Search

Importance: There is increasing evidence that early diagnosis and treatment are key for outcomes in infants with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and newborn screening programs have been implemented to detect the disease before onset of symptoms. However, data from controlled studies that reliably confirm the benefits of newborn screening are lacking., Objective: To compare data obtained on patients with SMA diagnosed through newborn screening and those diagnosed after clinical symptom onset., Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial used data from the SMARTCARE registry to evaluate all children born between January 2018 and September 2021 with genetically confirmed SMA and up to 3 SMN2 copies. The registry includes data from 70 participating centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Data analysis was performed in February 2023 so that all patients had a minimal follow-up of 18 months., Exposure: Patients born in 2 federal states in Germany underwent screening in a newborn screening pilot project. All other patients were diagnosed after clinical symptom onset. All patients received standard care within the same health care system., Main Outcomes: The primary end point was the achievement of motor milestones., Results: A total of 234 children (123 [52.6%] female) were identified who met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 44 (18.8%) in the newborn screening cohort and 190 children (81.2%) in the clinical symptom onset cohort. The mean (SD) age at start of treatment with 1 of the approved disease-modifying drugs was 1.3 (2.2) months in the newborn screening cohort and 10.7 (9.1) months in the clinical symptom onset cohort. In the newborn screening cohort, 40 of 44 children (90.9%) gained the ability to sit independently vs 141 of 190 (74.2%) in the clinical symptom onset cohort. For independent ambulation, the ratio was 28 of 40 (63.6%) vs 28 of 190 (14.7%)., Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized controlled trial demonstrated effectiveness of newborn screening for infants with SMA in the real-world setting. Functional outcomes and thus the response to treatment were significantly better in the newborn screening cohort compared to the unscreened clinical symptom onset group., Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00012699.

Newborn screening for 5qSMA offers the potential for early, ideally pre-symptomatic, therapeutic intervention. However, limited data exist on the outcomes of individuals with 4 copies of SMN2, and there is no consensus within the SMA treatment community regarding early treatment initiation in this subgroup. To provide evidence-based insights into disease progression, we performed a retrospective analysis of 268 patients with 4 copies of SMN2 from the SMArtCARE registry in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Inclusion criteria required comprehensive baseline data and diagnosis outside of newborn screening. Only data prior to initiation of disease-modifying treatment were included. The median age at disease onset was 3.0 years, with a mean of 6.4 years. Significantly, 55% of patients experienced symptoms before the age of 36 months. 3% never learned to sit unaided, a further 13% never gained the ability to walk independently and 33% of ambulatory patients lost this ability during the course of the disease. 43% developed scoliosis, 6.3% required non-invasive ventilation and 1.1% required tube feeding. In conclusion, our study, in line with previous observations, highlights the substantial phenotypic heterogeneity in SMA. Importantly, this study provides novel insights: the median age of disease onset in patients with 4 SMN2 copies typically occurs before school age, and in half of the patients even before the age of three years. These findings support a proactive approach, particularly early treatment initiation, in this subset of SMA patients diagnosed pre-symptomatically. However, it is important to recognize that the register will not include asymptomatic individuals., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Evidence for the efficacy of nusinersen in adults with 5q-associated spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) has been demonstrated up to a period of 16 months in relatively large cohorts but whereas patients reach a plateau over time is still to be demonstrated. We investigated the efficacy and safety of nusinersen in adults with SMA over 38 months, the longest time period to date in a large cohort of patients from multiple clinical sites., Methods: Our prospective, observational study included adult patients with SMA from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria (July 2017 to May 2022). All participants had genetically-confirmed, 5q-associated SMA and were treated with nusinersen according to the label. The total Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE) and Revised Upper Limb Module (RULM) scores, and 6-min walk test (6 MWT; metres), were recorded at baseline and 14, 26, and 38 months after treatment initiation, and pre and post values were compared. Adverse events were also recorded., Findings: Overall, 389 patients were screened for eligibility and 237 were included. There were significant increases in all outcome measures compared with baseline, including mean HFMSE scores at 14 months (mean difference 1.72 [95% CI 1.19-2.25]), 26 months (1.20 [95% CI 0.48-1.91]), and 38 months (1.52 [95% CI 0.74-2.30]); mean RULM scores at 14 months (mean difference 0.75 [95% CI 0.43-1.07]), 26 months (mean difference 0.65 [95% CI 0.27-1.03]), and 38 months (mean difference 0.72 [95% CI 0.25-1.18]), and 6 MWT at 14 months (mean difference 30.86 m [95% CI 18.34-43.38]), 26 months (mean difference 29.26 m [95% CI 14.87-43.65]), and 38 months (mean difference 32.20 m [95% CI 10.32-54.09]). No new safety signals were identified., Interpretation: Our prospective, observational, long-term (38 months) data provides further real-world evidence for the continuous efficacy and safety of nusinersen in a large proportion of adult patients with SMA., Funding: Financial support for the registry from Biogen, Novartis and Roche., Competing Interests: SB, ZU, MH, TK, KM, BI, JB, MTM, TB, BS, SF, CS, MTo, AG, MTue, MS, CR, PB, MFB, CK, KPS, SG, ST, JN, RS, MWeb, GW and OvV declare no conflicts of interest. RG has received personal fees from Biogen and Hoffmann-La Roche and served on advisory boards from Biogen, Hoffmann-La Roche, ITF Pharma, Zambon and research support from Biogen, outside of the submitted work. CDW has received personal fees from Biogen and Hoffmann–La Roche outside of the submitted work. AO has received speaker fees from Biogen outside of the submitted work. OSK received academic research support from the Hannover Medical School (MHH) and the German Neuromuscular Society “Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Muskelkranke” (DGM e.V.), 2019–2021 (grant no. Sc 23/1); and received honoraria as a speaker 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, outside the submitted work. SP has received speaker fees, non-financial support and research support from Biogen, Roche, AL-S Pharma, Amylyx, Cytokinetics, Ferrer, ITF-Pharma, Zambon, and Sanofi and served on advisory boards of Amylyx, Biogen, Roche, Zambon and ITF Pharma outside of the submitted work. MCW has served on advisory boards for Avexis, Biogen, Grünenthal, Novartis, Pfizer, PharNext, PTC Therapeutics, Roche, Santhera, Sarepta, Ultragenyx, Wave Sciences, received funding for Travel or Speaker Honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, PTC Therapeutics, Santhera, and worked as an ad-hoc consultant for Affinia, Audentes Therapeutics, Avexis, Biogen, BridgeBio, Edgewise, Fulcrum, Grünenthal, ML Bio, Novartis, Pfizer, PharNEXT, PTC Therapeutics, Roche. MWei has received advisory board and consultant honoraria from Biogen and Hoffmann-La Roche, and speaker honoraria and travel support for conference attendance from Biogen, outside of the submitted work. MW is a member of the European Reference Network for Neuromuscular Diseases (ERN EURO-NMD). MF has received a speaker honorarium and non-financial support from Biogen outside the submitted work. HSL is receiving advisory fees from Biogen but has no financial or non-financial conflict of interest to declare related to the content of this manuscript. IC has received research grants and speaker fees from Biogen and Hoffmann-La Roche, outside of the submitted work. PL has received honoraria for advisory boards and consultancies from Stadapharm, Abbvie, Alexion, Bial, ITF Pharma, Desitin, Novartis, Woolsey Pharma outside the scope of this work. MD has received personal fees as speaker/consultant from Biogen and Roche, outside of the submitted work. Aha received research grants from Novartis Gene Therapies, and advisory board honoraria and speaker fees from Biogen, Roche, and Novartis. AR has received advisory board honoraria from Biogen outside of the submitted work. DZ received compensation from Biogen for participation on advisory boards, from Novartis for consultancy work, and travel compensation from Angelini Pharma outside of the submitted work. JCK has received personal fees from Biogen and Roche for advisory boards and development of educational material outside of this study. AHe has received personal fees and non-financial support from Biogen and Desitin for advisory board meetings outside the reported work. CK has received advisory board honoraria from Biogen, Roche and Ipsen Pharma, speaker honoraria from Biogen and unrestricted travel grants from Ipsen outside of the submitted work. SN has received financial support for consultancy and lecturing from Allergan, Hormosan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva and Medscape, research support from Novartis, all outside of the submitted work. AM has received advisory board honoraria from Hormosan and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. CN has received personal fees from Biogen and Hoffmann–La Roche outside of the submitted work. HCL received honoraria for speaking and advisory board engagements or academic research support Biogen. MG has received an advisory board honorarium from Hoffmann-La Roche and a speaker fee from Novartis outside of the submitted work. AP received compensation for advisory boards, training activities and research grants from Novartis and Biogen. JK received compensation for clinical research and/or consultancy activities from Biogen, Novartis, Roche and ScholarRock. GB has received research grants from PTC, advisory board honoraria and speaker fees from Biogen, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, PTC and personal fees from Roche outside of the submitted work. PM has received honorary as an advisory board member from Biogen unrelated to this work. GMzH received compensation for serving on scientific advisory boards (Alexion, Roche, LFB) and speaker honoraria (Alexion). WL received advisory board honoraria and speaker fees from Biogen and Roche outside of the submitted work MFB has received honoraria from Biogen, Roche and Novartis as an advisory board member and for lectures from Novartis. US has received honoraria for counseling at advisory boards and invited talks for Biogen, Novartis and Roche. WMF has received compensation for scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis, PTC, Sarepta, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche and Cytokinetics and received travel expenses and speaker fees from Biogen, Novartis, PTC, Roche, Sarepta and Sanofi-Aventis. HLo received support for research projects and clinical trials from Amplo Biotechnology, AMO Pharma, argenx, Biogen, Desitin, Fulcrum Therapeutics, Harmony Biosciences, KYE Pharmaceuticals, Milo Biotechnology, Novartis, Pfizer, PTC Therapeutics, Hoffman-La Roche Limited, Sanofi-Genzyme, Santhera, Sarepta, Satellos, Spark Therapeutics and Ultragenyx. HL is the Editor-in-chief for the Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases (IOS Press). CK has received compensation for lectures and advisory boards as well as research funds from Biogen, Roche and Novartis. ACL is a member of Advisory Boards of Roche Pharma AG, Biogen, Alector and Amylyx. He received compensation for talks from Biologix, the German Society of Neurology, Biogen, Springer Medicine, Amylyx and the company Streamed Up! GmbH. He is involved in trials which are sponsored by Amylyx, Ferrer International, Novartis Research and Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Alexion, Orion Pharma, the European Union, BMBF, Biogen and Orphazyme, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, QurAlis and Alector. TH has received research grants, advisory board honoraria and speaker fees from Biogen, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis and personal fees from Roche and Novartis outside of the submitted work., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Specialist palliative care (SPC) includes care for incurably ill patients and their family caregivers at home or on a palliative care ward until the very end of life. However, in the last days of life, patients can rarely express their needs and little is known about SPC outcomes as reported by multiprofessional SPC teams and family caregivers., Methods: Using the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS; Score 0-40), proxy assessments of SPC outcomes in the patient's last 3 days of life were performed by SPC teams and primary family caregivers of three home care and three inpatient services. Additional questions were asked about problems solved 'particularly well' or 'inadequately' (last 7 days), which were content analyzed and quantified., Results: Proxy assessments by SPC teams were available in 142 patients (of whom 51% had died at home). Family caregiver assessments exist for a subgroup of 60 of these patients. SPC teams (POS total score: mean 13.8, SD 6.3) reported SPC outcomes slightly better than family caregivers (mean 16.7, SD 6.8). The POS items consistently rated as least affected (= 0) by both, SPC teams and family caregivers, were 'not wasted time' (team 99%/family caregivers 87%), 'information' (84%/47%) and 'support' (53%/31%). Items rated as most affected (= 4) were 'patient anxiety' (31%/51%), 'life not worthwhile' (26%/35%) and 'no self-worth' (19%/30%). Both groups indicated more problems solved 'particularly well' than 'inadequately'; the latter concerned mainly clinically well-known challenges during end-of-life care and family caregiver care., Conclusions: This study shows the range and type of symptoms and other concerns reported in the patient's last days. Starting points for further improvements in family caregiver care and psychosocial and spiritual issues were identified., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Personal last wishes of people facing a life-limiting illness may change closer to death and may vary across different forms of specialist palliative care (SPC)., Aims: To explore the presence and common themes of last wishes over time and according to the SPC settings (inpatient vs. home-based SPC), and to identify factors associated to having a last wish., Methods: Patients enrolled in a longitudinal study completed questionnaires at the onset (baseline, t 0 ) and within the first 6 weeks (follow-up, t 1 ) of SPC including an open-ended question on their personal last wishes. Last wishes were content analyzed, and all  wishes were coded for presence or absence of each of the identified themes. Changes of last wishes (t 0 -t 1 ) were analyzed by a McNemar test. The chi-square-test was used to compare the two SPC settings. Predictors for the presence of a last wish were identified by logistic regression analysis., Results: Three hundred sixty-one patients (mean age, 69.5 years; 49% female) answered at t 0 , and 130 at t 1 . In cross-sectional analyses, the presence of last wishes was higher at t 0 (67%) than at t 1 (59%). Comparisons revealed a higher presence of last wishes among inpatients than those in home-based SPC at t 0 (78% vs. 62%; p = .002), but not at t 1 . Inpatient SPC (OR = 1.987, p = .011) and greater physical symptom burden over the past week (OR = 1.168, p < .001) predicted presence of a last wish at t 0 . Common themes of last wishes were Travel, Activities, Regaining health, Quality of life, Being with family and friends, Dying comfortably, Turn back time, and Taking care of final matters. The most frequent theme was Travel, at both t 0 (31%) and t 1 (39%). Themes did not differ between SPC settings, neither at t 0 nor at t 1 . Longitudinal analyses (t 0 -t 1 ) showed no significant intra-personal changes in the presence or any themes of last wishes over time., Conclusions: In this late phase of their illness, many patients voiced last wishes. Our study suggests working with such wishes as a framework for person-centered care. Comparisons of SPC settings indicate that individualized approaches to patients' last wishes, rather than setting-specific approaches, may be important., (© 2022. The Author(s).)