An International Survey-based Algorithm for the Pharmacologic Treatment of Chorea in Huntington’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally believed that treatments are available to manage chorea in Huntington's disease (HD). However, lack of evidence prevents the establishment of treatment guidelines. The HD chorea research literature fails to address the indications for drug treatment, drug selection, drug dosing and side effect profiles, management of inadequate response to a single drug, and preferred drug when behavioral symptoms comorbid to chorea are present. Because there is lack of an evidence base to inform clinical decision-making, we surveyed an international group of experts to address these points. Survey results showed that patient stigma, physical injury, gait instability, work interference, and disturbed sleep were indications for a drug treatment trial. However, the experts did not agree on first choice of chorea drug, with the majority of experts in Europe favoring an antipsychotic drug (APD), and a near equal split in first choice between an APD and tetrabenazine (TBZ) among experts from North America and Australia. All experts chose an APD when comorbid psychotic or aggressive behaviors were present, or when active depression prevented the use of TBZ. However, there was agreement from all geographic regions that both APDs and TBZ were acceptable as monotherapy in other situations. Perceived efficacy and side effect profiles were similar for APDs and TBZ, except for depression as a significant side effect of TBZ. Experts used a combination of an APD and TBZ when treatment required both drugs for control of chorea and a concurrent comorbid symptom, or when severe chorea was inadequately controlled by either drug alone. The benzodiazepines (BZDs) were judged ineffective as monotherapy but useful as adjunctive therapy, particularly when chorea was exacerbated by anxiety. There was broad disagreement about the use of amantadine for chorea. Experts who had used amantadine described its benefit as small and transient. In addition to survey results, this report reviews available chorea studies, and lastly presents an algorithm for the treatment of chorea in HD which is based on expert preferences obtained through this international survey.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".