Progressive ataxia in adults can be difficult to diagnose, owing to its heterogeneity and the rarity of individual causes. Many patients remain undiagnosed (‘idiopathic’ ataxia). This paper provides suggested diagnostic pathways for the general neurologist, based on Ataxia UK’s guidelines for professionals. MR brain scanning can provide diagnostic clues, as well as identify ‘structural’ causes such as tumours and multiple sclerosis. Advances in molecular genetics, including the wider and cheaper availability of ‘next-generation sequencing’, have enabled clinicians to identify many more cases with a genetic cause. Finally, autoimmunity is probably an under-recognised cause of progressive ataxia: as well as patients with antigliadin antibodies there are smaller numbers with various antibodies, including some associated with cancer. There are a few treatable ataxias, but also symptomatic treatments to help people with the spectrum of complications that might accompany progressive ataxias. Multidisciplinary team involvement and allied health professionals’ input are critical to excellent patient care, including in the palliative phase. We can no longer justify a nihilistic approach to the management of ataxia.

The progressive ataxias are a group of rare and complicated neurological disorders, knowledge of which is often poor among healthcare professionals (HCPs). The patient support group Ataxia UK, recognising the lack of awareness of this group of conditions, has developed medical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of ataxia. Although ataxia can be a symptom of many common conditions, the focus here is on the progressive ataxias, and include hereditary ataxia (e.g. spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA), Friedreich’s ataxia (FRDA)), idiopathic sporadic cerebellar ataxia, and specific neurodegenerative disorders in which ataxia is the dominant symptom (e.g. cerebellar variant of multiple systems atrophy (MSA-C)). Over 100 different disorders can lead to ataxia, so diagnosis can be challenging. Although there are no disease-modifying treatments for most of these entities, many aspects of the conditions are treatable, and their identification by HCPs is vital. The early diagnosis and management of the (currently) few reversible causes are also of paramount importance. More than 30 UK health professionals with experience in the field contributed to the guidelines, their input reflecting their respective clinical expertise in various aspects of ataxia diagnosis and management. They reviewed the published literature in their fields, and provided summaries on “best” practice, including the grading of evidence available for interventions, using the Guideline International Network (GIN) criteria, in the relevant sections. A Guideline Development Group, consisting of ataxia specialist neurologists and representatives of Ataxia UK (including patients and carers), reviewed all sections, produced recommendations with levels of evidence, and discussed modifications (where necessary) with contributors until consensus was reached. Where no specific published data existed, recommendations were based on data related to similar conditions (e.g. multiple sclerosis) and/or expert opinion. The guidelines aim to assist HCPs when caring for patients with progressive ataxia, indicate evidence-based (where it exists) and best practice, and act overall as a useful resource for clinicians involved in managing ataxic patients. They do, however, also highlight the urgent need to develop effective disease-modifying treatments, and, given the large number of recommendations based on “good practice points”, emphasise the need for further research to provide evidence for effective symptomatic therapies. These guidelines are aimed predominantly at HCPs in secondary care (such as general neurologists, clinical geneticists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, etc.) who provide care for individuals with progressive ataxia and their families, and not ataxia specialists. It is a useful, practical tool to forward to HCPs at the time referrals are made for on-going care, for example in the community. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article...

Background The development of new therapies may rely on the conduct of human experimentation as well as later clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. Ethical considerations seek to protect the patient from risk but few have sought to ascertain the attitude to such risk of patients with progressive debilitating or terminal conditions, for which no mitigating or curative therapies exist. Such understanding is also important if recruitment is to be maximized. We therefore sought to define the motivations for and barriers to trial participation amongst patients with progressive ataxias, as well as their condition-specific trial preferences. Methods We conducted an online survey consisting of 29 questions covering four key domains (demographics, personal motivation, drug therapy and study design) relating to the design of clinical trials. Two major ataxia charities, Ataxia UK and the Friedreich’s Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA) sent the survey to their members. Responses were analysed by disease and by ambulatory status. Results Of 342 respondents, 204 reported a diagnosis of Friedreich’s ataxia (FRDA), 55 inherited cerebellar ataxia (CA) and 70 idiopathic CA. The most important symptoms to be addressed by a trial were considered to be balance problems and ambulation, although these were superseded by speech problems in wheelchair users. Common motivations for participation were potential benefits to self and others. Reasons for non-participation included concerns about side effects, and the burden and cost of travel. Financial reimbursement for expenses was reported to be likely to increase trial engagement, Phase two trials were the most popular to participate in, and the use of a placebo arm was seen as a disincentive. Across all disease subgroups, drug repurposing trials proved popular and just under 70% of participants would be prepared to undergo intrathecal drug administration. Conclusions Knowledge of motivations for and barriers to trial participation as well as the acceptability of investigations, time commitments and routes of drug administration should inform better, more patient focused trial design. This in turn may improve recruitment and retention of participants to future trials.

Background Little is known about the costs of treating ataxia and whether treatment at a specialist ataxia centre affects the cost of care. The aim of this study was to investigate whether patients who attended specialist ataxia centres in three European countries reported differences in their health care use and costs compared with patients who did not attend a specialist ataxia centre. We compared mean resource use and health service costs per patient affected by ataxia in the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany over a 12-month period. Data were obtained from a survey distributed to people with ataxia in the three countries. We compared mean resource use for each contact type and costs, stratifying patients by whether they were currently attending a specialist ataxia centre or had never attended one.Results Responses were received from 181 patients from the United Kingdom, 96 from Italy and 43 from Germany. Differences in the numbers of contacts for most types of health service use between the specialist ataxia centre and non-specialist ataxia centre groups were non-significant. In the United Kingdom the mean total cost per patient was €2209 for non-specialist ataxia centre patients and €1813 for specialist ataxia centre patients (P = 0.59). In Italy these figures were €2126 and €1971, respectively (P = 0.84). In Germany they were €2431 and €4087, respectively (P = 0.19). Inpatient stays made the largest contribution to total costs.Conclusions Within each country, resource use and costs were broadly similar for specialist ataxia centre and non-specialist ataxia centre groups. There were differences between countries in terms of health care contacts and costs.