Jeremy M Shefner1, Seward B Rutkove2, James B Caress3, Michael Benatar4, William S David5, Michael S Cartwright3, Eric A Macklin6, Jose L Bohorquez7. 1. a Department of Neurology , Barrow Neurological Institute , Phoenix , AZ , USA. 2. b Department of Neurology , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA. 3. c Department of Neurology, Wake Forest School of Medicine , Winston-Salem , NC , USA. 4. d Department of Neurology , University of Miami , Miami , FL , USA. 5. e Department of Neurology , Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA. 6. f Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA. 7. g Myolex, Inc , San Francisco , CA , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this longitudinal multicenter cohort study, we evaluated the potential of a dedicated electrical impedance myography (EIM) device to assess ALS progression and the system's basic reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Forty-six ALS patients underwent up to five sequential measurements of multiple muscles over a period of 8 months at 2-month intervals using the mView EIM device (Myolex, Inc., San Francisco, CA). Standard measures of disease status were also obtained. A group of 30 healthy volunteers and 30 ALS-mimics were evaluated once to determine if the technique could assist with initial diagnosis. Several electrode arrays and EIM outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: EIM tracked ALS progression; power analyses suggested a 5.2-fold reduction in sample size requirements compared to ALSFRS-R by utilizing 50 kHz phase value from the muscle with the greatest EIM decline in each subject. This progression rate correlated to total ALSFRS-R progression, with R = 0.371, p = 0.021. Reproducibility was high, with both intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients for individual muscles mostly greater than 0.90. The mean 50 kHz phase distinguished between ALS patients and healthy controls (area-under-curve 0.78, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.68, 0.89), but not between mimics and ALS patients (area-under-curve 0.60, 95% CIs 0.47, 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: While limited in its specificity to identify ALS versus disease mimics, these results support the hypothesis that single-muscle EIM can serve as a convenient, repeatable, and powerful outcome measure in ALS clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: In this longitudinal multicenter cohort study, we evaluated the potential of a dedicated electrical impedance myography (EIM) device to assess ALS progression and the system's basic reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Forty-six ALSpatients underwent up to five sequential measurements of multiple muscles over a period of 8 months at 2-month intervals using the mView EIM device (Myolex, Inc., San Francisco, CA). Standard measures of disease status were also obtained. A group of 30 healthy volunteers and 30 ALS-mimics were evaluated once to determine if the technique could assist with initial diagnosis. Several electrode arrays and EIM outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: EIM tracked ALS progression; power analyses suggested a 5.2-fold reduction in sample size requirements compared to ALSFRS-R by utilizing 50 kHz phase value from the muscle with the greatest EIM decline in each subject. This progression rate correlated to total ALSFRS-R progression, with R = 0.371, p = 0.021. Reproducibility was high, with both intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients for individual muscles mostly greater than 0.90. The mean 50 kHz phase distinguished between ALSpatients and healthy controls (area-under-curve 0.78, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.68, 0.89), but not between mimics and ALSpatients (area-under-curve 0.60, 95% CIs 0.47, 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: While limited in its specificity to identify ALS versus disease mimics, these results support the hypothesis that single-muscle EIM can serve as a convenient, repeatable, and powerful outcome measure in ALS clinical trials.
Authors: Patricia L Andres; Linda M Skerry; Theodore L Munsat; Brenda J Thornell; Jackie Szymonifka; David A Schoenfeld; Merit E Cudkowicz Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Seward B Rutkove; Hui Zhang; David A Schoenfeld; Elizabeth M Raynor; Jeremy M Shefner; Merit E Cudkowicz; Anne B Chin; Ronald Aaron; Carl A Shiffman Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Stefan Schwartz; Tom R Geisbush; Aleksandar Mijailovic; Amy Pasternak; Basil T Darras; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Merit E Cudkowicz; Sarah Titus; Marianne Kearney; Hong Yu; Alexander Sherman; David Schoenfeld; Douglas Hayden; Amy Shui; Benjamin Brooks; Robin Conwit; Donna Felsenstein; David J Greenblatt; Myles Keroack; John T Kissel; Robert Miller; Jeffrey Rosenfeld; Jeffrey D Rothstein; Ericka Simpson; Nina Tolkoff-Rubin; Lorne Zinman; Jeremy M Shefner Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Michael Benatar; Kevin Boylan; Andreas Jeromin; Seward B Rutkove; James Berry; Nazem Atassi; Lucie Bruijn Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Merit E Cudkowicz; Leonard H van den Berg; Jeremy M Shefner; Hiroshi Mitsumoto; Jesus S Mora; Albert Ludolph; Orla Hardiman; Michael E Bozik; Evan W Ingersoll; Donald Archibald; Adam L Meyers; Yingwen Dong; Wildon R Farwell; Douglas A Kerr Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Marie Mortreux; Janice A Nagy; Haowen Zhong; Dong-Min Sung; Holly A Concepcion; Melanie Leitner; Laura Dalle Pazze; Seward B Rutkove Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 1.424
Authors: Joseph B Kowal; Sarah A Verga; Sarbesh R Pandeya; Randall J Cochran; Julianna C Sabol; Seward B Rutkove; Joan R Coates Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2022-05-27
Authors: Didu S T Kariyawasam; Arlene D'Silva; Cindy Lin; Monique M Ryan; Michelle A Farrar Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Sarbesh R Pandeya; Janice A Nagy; Daniela Riveros; Carson Semple; Rebecca S Taylor; Benjamin Sanchez; Seward B Rutkove Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Sudarshan Ragunathan; Laura C Bell; Natenael Semmineh; Ashley M Stokes; Jeremy M Shefner; Robert Bowser; Shafeeq Ladha; C Chad Quarles Journal: Tomography Date: 2021-05-05