a longitudinal fashion are warranted.
Authors: Sigrid Pillen; Ramon O Tak; Machiel J Zwarts; Martin M Y Lammens; Kiek N Verrijp; Ilse M P Arts; Jeroen A van der Laak; Peter M Hoogerbrugge; Baziel G M van Engelen; Aad Verrips Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Jia Li; Tom R Geisbush; Glenn D Rosen; Jennifer Lachey; Aaron Mulivor; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Pushpa Narayanaswami; Andrew J Spieker; Phillip Mongiovi; John C Keel; Stefan C Muzin; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Craig M Zaidman; Anne M Connolly; Elizabeth C Malkus; Julaine M Florence; Alan Pestronk Journal: Neuromuscul Disord Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.296
Authors: Merel Jansen; Nens van Alfen; Maria W G Nijhuis van der Sanden; Johannes P van Dijk; Sigrid Pillen; Imelda J M de Groot Journal: Neuromuscul Disord Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 4.296
Authors: Craig M McDonald; Erik K Henricson; Jay J Han; R Ted Abresch; Alina Nicorici; Gary L Elfring; Leone Atkinson; Allen Reha; Samit Hirawat; Langdon L Miller Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Seward B Rutkove; Kush Kapur; Craig M Zaidman; Jim S Wu; Amy Pasternak; Lavanya Madabusi; Sung Yim; Adam Pacheck; Heather Szelag; Tim Harrington; Basil T Darras Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Sisir Koppaka; Irina Shklyar; Seward B Rutkove; Basil T Darras; Brian W Anthony; Craig M Zaidman; Jim S Wu Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Maria G Martucci; Courtney E McIlduff; Carmen Shin; Hilda V Gutierrez; Joo Yeon Nam; Patricia Greenstein; Kester Phillips; Erik J Uhlmann; Eric T Wong; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Bhaskar Roy; Basil T Darras; Craig M Zaidman; Jim S Wu; Kush Kapur; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: James A Loehr; Gary R Stinnett; Mayra Hernández-Rivera; Wesley T Roten; Lon J Wilson; Robia G Pautler; George G Rodney Journal: J Physiol Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: W Arnold; Vicki L McGovern; Benjamin Sanchez; Jia Li; Kaitlyn M Corlett; Stephen J Kolb; Seward B Rutkove; Arthur H Burghes Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 5.996