| Literature DB >> 29751845 |
Elsa G Shapiro1,2, Chester B Whitley1,3, Julie B Eisengart4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hurler syndrome (MPS IH), the severe, neurodegenerative form of type one mucopolysaccharidosis, is associated with rapid neurocognitive decline during toddlerhood and multi-system dysfunction. It is now standardly treated with hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), which halts accumulating disease pathology and prevents early death. While norm-based data on developmental functioning in untreated children have previously demonstrated neurocognitive decline, advances in methodology for understanding the cognitive functioning of children with neurodegenerative diseases have highlighted that the previous choice of scores to report results was not ideal. Specifically, the lowest possible norm-based score is 50, which obscures the complete range of cognitive functioning at more advanced stages of neurodeterioration. To a set of cognitive data collected on a sample of untreated children, we applied a modern method of score analysis, calculating a developmental quotient based on age equivalent scores, to reveal the full range of cognitive functioning beneath this cutoff of 50, uncovering new information about the rapidity of decline and the profound impairment in these children.Entities:
Keywords: Age equivalent; Cognitive decline; Developmental quotient; Mucopolysaccharidosis type I; Natural history; Neurodegenerative disease; Newborn screening
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29751845 PMCID: PMC5948735 DOI: 10.1186/s13023-018-0817-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis ISSN: 1750-1172 Impact factor: 4.123
Summary data for the full sample and each group separately. Ages are in months unless otherwise indicated
| Age at test | Mental age | DQ | SS/MDI | Age at death (Years) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 ( | |||||
| Mean | 27.00 | 15.06 | 61.04 | 63.93 | 7.41 |
| SD | 16.60 | 5.76 | 21.89 | 17.55 | 2.81 |
| Median | 22.80 | 16.80 | 58.90 | 56.00 | 6.90 range: 3.3–11.47 |
| Group 2 ( | |||||
| Mean | 21.41 | 16.75 | 83.33 | 82.00 | 3.38 |
| SD | 10.80 | 5.70 | 12.92 | 15.43 | 2.35 |
| Median | 18.50 | 14.60 | 85.00 | 82.00 | 1.85 range: 1.22–7.71 |
| Total Sample ( | |||||
| Mean | 25.19 | 15.61 | 68.29 | 69.80 | 6.24 |
| SD | 15.05 | 5.73 | 21.97 | 18.76 | 3.23 |
| Median | 21.40 | 15.70 | 70.30 | 66.50 | 5.85 range: 1.22–11.47 |
Group 1 = Untreated
Group 2 = Eventually proceeded to BMT but died
Age at Test = age at time of neurocognitive testing
Mental Age = BSID Age Equivalent Score
DQ = Per Delaney et al. [15], Mental Age divided by Age at Test, times 100
SS/MDI = norm-based Bayley standard score, where mean = 100, SD = 15, and floor is 50
Raw data for all patients. Ages are presented in months unless otherwise specified
| ID | HCT? | Sex | Year seen | Visit # | Bayley edition | Age at test | Mental age | DQ | SS/MDI | Age at death (Years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H201 | No | female | 1991 | 1 | 1 | 13.8 | 12.5 | 90.4 | 90 | 11.13 |
| 1992 | 2 | 1 | 22.8 | 14.0 | 61.5 | 50 | ||||
| H203 | No | male | 1990 | 1 | 1 | 7.1 | 2.2 | 31.0 | 50 | 8.17 |
| H205 | No | male | 1992 | 1 | 1 | 21.9 | 16.8 | 76.8 | 64 | 8.74 |
| H207 | No | male | 1992 | 1 | 1 | 13.3 | 12.5 | 93.9 | 100 | N.A. |
| H210 | No | male | 1990 | 1 | 1 | 42.7 | 19.0 | 44.5 | 67 | 10.48 |
| H217 | No | female | 1995 | 1 | 2 | 40.4 | 20.6 | 50.9 | 50 | N.A. |
| 1995 | 2 | 2 | 41.1 | 19.7 | 48.0 | 50 | ||||
| H218 | No | male | 1989 | 1 | 1 | 12.8 | 11.3 | 88.5 | 82 | 7.12 |
| H220 | No | male | 1990 | 1 | 1 | 36.8 | 24.4 | 66.4 | 50 | 11.00 |
| H223 | No | male | 1992 | 1 | 1 | 17.3 | 14.2 | 81.9 | 78 | 6.21 |
| H225 | No | female | 1992 | 1 | 1 | 25.7 | 20.0 | 77.7 | 81 | 11.47 |
| H226 | No | male | 1991 | 1 | 1 | 11.0 | 7.1 | 64.5 | 56 | 4.12 |
| 1992 | 2 | 1 | 14.2 | 7.0 | 49.2 | 50 | ||||
| H228 | No | female | 1994 | 1 | 2 | 36.2 | 27.0 | 74.6 | 74 | 13.36 |
| H232 | No | female | 1988 | 1 | 1 | 30.2 | 17.8 | 58.9 | 50 | 6.68 |
| H238 | No | male | 1987 | 1 | 1 | 91.9 | 12.2 | 13.3 | 50 | 8.77 |
| H239 | No | female | 1988 | 1 | 1 | 22.0 | 17.0 | 77.4 | 68 | 5.13 |
| H240 | No | male | 1990 | 1 | 1 | 18.8 | 10.0 | 53.3 | 50 | 4.05 |
| H247 | No | female | 1987 | 1 | 1 | 36.1 | 19.3 | 53.5 | 50 | 5.85 |
| H249 | No | female | 1991 | 1 | 1 | 80.5 | 17.8 | 22.1 | 50 | 4.67 |
| H291 | No | female | 1985 | 1 | 1 | 32.1 | 14.0 | 43.7 | 50 | 4.81 |
| 1985 | 2 | 1 | 35.3 | 17.8 | 50.4 | 50 | ||||
| H328 | No | female | 1994 | 1 | 2 | 16.9 | 17.0 | 100.6 | 103 | 8.97 |
| H341 | No | male | 1994 | 1 | 2 | 16.8 | 7.6 | 45.2 | 56 | 3.30 |
| H357 | No | male | 1995 | 1 | 2 | 24.5 | 20.0 | 81.5 | 94 | N.A. |
| H375 | No | female | 1995 | 1 | 2 | 16.1 | 7.8 | 48.4 | 63 | 8.14 |
| H227 | Yes | female | 1994 | 1 | 2 | 15.8 | 14.6 | 92.4 | 94 | 7.71 |
| 1994 | 2 | 2 | 20.9 | 17.8 | 85.0 | 85 | ||||
| H234 | Yes | male | 1988 | 1 | 1 | 26.8 | 19.3 | 71.9 | 66 | 6.38 |
| H243 | Yes | male | 1989 | 1 | 1 | 14.4 | 12.0 | 83.3 | 82 | 1.22 |
| H244 | Yes | female | 1993 | 1 | 1 | 20.4 | 17.6 | 86.3 | 81 | 1.64 |
| H292 | Yes | male | 1986 | 1 | 1 | 11.0 | 11.8 | 107.3 | 106 | 3.70 |
| H297 | Yes | female | 1989 | 1 | 1 | 15.2 | 14.2 | 93.2 | 98 | 1.83 |
| H299 | Yes | male | 1993 | 1 | 1 | 13.5 | 12.4 | 91.9 | 97 | 1.72 |
| H302 | Yes | female | 1988 | 1 | 1 | 25.6 | 17.6 | 68.7 | 57 | 4.38 |
| 1988 | 2 | 1 | 32.7 | 20.6 | 63.1 | 63 | ||||
| H336 | Yes | male | 1992 | 1 | 1 | 12.9 | 12.2 | 94.4 | 94 | 1.85 |
| 1992 | 2 | 1 | 18.5 | 14.6 | 78.8 | 76 |
Age at Test = age at time of neurocognitive testing
Mental Age = Bayley Age Equivalent Score
DQ = Per Delaney et al. [15], Mental Age divided by Age at Test, times 100
SS/MDI = norm-based Bayley standard score, where mean = 100, SD = 15, and floor is 50
Fig. 1Developmental Growth Curves for Untreated Hurler Syndrome; Seen between 1983 and 1995. Developmental growth curves depict the patients’ mental ages as compared with their chronological ages at the time of testing. At younger chronological ages, most patients are measuring closer to the curve of normal development. With age, their mental functions depart from the normal developmental trajectory, revealing a plateauing in development and eventual decline, illustrated with a second order polynomial curve fit to the data
Fig. 2Comparison of slopes of decline using Standard Score versus Developmental Quotient (DQ). When plotted against chronological age, Standard Scores reveal the floor effect, with many data points clustered at a score of 50 (left), which affects calculation of slope of decline. By contrast, use of DQ scores eliminates the floor effect and shows many data points lower than 50 (right). With more comprehensive representation of DQs, the slope of decline is more accurately calculated as steeper