Next Article in Journal
The Role of the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus in Introspection during Verbal Communication
Previous Article in Journal
Sacrifice of Involved Nerve Root during Surgical Resection of Foraminal and/or Dumbbell Spinal Neurinomas
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Health-Related Quality of Life in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patients and Their Caregivers—A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Multi-Center Analysis

1
Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
2
Department of Neurology, University of Ulm, 89081 Ulm, Germany
3
Department of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany
4
Department of Neurology and Center for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Science, University Medicine Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany
5
Department of Neurology, University of Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany
6
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, 89081 Ulm, Germany
7
Essen Center for Rare Diseases (EZSE), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Equal contribution as first authors.
Equal contribution as senior authors.
Brain Sci. 2023, 13(1), 110; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13010110
Submission received: 28 November 2022 / Revised: 29 December 2022 / Accepted: 3 January 2023 / Published: 7 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Neuromuscular and Movement Disorders)

Abstract

:
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a disabling disease that affects not only the patient’s health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but also causes a high caregiver burden (CGB). The aim of this study was to evaluate HRQoL, CGB, and their predictors in SMA. In two prospective, cross-sectional, and multi-center studies, SMA patients (n = 39) and SMA patient/caregiver couples (n = 49) filled in the EuroQoL Five Dimension Five Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L) and the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36). Caregivers (CGs) additionally answered the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Patients were clustered into two groups with either low or high HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L index value <0.259 or >0.679). The latter group was mostly composed of ambulatory type III patients with higher motor/functional scores. More severely affected patients reported low physical functioning but good mental health and vitality. The CGB (mean ZBI = 22/88) correlated negatively with patients’ motor/functional scores and age. Higher CGB was associated with a lower HRQoL, higher depression and anxiety, and more health impairments of the CGs. We conclude that patient and CG well-being levels interact closely, which highlights the need to consider the health of both parties while evaluating novel treatments.

1. Introduction

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a neuromuscular disease (NMD) frequently caused by homozygous or compound heterozygous deletion of exons 7 and 8 of the survival motor neuron (SMN) 1 gene on chromosome 5q13 [1]. Lack of SMN protein results in motor neuron loss and subsequent muscular atrophy, progressive paralysis, dysphagia and respiratory insufficiency, and complications such as scoliosis and contractures. Traditionally, different SMA types can be distinguished according to the time of symptom onset and the best-achieved motor milestones during child development [2]. Types I and II manifest earlier in life (zero to six months after birth vs. seven to 18 months) than types III and IV (adult subtype, onset age > 30 years), and if untreated, lead to early physical disability and drastically reduced life expectancy. SMA type III manifests after the age of 18 months with a more variable disease course and often normal life expectancy though severe impairment [3]. Disease severity correlates inversely with the number of copies of the SMN2 gene, a nearly identical copy of SMN1 that can partly rescue the survival of motor neurons [4,5,6,7]. Since the introduction of new therapeutic options, these phenotypes are evolving. Nevertheless, all patients need intense, multidisciplinary treatment and are highly dependent on medical, therapeutic, and care resources [8].
The antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) nusinersen as first causative gene-modifying treatment for SMA [9,10] can improve or at least stabilize motor function in adult SMA patients [11,12,13], but only few studies have evaluated its impact on patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [14,15]. We hypothesize that HRQoL could be an important additional outcome measure [16,17], as motor scores have a reduced significance in severely affected patients due to floor effects. Therefore, HRQoL needs to be characterized thoroughly in this population.
Another often neglected but important aspect of NMDs is the caregiver burden (CGB) of informal caregivers, who provide unpaid care to someone with whom they have a personal relationship (most commonly a family member). It has been shown that CGB in neurological diseases is high and associated with disease severity, the patient’s dependence on the caregiver (CG), the patient’s age, and the relationship between the patient and the CG, as well as the amount of care the CG has to provide [18,19]. CGB affects the CGs’ physical and mental health as well as their HRQoL. Different predictors for lower HRQoL and health impairments of the CG, such as the presence of executive dysfunction in the patient or mental attitude of the CG, which are concomitant with a higher burden, have been evaluated in various neurological diseases [20,21,22,23]. However, there is little information on CGB and its effects on the CG in SMA.
Therefore, the aims of this study were to characterize HRQoL in patients with SMA and their CGs and to investigate the informal CGB, its influencing factors, and its consequences for CGs in SMA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Setting

The data incorporated in this manuscript were obtained in two prospective cross-sectional multi-center studies. Participants were recruited at five specialized motor neuron disease clinics, which are members of the MND Net (German Network for motor neuron diseases) [24]: Hannover (principal investigator); Ulm; Munich; Wuerzburg; and Essen. Between June 2018 and January 2021, 5q-associated SMA patients were recruited at Hannover and Ulm sites for the evaluation of their HRQoL. In a second study, couples consisting of a 5q-associated SMA patient and his/her CG were recruited in all five centers from November 2018 to March 2020.
All participants were approached during routine outpatient or inpatient visits. They were offered the opportunity to complete a paper-based questionnaire during their visit and gave their written informed consent for the use of their pseudonymized data.
This study report was structured following the reporting guidelines of Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) [25].

2.2. Participants

Inclusion criteria comprised a genetically confirmed 5q-associated SMA diagnosis of the patient, the ability to speak and understand German, and an age of ≥18 years as well as the ability to complete the study questionnaire at least with the help of a proxy. Cognitive impairment preventing completion of the questionnaire was an exclusion criterion. In order to avoid a selection bias, all patients and patient/CG couples were asked to participate if they met the inclusion criteria and visited one of the clinics listed above for treatment during the data enquiry period.
For the analysis of HRQoL, only SMA patients who underwent nusinersen loading during the recruitment period were approached. In total, n = 48 patients with 5q-SMA at the Hannover (n = 34) and Ulm (n = 14) sites were potentially eligible and confirmed eligible. One patient at the Hannover site declined study participation (reason not specified), leaving n = 47 participants included in the study. n = 8 patients at the Hannover site had incomplete baseline data so that datasets of n = 39 patients were analyzed. The EQ-5D-5L was assessed at the Hannover site only (n = 22).
Moreover, n = 49 patient/CG couples were identified at the individual sites (Ulm n = 17, Hannover n = 14, Munich n = 9, Essen n = 5, Wuerzburg n = 4) and included in the analysis of CGB and HRQoL in CGs. Of the potentially/confirmed eligible patient/caregiver couples, some were ruled out due to simultaneous participation in an interventional study at certain sites. Of the patient/caregiver couples approached, one at the Hannover site declined participation in this study (reason not specified). Finally, two distinct but overlapping study populations were recruited for the evaluation of HRQoL in SMA patients and the evaluation of HRQoL in the CGs/CGB.

2.3. Assessment Instruments

2.3.1. Patient Questionnaires and Assessments

During the nusinersen-loading period, the patients filled in a self-reported questionnaire, and physiotherapists or study nurses assessed the patients’ motor function using the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE) and the Revised Upper Limp Module (RULM), as they are validated and used most commonly in SMA patients [26,27]. Due to the lack of validated disease-specific tools for the assessment of activities of daily living (ADL) in SMA patients, the revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) and the Barthel-Index (BI) were assessed in an interview by trained raters (see Section 2.3.3). The first part of the self-reported questionnaire was a self-designed overview of the patient’s demographics (diagnosis, gender, age, body mass index, marital status, federal state, educational years) and disease history (nature of first symptoms, age at disease onset, genetics, age at therapy start). The second part consisted of a medical assessment (nutrition, pulmonary function, orthopedics, hospitalization, medication, motor function, wheelchair use (without specification of the amount of time spent in the wheelchair), findings in the clinical examination and adverse events). The third part included a battery of PROM: among others, the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36), the EuroQoL Five Dimension Five Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L) [28], and the twelve-item Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Depression Inventory (ADI-12) were included and are reported in the present study. Both, the SF-36 and the EQ-5D-5L are widely spread generic measures to assess HRQoL. Specific tools for MND patients, such as the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL) [29], and data published about these tools are scarce. To be able to compare the data collected in this study with previous studies, we decided to use the above-mentioned generic tools.

2.3.2. Caregiver Questionnaire

CGs filled in the study questionnaire at one random time-point during ongoing nusinersen treatment of the patient they cared for. The first part of the CG questionnaire inquired after the baseline demographics of the CG as well as the patient (gender, age, diagnosis, marital status, relationship to the patient, educational years). In the second part, the patient’s disease history and motor abilities (age at disease onset and therapy start, wheelchair use, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), CG-rating of current BI) were assessed. Furthermore, the CGs stated their employment status, the duration of care (DOC) in hours that they provided per day, nursing precautions (necessity of permanent attendance of the CG) and their own health impairments incurred as a result of caregiving. In the last part, CGs filled in the Zarit-Burden Interview (ZBI), the SF-36, EQ-5D-5L, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

2.3.3. Motor Function and Daily Activities

The HFMSE is a disease-specific scale commonly used in SMA type II and III patients to measure gross motor function. It has 33 items, which are scaled with two points if the patient is able to perform the task unaided, one point if the patient is able with assistance, or zero points if the patient is unable to perform the activity. A sum-score is calculated with a maximum of 66 points, which indicates that all activities are possible without help [26,30,31].
The RULM measures upper limb function in SMA. It consists of 20 items, which are subdivided into 1 entry item and 19 items testing various motions, each scored on a three-point scale from zero points (unable) to one point (able, with modification) to two points (no difficulty). The maximum sum-score is 37 points, which implies that all tasks can be exercised without difficulty [27,32].
The ALSFRS-R was designed to capture the impairment in the daily routine of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). It consists of twelve items, which subdivide into four dimensions: gross motor function, fine motor function, bulbar function and respiratory function. The patients are asked to assess their functioning on a five-point scale from four (no loss of function) to zero (total loss of function). The sum-score ranges from zero to 48 points, indicating the level of impairment [33]. The ALSFRS-R is suitable for use with SMA patients and applied frequently in SMA patients [13,34,35,36], but has not been validated for SMA up to now.
Additionally, the BI was assessed to measure performance in ADL. It consists of ten questions, which include the activities of feeding, bathing, grooming, dressing, bowel and bladder care, toileting, bed and chair transfer, general mobility, and climbing stairs. The performance in each activity is rated with zero, five or ten (and for some activities up to fifteen) points. Summed up, the scale ranges between 0 and 100 points [37,38].

2.3.4. Heath-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)

The EQ-5D-5L is a validated self-reported instrument to measure HRQoL. It involves five different dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension is scored in a single item from one (no problems) to five (severe problems). Taken together, the scores for all dimensions result in different health states from 11,111 (best health) to 55,555 (worst health). This health state can be converted into an index value that ranges from −0.661 (worst) to 1 (best health), using a value set derived from a country-specific (German) reference sample [39,40]. In addition, patients are asked to score their health state “today” on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), which ranges from 0 (worst possible health) to 100 (best possible health). The EQ-5D-5L is widely used for different diseases as well as for healthy individuals to evaluate and compare quality of life [41,42].
The second scale used to evaluate quality of life was the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), which is a self-reported questionnaire referring to the individual’s health state within the last four weeks. It measures health in eight multi-item dimensions: Physical Functioning (PF), Role Physical (RP), Bodily Pain (BP), General Health (GH), Vitality (VT), Social Functioning (SF), Role Emotional (RE) and Mental Health (MH). The 36 items are assessed on a five- or six-point Likert scale and the scores within each dimension are converted into a standardized sum-score ranging from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health). Additionally, a ninth one-item dimension (Health Transition (HT)) exists, which is scaled ordinally with 0, 25, 50, 75, or 100 points. Though it has not been validated in the SMA population, the factor structure of the SF-36 was replicated in other MNDs [43,44,45,46].

2.3.5. Depression and Anxiety

Patients’ depression was assessed using the ADI-12, an adaptation of the Beck`s depression inventory, which was originally designed for ALS patients discarding all possibly MND-related symptoms. The inventory consists of twelve items scored on a four-point Likert type scale, where the patients are asked to review the last two weeks. The calculated sum-score ranges from 0 (best possible) to 48 (worst possible). Scores between 22 to 28 are considered a mild depression. Scores > 28 are generally considered as clinically relevant depression [47].
The HADS is a self-report instrument to assess anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) in patients attending non-psychiatric clinics and is commonly used in studies evaluating CGs/CGB [48,49]. It consists of 14 items, which can be ranked on a four-point scale (zero to three). There is an anxiety subscale and a depression subscale, which consist of seven items each. The range for each subscale is from 0 to 21 points, adding up to a maximum score of 42. The cut-off for being at risk of an anxiety disorder or depression has been established at eight points for each subscale in previous studies [50,51].

2.3.6. Caregiver Burden

CGB was measured using the ZBI, a structured interview that ascertains the health, finances, social life, and interpersonal relations of CGs, consisting of 22 items. Each item is scored with zero to four points; accordingly, the sum-score ranges from 0 (lowest burden) to 88 (highest burden). Three meaningful dimensions for clinicians can be established: social consequences for the CG, psychological burden, and feelings of guilt [52]. Initially, the ZBI was only used for CGs of patients with dementia, but it is now widely applied for different diseases [53,54,55]. As the cut-off for a higher risk of depression and anxiety is 24 points [55], we categorized the CGs for further analyses into two subgroups: a low-burden group (<24 points) and a high-burden group (≥24 points).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data management and all analyses were performed at Hannover Medical School. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM® Statistical Software Package of Social Science (SPSS®, Chicago, IL, USA) version 26. Descriptive statistics were calculated and depicted as percentage, median, and range. In case of a missing item answer in any score, the individual arithmetic mean was applied. In case of more than one missing item, the datasets were excluded from the analysis. To test for normal distribution, the Shapiro–Wilk Test was performed, and as most of the data were not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were used. A marginal value of p ≤ 0.05 (two-tailed) was used for statistical interference for all analyses. We used a Mann–Whitney U test to compare two independent groups, a Kruskal–Wallis test to compare more than two independent groups for metric variables. For non-metric variables, a Fisher’s exact test was applied. Correlations were calculated by means of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. We did not perform a sample size calculation, and due to the exploratory character of the study, the results should not be regarded as confirmatory, but rather as hypothesis-generating.
Regression analysis was performed to measure the impact of demographics (age, sex, marital status), the patient’s disease characteristics (SMN2 copy number, SMA type, scoliosis, vital capacity, HFMSE, RULM, ALSFRS-R, BI, ADI-12), and use of therapeutic aids (wheelchair, NIV, PEG) on HRQoL. First, a simple linear regression model was applied, with the EQ-5D-5L index value as dependent variable and the above-mentioned variables as independent variables. Subsequently, the variables with significant impact on HRQoL were included into a multiple linear regression model. Hereby, the EQ-5D-5L index value was the dependent variable, while the HFMSE was included as covariate in order to control for disease severity. The other scores measuring functional status/disease severity (RULM, ALSFRS-R, BI) and wheelchair use were not included in the multiple regression analysis, as they correlated strongly with the HFMSE (rs > 0.8) and were identified as probable confounding variables. Backward elimination was performed to identify the variables with the highest impact (exclusion criterion = 0.1). Regression analysis to measure the impact of the assessed variables as mentioned above on CG burden (ZBI score) was performed in an analogous manner.

3. Results

3.1. HRQoL in SMA Patients

3.1.1. Patients’ Characteristics

Two-thirds (66.7%) of the patients were diagnosed with SMA type III (including n = 1 type IV SMA patient) (median age 39 years) and 33.3% with SMA type II (median age 34 years). The study cohort mainly consisted of severely affected SMA patients using a wheelchair (65.4%), ventilatory support (23.1%) and PEG (7.7%). The detailed characteristics, median motor scores, and scores for ADL are depicted in Table 1.
The median EQ-5D-5L-VAS was 52.5, and the median EQ-5D-5L index value was 0.469, although patients formed two clusters: half of the patients reported high HRQoL (index value > 0.679) and the other half reported values <0.259. There were no readings in the range from 0.259 to 0.679. Regarding the SF-36, the lowest scores were achieved in the dimensions of Physical Functioning (median 5), Role Physical (median 50), General Health (median 52), and Vitality (median 55). The dimensions of Role Emotional and Bodily Pain, on the other hand, were mostly rated high (median 100) (Table 1).

3.1.2. Factors Associated with Patients’ HRQoL

Patients were clustered into either a high- or low-HRQoL group based on EQ-5D-5L index value scores. There were significant differences between the groups. Patients in the low-HRQoL group had a more severe phenotype (more frequently SMA type II, ≤3 SMN2 copies, use of wheelchair, scoliosis, and lower RULM, HFMSE, ALSFRS-R, and BI) (Table 1). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding sex, BMI, marital status, use of NIV, or PEG and depression. Age, on the other hand, showed a difference between high- and low-HRQoL groups, with a median age of 39 in the high-HRQoL group vs. a median age of 33 in the low-HRQoL group (p = 0.028).
The EQ-5D-5L VAS correlated positively with RULM (p = 0.007; n = 22), HFMSE (p = 0.016; n = 22), and ALSFRS-R (p = 0.024; n = 22) (Appendix A).
Regarding the SF-36, only Physical Functioning differed significantly between the two EQ-5D-5L index value groups (p = 0.004), meaning that both scales measured different constructs of HRQoL. Higher values in the SF-36 Physical Functioning dimension were consistently reported by SMA type III/IV patients (p < 0.001; n = 33), patients with ≥4 SMN2 copies (p = 0.006; n = 27), and patients without NIV (p = 0.004; n = 33), wheelchair use (p < 0.001; n = 33), or scoliosis (p < 0.001; n = 32) (Figure 1). Physical Functioning further correlated positively with the HFMSE (p < 0.001; n = 33), RULM (p < 0.001; n = 33), ALSFRS-R (p < 0.001; n = 33), and BI (p = 0.001; n = 19) (Appendix A).
For the SF-36 dimension Vitality, significantly higher values were reported by males (p = 0.044; n = 32), participants with ≥12 educational years (p = 0.045; n = 29), and ≤3 SMN2 copies (p = 0.002; n = 24). Furthermore, participants using a wheelchair reported a higher median than participants without wheelchair (p = 0.012; n = 30). Accordingly, Vitality correlated negatively with the RULM (p = 0.018; n = 30) and BI (p = 0.040; n = 19) (Appendix A).
While single participants reported a median of 100 in the dimension Bodily Pain, patients in a relationship reported significantly lower values (p = 0.041; n = 29). Similarly to the dimension Vitality, wheelchair use (p = 0.005; n = 29) as well as a lower RULM (p = 0.005; n = 29) and BI (p = 0.002; n = 19) were also associated with less Bodily Pain (Figure 1) (Appendix A).
Better Mental Health was associated with ≤3 SMN2 copies (p = 0.029; n = 25), wheelchair use (p = 0.023; n = 31), and the presence of scoliosis (p = 0.031; n = 30), but not with motor function scores (RULM; HFMSE) or performance in ADL (ALSFRS-R, BI). Mental Health showed a strong negative correlation with the ADI-12 (p = 0.003; n = 31). The ADI-12 further correlated negatively with Vitality (p = 0.002; n = 30), Social Functioning (p = 0.043; n = 32), General Health (p = 0.038; n = 29), and Health Transition (p = 0.036; n = 33) (Appendix A).

3.1.3. Regression Analysis of Predictors of Patients’ HRQoL

In the simple linear regression analyses, SMA type, SMN2 copy number, wheelchair use, ALSFRS-R, RULM, HFMSE, NIV, and scoliosis had significant influences on HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L index value) (data not shown). Because predictors were highly correlated, in particular motor and ADL scores (HFMSE and RULM: p < 0.001, n = 31, Rho = 0.951; HFMSE and ALSFRS-R: p < 0.001, n = 39, Rho = 0.940; HFMSE and BI: p < 0.001, n = 22, Rho = 0.838), we excluded the RULM and the ALSFRS-R from the multiple regression analyses and kept the HFMSE as covariate for all analyses. Table 2 shows the results of the multiple linear regression analysis. Using backward selection, only HFMSE and NIV remained as significant influencing factors. The model including HFMSE, NIV, and scoliosis resulted in the best fit, explaining 82.8% of the variance (R² = 0.828, p < 0.001).

3.2. Caregiving in SMA

3.2.1. Characteristics of Patient/Caregiver Pairs

Table 3 depicts the CGs’ and corresponding patients’ characteristics. Approximately three-quarters of the CGs were female with a median age of 52 years and were the primary CGs of their respective SMA patients. Most of the CGs were parents or spouses (each 32.7%) of the patients, and lived in the same household. The HRQoL of the CGs was high, with a median EQ-5D-5L VAS of 80/100 and a median EQ-5D-5L index value of 0.909. The median ZBI score reported by the CGs was 22/88, and the median duration of care (DOC) was 4.5 h per day, ranging from 0 to 22 h.
Regarding the patients’ characteristics in this study cohort, 61.2% were male with a median age of 29 years. Their median ALSFRS-R score was 30/48, and while 77.6% were dependent on a wheelchair, 26.5% of the patients used a PEG as well as NIV. Overall, the patients were more severely affected compared to the first study cohort. Patients’ HRQoL in this cohort was 60/100 (median EQ-5D-5L VAS) and 0.208 (median EQ-5D-5L index value) (Table 3).

3.2.2. Factors Associated with CGB

To evaluate factors associated with CGB, we dichotomized the cohort into a low-burden group (median ZBI = 12.5/88, n = 28) and a high-burden group (median ZBI = 31/88, n = 21) using a score of 24 as a cut-off, as described previously [55]. Results are shown in Table 3.
The median DOC differed significantly between the low- (2.5 h) and high- (8.0 h) burden groups (p = 0.017). Further, though not statistically significant in the group comparison, a need of permanent attendance of a caregiver was associated with higher ZBI scores (median = 21 vs. median = 28.2). The relation to the patient seemed to be relevant for CG burden: while spouses were more often in the low-burden group (n = 14 vs. n = 2), children were more likely to be in the high-burden group (n = 11 vs. n = 3). Other characteristics of the CGs did not differ significantly between the groups.
Regarding the patients’ characteristics, age, and wheelchair use, BI and ALSFRS-R were associated with caregiver burden: the patients in the high-burden group were younger (p = 0.014), had a lower ALSFRS-R and BI (p = 0.018 and p = 0.008, respectively) and were more likely to use a wheelchair (p = 0.010) compared to the low-burden group (Table 3). This was supported by a negative correlation between the BI score, the ZBI score (s-rho = −0.556, p < 0.001, n = 49), and the DOC (s-rho = −0.626, p < 0.001, n = 49). Correspondingly, the ZBI and the DOC correlated negatively with the ALSFRS-R (p < 0.001; n = 49; s-Rho = −0.521; p < 0.001, n = 49, s-rho = −0.589).
A higher DOC was associated with wheelchair use (p < 0.001, n = 49; median = 0 h vs. median = 6.5 h) and the use of NIV and PEG (p = 0.002, n = 49; median = 3 h vs. median = 11.5 h). Further, the DOC was significantly higher for primary caregivers (median = 6.00, n = 37) compared to non-primary caregivers (median = 1.63, n = 11) (p = 0.036), as anticipated (Figure 2).

3.2.3. Impact of CGB on Caregivers’ Health and HRQoL

Of the CGs, 46.9% stated that they had health impairments due to caregiving, all of them reporting physical impairments, such as back, muscle, knee, hip, and digestive pain. The majority of CGs who reported physical impairments (16 out of 23) additionally reported mental impairments, such as depression, burn-out, sleeping disorders, or anxiety. CGs who reported health impairments due to caregiving were more likely to be in the high-burden group (p = 0.017). Additionally, in the high-burden group there were more CGs who had physical and also mental impairments due to caregiving (p = 0.011) (Table 3).
The CGs’ median HADS-A and -D scores were 5/21 and 3/21, respectively. In the low-burden group, HADS-D and HADS-A were significantly lower compared to the high-burden group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.027, respectively). Nevertheless, all HADS results remained below 8, which has been described in the literature as the cut-off for clinically relevant anxiety and depression [50,51].
The HRQoL of CGs evaluated by means of the EQ-5D-5L was good in both the high- and low-burden groups. In contrast, several dimensions of the SF-36 differed significantly between the two groups: Vitality (50 vs. 65; p = 0.004), Bodily Pain (64 vs. 84; p = 0.021), Social Functioning (75 vs. 100; p = 0.001), and Mental Health (72 vs. 84; p = 0.003) were rated worse by CGs in the high-burden group.

3.2.4. Regression Analysis of Predictors of CGB

First, we performed a simple linear regression to evaluate which parameters were associated with the ZBI score and therefore the CGB. Parameters with significant influence on the ZBI score were: the DOC, the necessity of permanent attendance of the CG, the CG’s age, the CG’s HADS-D and HADS-A, health impairments of the CG, the relationship between patient and CG, wheelchair use, use of NIV/PEG, the ALSFRS-R, and the BI (data not shown). Table 4 shows the results of the multiple linear regression analysis using a backward selection including all variables that were significant in the simple linear regression. The model maintaining BI, HADS-A, and health impairments of the CG resulted in the best fit, explaining 62.2% of the variance (R² = 0.622, p < 0.001) (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This multi-center study evaluated the HRQoL of adult SMA patients and their CGs as well as CGB using a number of PROMs. The main findings were correlations between the impairment of patients’ HRQoL and disease severity, and between CGs’ health and HRQoL and CGB.
The median EQ-5D-5L index value was 0.469 in the total SMA patient cohort, and 0.806 in the subgroup with higher HRQoL (which was nearly as high as the mean EQ-5D-5L index value in the general German population (0.880)) [56]. In the low-HRQoL group, however, the median EQ-5D-5L index value was 0.175, which was similar to findings from the United Kingdom (UK) (0.167), France (0.116), and Australia (0.115) for pediatric SMA patients [57,58]. Patients in the lower HRQoL subgroup more likely suffered from SMA type II and reported a more severe disease course. These characteristics are in line with previous studies that described an increase in the EQ-5D-5L from SMA type I to III along with a decreasing disease severity [4,57,59]. Median EQ-5D-5L VAS in our study cohort (52.5 points) was similar to previous studies [4,57,58,59,60].
Regarding the SF-36, the lowest scores were reached in the dimension Physical Functioning followed by Role Physical. This is in line with previous findings applying the SF-36 in NMDs [17,61]. A study from the Netherlands in adult SMA patients at an average age of 41.7 years showed the lowest scores in the dimension Physical Functioning [62], while a recent study conducted in a German SMA population found lower scores for Physical Functioning and General Health compared to healthy controls [14]. Patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) scored low in all dimensions except role limitations due to emotional problems (Role Emotional), with Physical Functioning, Role Physical, and Social Functioning being the most relevant dimensions [63,64]. In our cohort, Physical Functioning correlated positively with motor scores, and higher scores were associated with a milder phenotype, which is in line with the results of the above-mentioned studies [17,62,63].
Comparing the results of the two questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L seems to incorporate mainly the physical aspects of HRQoL, which is corroborated by the strong correlation that we found for the EQ-5D-5L index value with the Physical Functioning dimension of the SF-36. The EQ-5D-5L primarily ascertains mobility, self-care, and usual activities—which all require a certain functional capability in the patient. The remaining two items of the EQ-5D-5L—pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression—have been shown to be less prevalent in SMA patients [61,65].
Interestingly, patients with more severe disease (SMA type II, lower motor scores), who were in the group with worse HRQoL according to the EQ-5D-5L index value, tended to have higher scores in the dimensions Mental Health, as well as Vitality and Bodily Pain as previously reported for Mental Health and Role Emotional [17,62]. SMA type III/IV patients, in contrast to SMA II, are usually older at disease onset and more frequently accustomed to a life without limitations in their daily activities, and thus find it more difficult to adapt to disease-related physical changes.
As expected, the mental aspects of HRQoL (Mental Health, Vitality, Social Functioning) and General Health correlated strongly with depressiveness when measured with the ADI-12. This was consistent with findings in ALS patients [66].
Our multiple linear regression model included the HFMSE as a substitute for the motor/functional scores. According to our model, a clinically significant increase of three points in the HFMSE would lead to an improvement of 0.039 points in the EQ-5D-5L index value. In contrast to findings in ALS [67,68,69], the use of NIV was found to be a negative predictor of HRQoL, most probably not due to the use of NIV itself but the underlying respiratory dysfunction together with more advanced disease as reported in DMD [70].
Our study not only showed a significant impact of SMA on patients themselves but also on their CGs. Similar to previous studies in SMA and other NMDs, the majority (77.6%) of the informal CGs in our cohort were female, and 65.4% were either the patients’ spouses/partners or their parents [71,72]. The median DOC in our cohort was 4.5 h per day, which is less than reported elsewhere in SMA caregiving [58,72]. This may be caused by the fact that in previous studies, pediatric SMA patients, who are usually more dependent on care due to their age, were the main population analyzed. DOC in a German ALS cohort was three hours per day, similarly to our findings [22]. The median ZBI score in our cohort was 22/88, and therefore below the cut-off of 24 points that defines a high burden [55]. As we stratified the CGs into low- and high-burden groups using this cut-off value, the CGs in the high-burden group had a median ZBI score of 31 points, and the corresponding patients were younger and suffered from more severe functional impairments (lower BI and ALSFRS-R scores). Accordingly, the DOC increased to eight hours per day in the high-burden group. A cross-sectional study conducted in Europe including the CGs of pediatric SMA patients similarly reported a mean ZBI score of 31.9/88 points [72]. Comparing our results with studies in adult ALS and DMD patients and their CGs, a higher burden (ZBI scores of 26/88 and 29/88 points, respectively) was estimated in these diseases [22,71,73]. Patients’ functional status (ALSFRS-R and BI scores) and the use of a wheelchair were associated with a higher CGB. We did not find a significant influence of NIV on CGB in our cohort, most likely due to the low number of patients using NIV. Further, the relationship between CG and patient significantly impacted the perceived burden, as spouses reported a lower burden than children. Similarly, a study from Brazil reported higher ZBI scores associated with a familial relationship to the patient [74].
In our study, nearly half of the CGs reported health impairments (46.9%), and one-third (32.7%) reported mental health impairments due to caregiving. Among the designated mental impairments, depression and anxiety were presented as main symptoms. However, the HADS-D and HADS-A median scores ranged below the cut-off for relevant depressive/anxious symptoms. Slightly higher scores were reported in a study from the Netherlands evaluating CGs of pediatric SMA patients with a mean HADS-D of 5.7 and a mean HADS-A of 6.8 points [75], with almost all the CGs being the patients’ mothers. On the one hand, the prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders is generally higher in women [76,77]; on the other hand, parents of severely impaired children may in general be more strained. Compared to the CGs of ALS patients, anxiety and depression scores in our CG cohort were lower, too, which could be due to slower disease progression, better prognosis, and more promising treatment options in SMA [73]. Focusing on the high-burden group, the HADS-D and HADS-A scores were similar to the above-mentioned studies. This emphasizes again the close interaction of the CGB and CG health. Whether depression and anxiety are consequences of the (high) CGB or CGs with depression/anxiety perceive the CGB to be higher cannot be conclusively determined within our study.
Multiple regression analysis revealed the BI, the HADS-A of the CG, and health impairments due to caregiving as main predictors of CGB. Similar findings were presented in studies with patients suffering from ALS, where mental health impairments in the CGs in particular, as well as wheelchair use and the need for permanent supervision of the patient, led to a significant increase in the ZBI score [22,49,73]. This highlights the importance not only of the functional impairments of the patient as a predictor for CGB, but also of the CGs’ (mental) health, which seems to interact closely with perceived burden in MNDs [49,73,78].
Regarding the HRQoL of SMA CGs, median EQ-5D-5L VAS (80) and index value (0.910) were similar to previously reported values for CGs of SMA patients from the UK (VAS 80.36) and Canada (VAS 81.3) [58,59]. Overall, in this study the HRQoL of the CGs was similar to that of the general population in Germany [56]. This is in line with findings for CGs in ALS, who also reported good HRQoL with a median EQ-5D-5L VAS of 75 and an index value of 0.909 [22,73]. In the absence of data in SMA, we compared our results regarding the dimensions of HRQoL (SF-36) to reports in other NMDs. A study from Korea in ALS patients in an advanced disease stage and a mean patient age of 52.6 years reported low scores for the primary CGs throughout all dimensions of the SF-36 [79]. In our study, SF-36 scores approximated to the general German population [80]. One reason for the comparably high scores in our study could be the planned or ongoing disease-modifying treatment with nusinersen [81]. In contrast, patients suffering from ALS have a worse prognosis and mainly receive symptomatic treatment. Further, CGs in the high-burden group presented with lower scores in the dimensions of Bodily Pain, Vitality, Social Functioning, and Mental Health. These findings point towards the importance of mental factors involved in and psychological consequences associated with perceived CGB.
Overall, the good HRQoL of SMA CGs contrasts with the high perceived burden and the reported health impairments.
One advantage of our study was the variety of factors possibly influencing HRQoL and CG burden that were analyzed, such as demographic and the clinical and psychological characteristics of patients and CGs. Further, we intended to depict an overall picture of the impact of SMA on patients’ and CGs’ health by analyzing not only the patients’ functional status, HRQoL, and depression, but also the CGs’ burden, health impairments and HRQoL. Among the study’s limitations, the low participant number must be mentioned. Due to the rarity of SMA, larger cohorts are difficult to acquire, especially considering that for the evaluation of CGB, not only the patient but also the CG needs to consent to study participation. Nevertheless, our study was a multi-center study representing five specialized motor neuron disease clinics throughout Germany. We captured patients’ HRQoL in an overlapping but finally different cohort from the patient/CG pairs included in the analysis of CGB, making direct correlations between the HRQoL of patients and CGs or the CGB impossible. Moreover, a longitudinal evaluation of HRQoL and CGB would have been desirable to quantify the effects of nusinersen treatment on non-motor outcomes. Generally, the instruments we used to evaluate the HRQoL of SMA patients as well as CGB must be discussed. Both the EQ-5D-5L and SF-36 as well as the ZBI are generic instruments initially developed for use in other diseases [41,46,52]. Questionnaires capturing aspects specific to NMDs [29] may have yielded more reliable and representative data on the HRQoL in the analyzed SMA cohort. However, using the EQ-5D-5L and the SF-36, which are widely used in various diseases, facilitates comparison with other diseases. Landfeldt et al. found that the ZBI is “not fit for purpose to measure burden in caregivers of patients with DMD” [71]. Like DMD, SMA is a progressively disabling NMD, with childhood onset leading to dependency and need for care. Accordingly, it is possible that the ZBI does not represent CGB in SMA properly. In the same manner, the ADI-12 might not adequately capture SMA patients’ depression, even though it is validated for ALS.
Regarding bias and imprecision, we have to consider a possible selection bias, as all participants were recruited at specialized motor neuron centers and therefore possibly less severely affected than SMA patients who do not visit specialized clinics. Lastly, all data were acquired during ongoing nusinersen treatment, which could have led to higher HRQoL scores due to the participants’ positive expectations regarding treatment effects. Furthermore, the presented results might be true for the adult German SMA population, as participant characteristics are congruent with other reports [36,82]. However, in pediatric SMA populations or in non-industrialized countries, the situation might be different.
Our findings add to the emerging research on PROM for the evaluation of novel treatment options in SMA [14,15,58,60,62,82,83,84]. This study confirms that HRQoL in SMA patients is impaired with regard to physical aspects and determined by disease severity. Disease severity is also the main predictor of the CGB, which itself affects the CGs’ health and HRQoL. This close and reciprocal interaction between the (physical) well-being of the patient and the well-being of the respective CG highlights the need not only to focus on the patients’ physical abilities but rather grasp at an overall picture of patient and CG health while evaluating novel treatments. Along with the novel treatment options—in particular, nusinersen as intrathecal ASO, intravenous gene therapy with onasemnogene abeparvovac, and the oral splicing modifier risdiplam [9,10,85,86,87,88]—the SMA phenotype is expected to evolve. Pediatric patients with SMA type I and II will reach adulthood more frequently, severe motor impairments will hopefully be less common, and new (possibly treatment-associated) difficulties will surface. In this context, requirements for the care and follow-up of SMA patients will change, making PROM such as HRQoL and CGB valuable tools to assess the efficacy and secondary effects of the new treatments. Future studies should focus on the validation of disease-specific or generic tools to assess HRQoL and CGB in SMA. Furthermore, exploratory studies should refine what kind of supportive measures are needed to relieve the burden of CGs of SMA patients.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, in SMA, not only the patient’s HRQoL is drastically impaired, but the CG’s health can also be affected due to high CGB. To improve both the patient and CG well-being, physical as well as mental health aspects must be taken into account, which will become all the more relevant in light of the novel treatments and changing SMA phenotypes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization—D.L., A.O. and O.S.-K.; methodology—D.L., S.P. (Susanne Petri), A.O. and O.S.-K.; software—C.W., A.-K.V., L.M., C.D.W., I.C., B.S., D.Z., Z.U., T.H., M.D., P.L., A.C.L., D.L., S.P. (Susanne Petri), A.O. and O.S.-K.; validation—C.W., C.D.W., D.Z., T.H., M.D., P.L., A.C.L., D.L., S.P. (Susanne Petri), A.O. and O.S.-K.; formal analysis—C.W., A.-K.V. and O.S.-K.; investigation—all authors; resources—all authors; data curation—C.W., A.-K.V., L.M., C.D.W., I.C., B.S., D.Z., Z.U., S.P. (Sophia Platen), A.O. and O.S.-K.; writing—original draft preparation—C.W., A.-K.V. and O.S.-K.; writing—review and editing—all authors.; visualization—C.W., A.-K.V. and O.S.-K.; supervision—C.D.W., D.Z., T.H., M.D., P.L., A.C.L., D.L., S.P. (Susanne Petri), A.O. and O.S.-K.; project administration—C.D.W., D.Z., Z.U., T.H., M.D., P.L., A.C.L., D.L., S.P. (Susanne Petri), A.O. and O.S.-K.; funding acquisition—S.P. (Susanne Petri), A.O. and O.S.-K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No targeted study funding. D.L. was supported by the Kompetenznetzwerk Baden-Württemberg “Präventive Medizin”. A.O. was supported by PRACTIS—Clinician Scientist Program of Hannover Medical School, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, ME 3696/3-1, 2020–2021). O.S.-K. received academic research support from the Hannover Medical School Young Faculty Program, 2018–2020; the German Neuromuscular Society “Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Muskelkranke” (DGM e.V.), 2019–2021 (grant no. Sc 23/1); and the “Ellen-Schmidt-Program—Habilitationsfoerderung fuer Wissenschaftlerinnen”, Hannover Medical School (2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Hannover Medical School (no. 7922_BO_K_2018 and no. 6269) and of the individual centers related to the MND-Network (Essen: 18-8285-BO, Munich: 16/14, Ulm: 19/12, Wuerzburg 48/13_z).

Informed Consent Statement

Participants gave their written informed consent to contribute data in a pseudonymized way (thus giving their consent to analyze their anonymized data) prior to study enrolment.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and will be shared with any qualified researcher on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge all participating patients and their caregivers, without whom this study would not have been possible. We also thank Gresa Ranxha, Mareike Kumpe, Gary Wieselmann, Hannah A. Siegler, and Celine Beyer for their support in data collection and curation. Moreover, we sincerely thank the local raters who supported the assessment of motor scores. Individual centers received funding from SMArtCARE and Biogen, neither of whom had any role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. We also thank Pavel Gardt and Tara Mohajer-Peseschkian for their graphic skills and proofreading.

Conflicts of Interest

C.W. declares no conflicts of interest. A.-K.V. declares no conflicts of interest. L.M. declares no conflicts of interest. C.D.W. received funding for travel expenses and compensation for participation on advisory boards of Biogen, as well as compensation for consultancy work from Roche. I.C. received personal fees from Biogen (speaker honoraria, participation in advisory boards) outside the submitted work. B.S. received speaker honoraria from Biogen. D.Z. received funding for travel expenses and compensation for participation on advisory boards of Biogen, as well as compensation for consultancy work from Novartis. Z.U. received compensation for consultancy work from Biogen. S.P. (Sophia Platen) declares no conflicts of interest. T.H. received funding for travel expenses and compensation for participation on advisory boards and compensation for consultancy work by Biogen and Roche, as well as research support from Biogen, Roche, and NovartisM.D. received personal fees as speaker/consultant from Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme. P.L. declares no conflicts of interest. A.C.L. declares no conflicts of interest. D.L. declares no conflicts of interest. S.P. (Susanne Petri) has received honoraria as a speaker/consul- tant from Biogen GmbH, Roche, Novartis, Teva, Cytoki- netics Inc., Amylyx and Desitin and grants from the German Neu- romuscular Society, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development, and the EU Joint Programme for Neurodegenerative Disease Research. A.O. has received honoraria as a speaker from Biogen. O.S.-K. has received honoraria as a speaker/consultant and/or funding for travel expenses from the German Neuromuscular Society “Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Muskelkranke (DGM e.V.), Biogen GmbH, Biermann Verlag GmbH, and MK+S—Medizin, Kommunikation & Service GmbH. The above mentioned funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table A1. Correlation analyses of HRQoL: Motor/ADL scores correlated positively with EQ-5D-5L and Physical Functioning, while Bodily Pain, Vitality, and Role Emotional were negatively correlated with them. The ADI-12 correlated negatively with Vitality, Mental Health, General Health, and Social Functioning. Abbreviations: ADL = activities of daily living; ADI-12 = ALS-Depression Inventory-12; ALSFRS-R = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised; BI = Barthel Index; EQ-5D-5L = Euro QoL Five Dimension Five Level Scale; HFMSE = Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded; HRQoL = health-related quality of life; RULM = Revised Upper Limb Module; SF-36 = Short Form Health Survey 36; VAS = Visual Analogue Scale.
Table A1. Correlation analyses of HRQoL: Motor/ADL scores correlated positively with EQ-5D-5L and Physical Functioning, while Bodily Pain, Vitality, and Role Emotional were negatively correlated with them. The ADI-12 correlated negatively with Vitality, Mental Health, General Health, and Social Functioning. Abbreviations: ADL = activities of daily living; ADI-12 = ALS-Depression Inventory-12; ALSFRS-R = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised; BI = Barthel Index; EQ-5D-5L = Euro QoL Five Dimension Five Level Scale; HFMSE = Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded; HRQoL = health-related quality of life; RULM = Revised Upper Limb Module; SF-36 = Short Form Health Survey 36; VAS = Visual Analogue Scale.
HFMSERULMALSFRS-RBIADI-12
EQ-5D-5L Index Valuep < 0.001;
n = 22;
S-Rho = 0.805
p = 0.001;
n = 22;
S-Rho = 0.659
p < 0.001;
n = 22;
S-Rho = 0.789
EQ-5D-5L VASp = 0.016;
n = 22;
S-Rho = 0.507
p = 0.007;
n = 22;
S-Rho = 0.559
p = 0.024;
n = 22;
S-Rho = 0.478
SF-36 Physical Functioningp < 0.001;
n = 33;
S-Rho = 0.886
p < 0.001;
n = 33;
S-Rho = 0.828
p < 0.001;
n = 33;
S-Rho = 0.908
p = 0.001;
n = 19;
S-Rho = 0.874
SF-36 Role Physical
SF-36 Social Functioning p = 0.043;
n = 32;
S-Rho = −0.361
SF-36 Role Emotional p = 0.04;
n = 18;
S-Rho = −0.487
SF-36 Vitality p = 0.018;
n = 30;
S-Rho = −0.430
p = 0.027;
n = 30;
S-Rho = −0.403
p = 0.04;
n = 19;
S-Rho = −0.474
p = 0.002;
n = 30;
S-Rho = −0.553
SF-36 Bodily Painp = 0.012;
n = 29;
S-Rho = −0.462
p = 0.005;
n = 29;
S-Rho = −0.505
p = 0.003;
n = 29;
S-Rho = −0.532
p = 0.002;
n = 19;
S-Rho = −0.654
SF-36 Mental Health p = 0.003;
n = 31;
S-Rho = −0.513
SF-36 General Health p = 0.038;
n = 29;
S-Rho = −0.388
SF-36 Health Transition p = 0.036;
n = 33;
S-Rho = −0.366

References

  1. Lefebvre, S.; Bürglen, L.; Reboullet, S.; Clermont, O.; Burlet, P.; Viollet, L.; Benichou, B.; Cruaud, C.; Millasseau, P.; Zeviani, M.; et al. Identification and Characterization of a Spinal Muscular Atrophy-Determining Gene. Cell 1995, 80, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Kolb, S.J.; Kissel, J.T. Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Neurol. Clin. 2015, 33, 831–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Piepers, S.; van den Berg, L.H.; Brugman, F.; Scheffer, H.; Ruiterkamp-Versteeg, M.; van Engelen, B.G.; Faber, C.G.; de Visser, M.; van der Pol, W.L.; Wokke, J.H. A natural history study of late onset spinal muscular atrophy types 3b and 4. J. Neurol. 2008, 255, 1400–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Taylor, J.E.; Thomas, N.H.; Lewis, C.M.; Abbs, S.J.; Rodrigues, N.R.; Davies, K.E.; Mathew, C.G. Correlation of SMNt and SMNc gene copy number with age of onset and survival in spinal muscular atrophy. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 1998, 6, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Feldkötter, M.; Schwarzer, V.; Wirth, R.; Wienker, T.F.; Wirth, B. Quantitative Analyses of SMN1 and SMN2 Based on Real-Time LightCycler PCR: Fast and Highly Reliable Carrier Testing and Prediction of Severity of Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2002, 70, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Kletzl, H.; Marquet, A.; Günther, A.; Tang, W.; Heuberger, J.; Groeneveld, G.J.; Birkhoff, W.; Mercuri, E.; Lochmüller, H.; Wood, C.; et al. The oral splicing modifier RG7800 increases full length survival of motor neuron 2 mRNA and survival of motor neuron protein: Results from trials in healthy adults and patients with spinal muscular atrophy. Neuromuscul. Disord. 2019, 29, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Wirth, B.; Brichta, L.; Schrank, B.; Lochmüller, H.; Blick, S.; Baasner, A.; Heller, R. Mildly affected patients with spinal muscular atrophy are partially protected by an increased SMN2 copy number. Hum. Genet. 2006, 119, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Klug, C.; Schreiber-Katz, O.; Thiele, S.; Schorling, E.; Zowe, J.; Reilich, P.; Walter, M.C.; Nagels, K.H. Disease burden of spinal muscular atrophy in Germany. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2016, 11, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Finkel, R.S.; Mercuri, E.; Darras, B.T.; Connolly, A.M.; Kuntz, N.L.; Kirschner, J.; Chiriboga, C.A.; Saito, K.; Servais, L.; Tizzano, E.; et al. Nusinersen versus Sham Control in Infantile-Onset Spinal Muscular Atrophy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 1723–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Mercuri, E.; Darras, B.T.; Chiriboga, C.A.; Day, J.W.; Campbell, C.; Connolly, A.M.; Iannaccone, S.T.; Kirschner, J.; Kuntz, N.L.; Saito, K.; et al. Nusinersen versus Sham Control in Later-Onset Spinal Muscular Atrophy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hagenacker, T.; Wurster, C.D.; Günther, R.; Schreiber-Katz, O.; Osmanovic, A.; Petri, S.; Weiler, M.; Ziegler, A.; Kuttler, J.; Koch, J.C.; et al. Nusinersen in adults with 5q spinal muscular atrophy: A non-interventional, multicentre, observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2020, 19, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Yeo, C.J.J.; Simeone, S.D.; Townsend, E.L.; Zhang, R.Z.; Swoboda, K.J. Prospective Cohort Study of Nusinersen Treatment in Adults with Spinal Muscular Atrophy. J. Neuromuscul. Dis. 2020, 7, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Walter, M.C.; Wenninger, S.; Thiele, S.; Stauber, J.; Hiebeler, M.; Greckl, E.; Stahl, K.; Pechmann, A.; Lochmüller, H.; Kirschner, J.; et al. Safety and treatment effects of nusinersen in longstanding adult 5q-SMA type 3–A prospective observational study. J. Neuromuscul. Dis. 2019, 6, 453–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Mix, L.; Winter, B.; Wurster, C.D.; Platen, S.; Witzel, S.; Uzelac, Z.; Graf, H.; Ludolph, A.C.; Lulé, D. Quality of Life in SMA Patients Under Treatment With Nusinersen. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 626787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Binz, C.; Schreiber-Katz, O.; Kumpe, M.; Ranxha, G.; Siegler, H.; Wieselmann, G.; Petri, S.; Osmanovic, A. An observational cohort study on impact, dimensions and outcome of perceived fatigue in adult 5q-spinal muscular atrophy patients receiving nusinersen treatment. J. Neurol. 2021, 268, 950–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sansone, V.A.; Walter, M.C.; Attarian, S.; Delstanche, S.; Mercuri, E.; Lochmüller, H.; Neuwirth, C.; Vazquez-Costa, J.F.; Kleinschnitz, C.; Hagenacker, T. Measuring Outcomes in Adults with Spinal Muscular Atrophy-Challenges and Future Directions-Meeting Report. J. Neuromuscul. Dis. 2020, 7, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wan, H.W.Y.; Carey, K.A.; D’Silva, A.; Vucic, S.; Kiernan, M.C.; Kasparian, N.A.; Farrar, M.A. Health, wellbeing and lived experiences of adults with SMA: A scoping systematic review. Orphanet J. Rare Dis 2020, 15, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Tramonti, F.; Bonfiglio, L.; Bongioanni, P.; Belviso, C.; Fanciullacci, C.; Rossi, B.; Chisari, C.; Carboncini, M.C. Caregiver burden and family functioning in different neurological diseases. Psychol. Health Med. 2019, 24, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Adelman, R.D.; Tmanova, L.L.; Delgado, D.; Dion, S.; Lachs, M.S. Caregiver burden: A clinical review. JAMA-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2014, 311, 1052–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Goldstein, L.H.; Atkins, L.; Landau, S.; Brown, R.; Leigh, P.N. Predictors of psychological distress in carers of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A longitudinal study. Psychol. Med. 2006, 36, 865–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. O’Connor, E.J.; McCabe, M.P. Predictors of quality of life in carers for people with a progressive neurological illness: A longitudinal study. Qual. Life Res. 2011, 20, 703–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Schischlevskij, P.; Cordts, I.; Günther, R.; Stolte, B.; Zeller, D.; Schröter, C.; Weyen, U.; Regensburger, M.; Wolf, J.; Schneider, I.; et al. Informal caregiving in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Als): A high caregiver burden and drastic consequences on caregivers’ lives. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. de Wit, J.; Bakker, L.A.; van Groenestijn, A.C.; van den Berg, L.H.; Schröder, C.D.; Visser-Meily, J.M.A.; Beelen, A. Caregiver burden in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A systematic review. Palliat. Med. 2018, 32, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Steinacker, P.; Huss, A.; Mayer, B.; Grehl, T.; Grosskreutz, J.; Borck, G.; Kuhle, J.; Lulé, D.; Meyer, T.; Oeckl, P.; et al. Diagnostic and prognostic significance of neurofilament light chain NF-L, but not progranulin and S100B, in the course of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Data from the German MND-net. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. Front. Degener. 2017, 18, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; STROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12, 1495–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Mercuri, E.; Messina, S.; Battini, R.; Berardinelli, A.; Boffi, P.; Bono, R.; Bruno, C.; Carboni, N.; Cini, C.; Colitto, F.; et al. Reliability of the Hammersmith functional motor scale for spinal muscular atrophy in a multicentric study. Neuromuscul. Disord. 2006, 16, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mazzone, E.S.; Mayhew, A.; Montes, J.; Ramsey, D.; Fanelli, L.; Young, S.D.; Salazar, R.; De Sanctis, R.; Pasternak, A.; Glanzman, A.; et al. Revised upper limb module for spinal muscular atrophy: Development of a new module. Muscle Nerve 2017, 55, 869–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mercuri, E.; Mayhew, A.; Muntoni, F.; Messina, S.; Straub, V.; Van Ommen, G.J.; Voit, T.; Bertini, E.; Bushby, K.; TREAT-NMD Neuromuscular Network. Towards harmonisation of outcome measures for DMD and SMA within TREAT-NMD; Report of three expert workshops: TREAT-NMD/ENMC Workshop on outcome measures, 12–13 May 2007, Naarden, The Netherlands; TREAT-NMD Workshop on outcome measures in experimental trials for DMD, 30 June–1 July 2007, Naarden, The Netherlands; Conjoint Institute of Myology TREAT-NMD Meeting on physical activity monitoring in neuromuscular disorders, 11th July 2007, Paris, France. Neuromuscul. Disord. 2008, 18, 894–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vincent, K.A.; Carr, A.J.; Walburn, J.; Scott, D.L.; Rose, M.R. Construction and validation of a quality of life questionnaire for neuromuscular disease (INQoL). Neurology 2007, 68, 1051–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. O’Hagen, J.M.; Glanzman, A.M.; McDermott, M.P.; Ryan, P.A.; Flickinger, J.; Quigley, J.; Riley, S.; Sanborn, E.; Irvine, C.; Martens, W.B.; et al. An expanded version of the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale for SMA II and III patients. Neuromuscul. Disord. 2007, 17, 693–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pera, M.C.; Coratti, G.; Forcina, N.; Mazzone, E.S.; Scoto, M.; Montes, J.; Pasternak, A.; Mayhew, A.; Messina, S.; Sframeli, M.; et al. Content validity and clinical meaningfulness of the HFMSE in spinal muscular atrophy. BMC Neurol. 2017, 17, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Pera, M.C.; Coratti, G.; Mazzone, E.S.; Montes, J.; Scoto, M.; De Sanctis, R.; Main, M.; Mayhew, A.; Muni Lofra, R.; Dunaway Young, S.; et al. Revised upper limb module for spinal muscular atrophy: 12 month changes. Muscle Nerve 2019, 59, 426–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cedarbaum, J.M.; Stambler, N.; Malta, E.; Fuller, C.; Hilt, D.; Thurmond, B.; Nakanishi, A. The ALSFRS-R: A revised ALS functional rating scale that incorporates assessments of respiratory function. J. Neurol. Sci. 1999, 169, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Brakemeier, S.; Stolte, B.; Thimm, A.; Kizina, K.; Totzeck, A.; Munoz-Rosales, J.; Kleinschnitz, C.; Hagenacker, T. Assessment of bulbar function in adult patients with 5q-sma type 2 and 3 under treatment with nusinersen. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pierzchlewicz, K.; Kępa, I.; Podogrodzki, J.; Kotulska, K. Spinal Muscular Atrophy: The Use of Functional Motor Scales in the Era of Disease-Modifying Treatment. Child Neurol. Open 2021, 8, 2329048X211008725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Meyer, T.; Maier, A.; Uzelac, Z.; Hagenacker, T.; Günther, R.; Schreiber-Katz, O.; Weiler, M.; Steinbach, R.; Weyen, U.; Koch, J.C.; et al. Treatment expectations and perception of therapy in adult patients with spinal muscular atrophy receiving nusinersen. Eur. J. Neurol. 2021, 28, 2582–2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mahoney, F.I.; Barthel, D.W. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md. State Med. J. 1965, 14, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
  38. Shah, S.; Vanclay, F.; Cooper, B. Improving the senstivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1989, 42, 703–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Feng, Y.S.; Kohlmann, T.; Janssen, M.F.; Buchholz, I. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: A systematic review of the literature. Qual. Life Res. 2020, 30, 647–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ludwig, K. Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W. German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics 2018, 36, 663–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Herdman, M.; Gudex, C.; Lloyd, A.; Janssen, M.; Kind, P.; Parkin, D.; Bonsel, G.; Badia, X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 2011, 20, 1727–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Green, C.; Kiebert, G.; Murphy, C.; Mitchell, J.D.; O’Brien, M.; Burrell, A.; Leigh, P.N. Patients’ health-related quality-of-life and health state values for motor neurone disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Qual. Life Res. 2003, 12, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Banks, P.; Martin, C.R.; Petty, R.K.H. The factor structure of the SF-36 in adults with progressive neuromuscular disorders. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2012, 18, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lins, L.; Carvalho, F.M. SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: Scoping review. SAGE Open Med. 2016, 4, 205031211667172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. McHorney, C.A.; Ware, J.E., Jr.; Lu, J.F.; Sherbourne, C.D. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med. Care 1994, 32, 40–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ware, J.E., Jr. SF-36 Health Survey Update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25, 3130–3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hammer, E.M.; Häcker, S.; Hautzinger, M.; Meyer, T.D.; Kübler, A. Validity of the ALS-Depression-Inventory (ADI-12)- A new screening instrument for depressive disorders in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J. Affect. Disord. 2008, 109, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zigmond, A.S.; Snaith, R.P. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 1983, 67, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Burke, T.; Elamin, M.; Galvin, M.; Hardiman, O.; Pender, N. Caregiver burden in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A cross-sectional investigation of predictors. J. Neurol. 2015, 262, 1526–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bjelland, I.; Dahl, A.A.; Haug, T.T.; Neckelmann, D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale An updated literature review. J. Psychosom. Res. 2002, 52, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Smarr, K.L.; Keefer, A.L. Measures of depression and depressive symptoms: Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Arthritis Rheum. 2011, 63, S454–S466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ankri, J.; Andrieu, S.; Beaufils, B.; Grand, A.; Henrard, J.C. Beyond the global score of the Zarit Burden Interview: Useful dimensions for clinicians. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2005, 20, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zarit, S.H.; Todd, P.A.; Zarit, J.M. Subjective Burden of Husbands and Wives as Caregivers: A Longitudinal Study 1. Gerontologist 1986, 26, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hsieh, S.; Leyton, C.E.; Caga, J.; Flanagan, E.; Kaizik, C.; O’Connor, C.M.; Kiernan, M.C.; Hodges, J.R.; Piguet, O.; Mioshi, E. The evolution of caregiver burden in frontotemporal dementia with and without amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2015, 49, 875–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schreiner, A.S.; Morimoto, T.; Arai, Y.; Zarit, S. Assessing family caregiver’s mental health using a statistically derived cut-off score for the Zarit Burden Interview. Aging Ment. Health 2006, 10, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Grochtdreis, T.; Dams, J.; König, H.H.; Konnopka, A. Health-related quality of life measured with the EQ-5D-5L: Estimation of normative index values based on a representative German population sample and value set. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2019, 20, 933–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chambers, G.M.; Settumba, S.N.; Carey, K.A.; Cairns, A.; Menezes, M.P.; Ryan, M.; Farrar, M.A. Prenusinersen economic and health-related quality of life burden of spinal muscular atrophy. Neurology 2020, 95, e1–e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Peña-Longobardo, L.M.; Aranda-Reneo, I.; Oliva-Moreno, J.; Litzkendorf, S.; Durand-Zaleski, I.; Tizzano, E.; López-Bastida, J. The economic impact and health-related quality of life of spinal muscular atrophy. An analysis across europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McMillan, H.J.; Gerber, B.; Cowling, T.; Khuu, W.; Mayer, M.; Wu, J.W.; Maturi, B.; Klein-Panneton, K.; Cabalteja, C.; Lochmüller, H. Burden of Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) on Patients and Caregivers in Canada. J. Neuromuscul. Dis. 2021, 8, 553–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. López-Bastida, J.; Peña-Longobardo, L.M.; Aranda-Reneo, I.; Tizzano, E.; Sefton, M.; Oliva-Moreno, J. Social/economic costs and health-related quality of life in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in Spain. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2017, 12, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Abresch, R.T.; Carter, G.T.; Jensen, M.P.; Kilmer, D.D. Assessment of pain and health-related quality of life in slowly progressive neuromuscular disease. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Med. 2002, 19, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Kruitwagen-Van Reenen, E.T.; Wadman, R.I.; Visser-Meily, J.M.; van den Berg, L.H.; Schröder, C.; van der Pol, W.L. Correlates of health related quality of life in adult patients with spinal muscular atrophy. Muscle Nerve 2016, 54, 850–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Lue, Y.J.; Chen, S.S.; Lu, Y.M. Quality of life of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: From adolescence to young men. Disabil. Rehabil. 2017, 39, 1408–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pangalila, R.F.; van den Bos, G.A.; Bartels, B.; Bergen, M.; Stam, H.J.; Roebroeck, M.E. Prevalence of Fatigue, Pain, and Affective Disorders in Adults With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Their Associations With Quality of Life. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2015, 96, 1242–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Günther, R.; Wurster, C.D.; Cordts, I.; Koch, J.C.; Kamm, C.; Petzold, D.; Aust, E.; Deschauer, M.; Lingor, P.; Ludolph, A.C.; et al. Patient-Reported Prevalence of Non-motor Symptoms Is Low in Adult Patients Suffering From 5q Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Paganoni, S.; McDonnell, E.; Schoenfeld, D.; Yu, H.; Deng, J.; Atassi, H.; Sherman, A.; Yerramilli-Rao, P.; Cudkowicz, M.; Atassi, N. Functional Decline is Associated with Hopelessness in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). J. Neurol. Neurophysiol. 2017, 08, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Bourke, S.C.; Bullock, R.E.; Williams, T.L.; Shaw, P.J.; Gibson, G.J. Noninvasive ventilation in ALS Indications and effect on quality of life. Neurology 2003, 61, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Piepers, S.; van den Berg, J.P.; Kalmijn, S.; van der Pol, W.L.; Wokke, J.H.; Lindeman, E.; van den Berg, L.H. Effect of non-invasive ventilation on survival, quality of life, respiratory function and cognition: A review of the literature. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. 2006, 7, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Peseschkian, T.; Cordts, I.; Günther, R.; Stolte, B.; Zeller, D.; Schröter, C.; Weyen, U.; Regensburger, M.; Wolf, J.; Schneider, I.; et al. A nation-wide, multi-center study on the quality of life of ALS patients in Germany. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Crescimanno, G.; Greco, F.; D’Alia, R.; Messina, L.; Marrone, O. Quality of life in long term ventilated adult patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul. Disord. 2019, 29, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Landfeldt, E.; Lindgren, P.; Bell, C.F.; Guglieri, M.; Straub, V.; Lochmüller, H.; Bushby, K. Quantifying the burden of caregiving in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J. Neurol. 2016, 263, 906–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Aranda-Reneo, I.; Peña-Longobardo, L.M.; Oliva-Moreno, J.; Litzkendorf, S.; Durand-Zaleski, I.; Tizzano, E.F.; López-Bastida, J. The burden of spinal muscular atrophy on informal caregivers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Burke, T.; Hardiman, O.; Pinto-Grau, M.; Lonergan, K.; Heverin, M.; Tobin, K.; Staines, A.; Galvin, M.; Pender, N. Longitudinal predictors of caregiver burden in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A population-based cohort of patient–caregiver dyads. J. Neurol. 2018, 265, 793–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. de Oliveira, G.R.; Neto, J.F.; de Camargo, S.M.; Lucchetti, A.L.G.; Espinha, D.C.M.; Lucchetti, G. Caregiving across the lifespan: Comparing caregiver burden, mental health, and quality of life. Psychogeriatrics 2015, 15, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cremers, C.H.; Fischer, M.J.; Kruitwagen-van Reenen, E.T.; Wadman, R.I.; Vervoordeldonk, J.J.; Verhoef, M.; Visser-Meily, J.M.; van der Pol, W.L.; Schröder, C.D. Participation and mental well-being of mothers of home-living patients with spinal muscular atrophy. Neuromuscul. Disord. 2019, 29, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Labaka, A.; Goñi-Balentziaga, O.; Lebeña, A.; Pérez-Tejada, J. Biological Sex Differences in Depression: A Systematic Review. Biol. Res. Nurs. 2018, 20, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Parker, G.; Brotchie, H. Gender differences in depression. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 2010, 22, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gauthier, A.; Vignola, A.; Calvo, A.; Cavallo, E.; Moglia, C.; Sellitti, L.; Mutani, R.; Chiò, A. A longitudinal study on quality of life and depression in ALS patient-caregiver couples. Neurology 2007, 68, 923–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kim, M.S.; Shin, H.I.; Min, Y.; Kim, J.Y.; Kim, J.S. Correlation between severe als patient-caregiver couples’ characteristics and caregivers’ health related quality of life. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. 2011, 41, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Morfeld, M.; Bullinger, M.; Nantke, J.; Brähler, E. Die Version 2.0 des SF-36 Health Survey-Ergebnisse einer bevölkerungsrepräsentativen Studie. Soz Prav. 2005, 50, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kiefer, P.; Kirschner, J.; Pechmann, A.; Langer, T. Experiences of caregivers of children with spinal muscular atrophy participating in the expanded access program for nusinersen: A longitudinal qualitative study. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2020, 15, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Thimm, A.; Brakemeier, S.; Kizina, K.; Munoz Rosales, J.; Stolte, B.; Totzeck, A.; Deuschl, C.; Kleinschnitz, C.; Hagenacker, T. Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Adult Spinal Muscular Atrophy Under Nusinersen Treatment—A Pilot Study. Front. Neurol. 2022, 12, 812063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Osmanovic, A.; Ranxha, G.; Kumpe, M.; Müschen, L.; Binz, C.; Wiehler, F.; Paracka, L.; Körner, S.; Kollewe, K.; Petri, S.; et al. Treatment expectations and patient-reported outcomes of nusinersen therapy in adult spinal muscular atrophy. J. Neurol. 2020, 267, 2398–2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Osmanovic, A.; Ranxha, G.; Kumpe, M.; Wurster, C.D.; Stolte, B.; Cordts, I.; Günther, R.; Freigang, M.; Müschen, L.H.; Binz, C.; et al. Treatment satisfaction in 5q-spinal muscular atrophy under nusinersen therapy. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 2021, 14, 1756286421998902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Darras, B.T.; Masson, R.; Mazurkiewicz-Bełdzińska, M.; Rose, K.; Xiong, H.; Zanoteli, E.; Baranello, G.; Bruno, C.; Vlodavets, D.; Wang, Y.; et al. Risdiplam-Treated Infants with Type 1 Spinal Muscular Atrophy versus Historical Controls. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Baranello, G.; Darras, B.T.; Day, J.W.; Deconinck, N.; Klein, A.; Masson, R.; Mercuri, E.; Rose, K.; El-Khairi, M.; Gerber, M.; et al. Risdiplam in Type 1 Spinal Muscular Atrophy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 915–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Strauss, K.A.; Farrar, M.A.; Muntoni, F.; Saito, K.; Mendell, J.R.; Servais, L.; McMillan, H.J.; Finkel, R.S.; Swoboda, K.J.; Kwon, J.M.; et al. Onasemnogene abeparvovec for presymptomatic infants with three copies of SMN2 at risk for spinal muscular atrophy: The Phase III SPR1NT trial. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 1390–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Strauss, K.A.; Farrar, M.A.; Muntoni, F.; Saito, K.; Mendell, J.R.; Servais, L.; McMillan, H.J.; Finkel, R.S.; Swoboda, K.J.; Kwon, J.M.; et al. Onasemnogene abeparvovec for presymptomatic infants with two copies of SMN2 at risk for spinal muscular atrophy type 1: The Phase III SPR1NT trial. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 1381–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Association of the SF-36 dimensions Physical Functioning, Vitality, Mental Health, and Bodily Pain with patients’ characteristics. While patients with a more severe disease (≤3 SMN2 copies, wheelchair use and scoliosis) reported low scores in the dimension of Physical Functioning, they reported better Mental Health and Vitality and less Bodily Pain. Abbreviations: SMN2 = survival motor neuron 2 gene; SF-36 = Short Form Health survey 36; * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 1. Association of the SF-36 dimensions Physical Functioning, Vitality, Mental Health, and Bodily Pain with patients’ characteristics. While patients with a more severe disease (≤3 SMN2 copies, wheelchair use and scoliosis) reported low scores in the dimension of Physical Functioning, they reported better Mental Health and Vitality and less Bodily Pain. Abbreviations: SMN2 = survival motor neuron 2 gene; SF-36 = Short Form Health survey 36; * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Brainsci 13 00110 g001
Figure 2. Association of the DOC with patients’ characteristics. Similarly to CGB, a higher DOC was associated with wheelchair use, as well as the use of NIV and PEG. Further, primary CGs had a higher DOC compared to non-primary CGs (p = 0.036, n = 49). Abbreviations: CG = caregiver; CGB = caregiver burden; DOC = duration of care; NIV = non-invasive ventilation; PEG = Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy; ZBI = Zarit Burden Interview * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 2. Association of the DOC with patients’ characteristics. Similarly to CGB, a higher DOC was associated with wheelchair use, as well as the use of NIV and PEG. Further, primary CGs had a higher DOC compared to non-primary CGs (p = 0.036, n = 49). Abbreviations: CG = caregiver; CGB = caregiver burden; DOC = duration of care; NIV = non-invasive ventilation; PEG = Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy; ZBI = Zarit Burden Interview * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Brainsci 13 00110 g002
Table 1. Patients’ characteristics and HRQoL: This table shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients participating in the HRQoL analysis. The patients were dichotomized into high- and low-HRQoL groups according to their EQ-5D-5L index value (>0.679 or <0.259). Statistical parameters printed in bold type indicate statistically significant differences between the high- and low-HRQoL groups. * indicates that a Mann–Whitney U Test was performed. # indicates that either chi-Square or Fisher’s exact tests were performed. Abbreviations: EQ-5D-5L = EuroQoL Five Dimension Five Level Scale; HRQoL = health-related quality of life; n = number; BMI = Body Mass Index; SMA = spinal muscular atrophy; SMN2 = survival motor neuron 2 gene; NIV = non-invasive ventilation; PEG = percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; ALSFRS-R = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised; RULM = Revised Upper Limb Module; HFMSE = Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded; ADI-12 = ALS-Depression Inventory-12; VAS = Visual Analogue Scale; SF-36 = Short Form Health Survey 36.
Table 1. Patients’ characteristics and HRQoL: This table shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients participating in the HRQoL analysis. The patients were dichotomized into high- and low-HRQoL groups according to their EQ-5D-5L index value (>0.679 or <0.259). Statistical parameters printed in bold type indicate statistically significant differences between the high- and low-HRQoL groups. * indicates that a Mann–Whitney U Test was performed. # indicates that either chi-Square or Fisher’s exact tests were performed. Abbreviations: EQ-5D-5L = EuroQoL Five Dimension Five Level Scale; HRQoL = health-related quality of life; n = number; BMI = Body Mass Index; SMA = spinal muscular atrophy; SMN2 = survival motor neuron 2 gene; NIV = non-invasive ventilation; PEG = percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; ALSFRS-R = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised; RULM = Revised Upper Limb Module; HFMSE = Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded; ADI-12 = ALS-Depression Inventory-12; VAS = Visual Analogue Scale; SF-36 = Short Form Health Survey 36.
Patients’ Characteristics and HRQoL
Patients’ Characteristics
All
n (%)/Median (Range)
EQ-5D-5L Index Value > 0.679 n = 11 (100%)EQ-5D-5L Index Value < 0.259
n = 11 (100%)
Sex (n = 39)
Male
Female
25 (64.1%)
14 (35.9%)
5 (45.5%)
6 (54.5%)
8 (72.7%)
3 (27.3%)
p = 0.193; n = 22 #
Age, years (n = 39)36 (19–65)39 (22–64)33 (19–51)p = 0.028, n = 22 *
BMI (kg/m²) (n = 30)22.9 (10.7–35.9)22.9 (18.6–32.3)22.9 (10.7–35.9)p = 0.478, n = 22 *
Marital status (n = 39)
Single
Married/in a relationship
27 (69.2%)
12 (30.8%)
6 (54.5%)
5 (45.5%)
9 (81.8%)
2 (18.2%)
p = 0.170; n = 22 #
SMA type (n = 39)
II
III/IV
13 (33.3%)
26 (66.7%)
1 (9.1%)
10 (90.9%)
7 (63.6%)
4 (36.4%)
p = 0.008; n = 22 #
SMN2 copy number (n = 39)
≤3
≥4
Unknown
17 (43.6%)
16 (41%)
6 (15.4%)
2 (18.2%)
9 (81.8%)
9 (81.8%)
2 (18.2%)
p = 0.003; n = 22 #
Use of wheelchair (n = 39)
Yes
No
22 (56.4%)
17 (43.6%)
1 (9.1%)
10 (90.9%)
11 (100%)
0 (0%)
p < 0.001; n = 22 #
Use of NIV (n = 39)
Yes
No
9 (23.1%)
30 (76.9%)
0 (0%)
11 (100%)
4 (36.4%)
7 (63.6%)
p = 0.027; n = 22 #
Use of PEG (n = 39)
Yes
No
3 (7.7%)
36 (92.3%)
0 (0%)
11 (100%)
1 (9.1%)
10 (90.9%)
p = 0.306; n = 22 #
Scoliosis (n = 39)
Yes
No
Unknown
17 (43.6%)
21 (53.8%)
1 (2.6%)
2 (18.2%)
9 (81.8%)
8 (72.7%)
2 (18.2%)
1 (9.1%)
p = 0.005; n = 22 #
Barthel-Index (n = 22); 0–10047.5 (10–100)95 (80–100)25 (10–35)p = 0.036, n = 8 *
ALSFRS-R score (n = 39); 0–4834 (0–48)43 (29–48)29 (10–38)p < 0.001, n = 22 *
RULM (n = 39); 0–3721 (0–37)37 (7–37)12 (0–30)p = 0.002, n = 22 *
HFMSE (n = 39); 0–6612 (0–66)47 (2–63)6 (0–19)p < 0.001, n = 22 *
ADI-12 (n = 35); 0–4818 (12–32)20 (14–30)16.5 (12–32)p = 0.314, n = 21 *
Measures of HRQoL
EQ-5D-5L
All
n (%)/Median (range)
EQ-5D-5L Index Value > 0.679
n = 11 (100%)
EQ-5D-5L Index Value  < 0.259
n = 11 (100%)
EQ-5D-5L VAS (n = 22); 0–10052.5 (25–100)60 (35–75)50 (25–100)p = 0.065, n = 22 *
EQ-5D-5L Index Value (n = 22); −0.661–10.469 (0.031–0.918)0.806 (0.679–0.918)0.175(0.031–0.259)
SF-36; 0–100
Physical Functioning (n = 33)5 (0–90)15 (0–75)0 (0–10)p = 0.004, n = 21 *
Role Physical (n = 34)50 (0–100)50 (0–100)25 (0–100)p = 0.401, n = 22 *
Role Emotional (n = 30)100 (0–100)100 (0–100)100 (100)p = 0.515, n = 18 *
Vitality (n = 30)55 (15–100)45 (20–65)65 (15–100)p = 0.146, n = 18 *
Mental Health (n = 31)72 (52–100)68 (52–80)76 (52–100)p = 0.156, n = 19 *
Social Functioning (n = 32)75 (25–100)75 (25–100)75 (25–100)p = 1.000, n = 20 *
Bodily Pain (n = 29)100 (41–100)74 (51–100)100 (41–100)p = 0.364, n = 17 *
General Health (n = 29)52 (17–87)52 (40–70)40 (35–72)p = 0.364, n = 17 *
Health Transition (n = 34)50 (25–100)25 (25–50)50 (25–50)p = 0.300, n = 22 *
Table 2. Influencing factors on HRQoL in SMA patients during nusinersen-loading period. The EQ-5D-5L index value was the dependent variable in the multiple linear regression analysis with backward stepwise selection. The HFMSE was used as covariate. Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, HFMSE = Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded, NIV = non-invasive ventilation.
Table 2. Influencing factors on HRQoL in SMA patients during nusinersen-loading period. The EQ-5D-5L index value was the dependent variable in the multiple linear regression analysis with backward stepwise selection. The HFMSE was used as covariate. Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, HFMSE = Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded, NIV = non-invasive ventilation.
ParameterRegression CoefficientStandardized Coefficient (ß)Std. Errorp-Value95% CI
HFMSE0.0131.0190.0030.0020.006–0.020
NIV−0.266−0.3750.1140.047−0.529–−0.004
Scoliosis0.3070.4530.1550.0830.665–0.300
Table 3. Caregivers’ characteristics, burden and HRQoL. This table shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patient/caregiver pairs. The pairs were dichotomized into a high-burden group and a low-burden group according to the CG’s ZBI score (cut-off = 24). Statistical parameters printed in bold type indicate statistically significant differences between the high- and the low-burden groups. * indicates that a Mann–Whitney U Test was performed. # indicates that either chi-Square or Fisher’s exact tests were performed. Abbreviations: n = number; HRQoL = health-related quality of life; CG = caregiver; ZBI = Zarit Burden Interview; DOC = duration of care; HADS-D = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—Depression Subscale; HADS-A = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—Anxiety Subscale; EQ-5D-5L = EuroQoLFive Dimension Five Level Scale; VAS = Visual Analog Scale; SF-36 = Short Form Health Survey 36; ALSFRS-R = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised; PEG= percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; NIV = non-invasive ventilation.
Table 3. Caregivers’ characteristics, burden and HRQoL. This table shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patient/caregiver pairs. The pairs were dichotomized into a high-burden group and a low-burden group according to the CG’s ZBI score (cut-off = 24). Statistical parameters printed in bold type indicate statistically significant differences between the high- and the low-burden groups. * indicates that a Mann–Whitney U Test was performed. # indicates that either chi-Square or Fisher’s exact tests were performed. Abbreviations: n = number; HRQoL = health-related quality of life; CG = caregiver; ZBI = Zarit Burden Interview; DOC = duration of care; HADS-D = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—Depression Subscale; HADS-A = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—Anxiety Subscale; EQ-5D-5L = EuroQoLFive Dimension Five Level Scale; VAS = Visual Analog Scale; SF-36 = Short Form Health Survey 36; ALSFRS-R = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised; PEG= percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; NIV = non-invasive ventilation.
Caregivers’ Characteristics, Burden, and HRQoL
Caregivers’ Characteristics
All
n (%)/Median (Range)
Low Burden ZBI < 24
n = 28 (100%)/
Median (Range)
High Burden ZBI ≥ 24
n = 21 (100%)/
Median (Range)
Sex (n = 49)
Male
Female
11 (22.4%)
38 (77.6%)
8 (28.6%)
20 (71.4%)
3 (14.3)
18 (85.7%)
p = 0.236; n = 49 #
Age, years (n = 47)52 (24–77)52 (24–77)51.5 (41–72)p = 0.282; n = 47 *
Marital status (n = 49)
Single
Married/partner
6 (12.2%)
43 (87.7%)
3 (10.7%)
25 (89.3%)
3 (14.3%)
18 (85.7%)
p = 0.706; n = 49 #
Primary caregiver (n = 49)
Yes
No
37 (75.5%)
12 (24.5%)
20 (71.4%)
8 (28.6%)
17 (81%)
4 (19%)
p = 0.443; n = 49 #
Permanent CG attendance necessary (n = 25)
Yes
No
12 (48.0%)
13 (52.0%)
4 (30.8%)
9 (69.2%)
8 (66.7%)
4 (33.3%)
p = 0.073; n = 25 #
Relation to the patient (n = 49)
Spouse
Parent
Sibling
Child
Other
16 (32.7%)
16 (32.7%)
2 (4.1%)
14 (28.6%)
1 (2%)
14 (50%)
9 (32.1%)
1 (3.6%)
3 (10.7%)
1 (3.6%)
2 (9.5%)
7 (33.3%)
1 (4.8%)
11 (52.4%)
0 (0%)
p = 0.007; n = 49 #
Employment (n = 49)
Working
Not working
Retired or homemaker
28 (57.1%)
7 (14.3%)
14 (28.6%)
18 (64.3%)
2 (7.1%)
8 (28.6%)
10 (47.6%)
5 (23.8%)
6 (28.6%)
p = 0.233; n = 49 #
Caregivers’ burden, health impairments, and HRQoLAll
n (%)/Median (Range)
Low Burden ZBI < 24
n = 28 (100%)/
Median (Range)
High Burden ZBI ≥ 24
n = 21 (100%)/
Median (Range)
DOC, hours (n = 49)4.5 (0–22)2.5 (0–22)8.0 (0–22)p = 0.017, n = 49 *
ZBI score (n = 49); 0–8822 (0–42)12.5 (0–23)31 (25–42)
Health impairment due to caregiving (n = 49)
Yes
No
23 (46.9%)
26 (53.1%)
9 (32.1%)
19 (67.9%)
14 (66.7%)
7 (33.3%)
p = 0.017; n = 49 #
Physical and mental health impairments due to caregiving (n = 49)16 (32.7%)5 (17.9%)11 (52.4%)p = 0.011; n = 23 #
HADS-D score (n = 45); 0–213 (0–11)2 (0–7)6 (1–11)p < 0.001, n = 45 *
HADS-A score (n = 45); 0–215 (0–12)4.5 (0–9)6 (1–12)p = 0.027, n = 45 *
EQ-5D-5L
EQ-5D-5L VAS (n = 47); 0–10080 (40–100)80 (60–100)80 (40–90)p = 0.115, n = 47 *
EQ-5D-5L Index Value (n = 48); −0.661–10.910 (0.085–1)0.910 (0.085–1.000)0.909 (0.291–1.000)p = 0.041, n = 48 *
SF-36; 0–100
Physical Functioning (n = 49)95 (0–100)95 (0–100)90 (70–100)p = 0.623, n = 49 *
Bodily Pain (n = 49)74 (22–100)84 (22–100)64 (22–100)p = 0.021, n = 49 *
General Health (n = 49)72 (37–100)74.5 (37–100)67 (45–97)p = 0.366, n = 49 *
Vitality (n = 49)60 (10–85)65 (25–80)50 (10–85)p = 0.004, n = 49 *
Social Functioning (n = 49)87.5 (38–100)100 (63–100)75 (38–100)p = 0.001, n = 49 *
Role Emotional (n = 49)100 (0–100)100 (0–100)100 (0–100)p = 0.413, n = 49 *
Mental Health (n = 49)76 (28–92)84 (36–92)72 (28–84)p = 0.003, n = 49 *
Health Transition (n = 49)50 (25–100)50 (25–100)50 (25–100)p = 0.151, n = 49 *
Patients’ characteristicsAll
n (%)/Median (Range)
Low Burden ZBI < 24
n = 28 (100%)/Median (Range)
High Burden ZBI ≥ 24
n = 21 (100%)/
Median (Range)
Sex (n = 49)
Female
Male
19 (38.8%)
30 (61.2%)
9 (32.1%)
19 (67.9%)
10 (47.6%)
11 (52.4%)
p = 0.271; n = 49 #
Age (n = 49)29 (7–65)32 (7–65)24 (11–49)p = 0.014, n = 49 *
Wheelchair use (n = 49)
Yes
No
38 (77.6%)
11 (22.4%)
18 (64.3%)
10 (35.7%)
20 (95.2%)
1 (4.8%)
p = 0.010; n = 49 #
NIV and PEG (n = 49)
Yes
No
13 (26.5%)
36 (73.5%)
5 (17.9%)
23 (82.1%)
8 (38.1%)
13 (61.9%)
p = 0.112; n = 49 #
Barthel-Index (n = 49)30 (0–100)35 (0–100)25 (0–95)p = 0.008, n = 49 *
ALSFRS-R score (n = 49); 0–4830 (0–47)33 (0–47)28 (16–39)p = 0.018, n = 49 *
EQ-5D-5L VAS (n = 28); 0–10060 (10–100)65 (10–90)55 (30–100)p = 0.387, n = 28 *
EQ-5D-5L Index Value (n = 28); −0.661–10.208 (−0.018–1)0.175 (−0.018–1)0.241 (0.063–0.755)p = 0.457, n = 28 *
Table 4. Regression analyses of predictors of CGB: The ZBI score was the dependent variable in the multiple linear regression with backward stepwise selection. Abbreviations: HADS-A = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale–Anxiety Subscale, CI = confidence interval.
Table 4. Regression analyses of predictors of CGB: The ZBI score was the dependent variable in the multiple linear regression with backward stepwise selection. Abbreviations: HADS-A = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale–Anxiety Subscale, CI = confidence interval.
ParameterRegression CoefficientStandardized Coefficient (ß)Std. Errorp-Value95% CI
Barthel-Index−0.137−0.4240.0460.009−0.235–−0.039
HADS-A1.4470.4030.5100.0110.372–2.523
Health impairments due to caregiving8.8730.3963.3120.0161.885–15.860
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wohnrade, C.; Velling, A.-K.; Mix, L.; Wurster, C.D.; Cordts, I.; Stolte, B.; Zeller, D.; Uzelac, Z.; Platen, S.; Hagenacker, T.; et al. Health-Related Quality of Life in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patients and Their Caregivers—A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Multi-Center Analysis. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13010110

AMA Style

Wohnrade C, Velling A-K, Mix L, Wurster CD, Cordts I, Stolte B, Zeller D, Uzelac Z, Platen S, Hagenacker T, et al. Health-Related Quality of Life in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patients and Their Caregivers—A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Multi-Center Analysis. Brain Sciences. 2023; 13(1):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13010110

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wohnrade, Camilla, Ann-Kathrin Velling, Lucas Mix, Claudia D. Wurster, Isabell Cordts, Benjamin Stolte, Daniel Zeller, Zeljko Uzelac, Sophia Platen, Tim Hagenacker, and et al. 2023. "Health-Related Quality of Life in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patients and Their Caregivers—A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Multi-Center Analysis" Brain Sciences 13, no. 1: 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13010110

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop