4.2 Article

Longitudinal pulmonary function testing outcome measures in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Long-term natural history with and without glucocorticoids

Journal

NEUROMUSCULAR DISORDERS
Volume 28, Issue 11, Pages 897-909

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2018.07.004

Keywords

Duchenne; Muscular dystrophy; Pulmonary; Steroids; Mortality

Funding

  1. Department of Education/NIDRR [H133B031118, H133B090001]
  2. U.S. Department of Defense [W81XWH-12-1-0417]
  3. National Institutes of Health/NIAMS [R01AR061875]
  4. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We describe changes in pulmonary function measures across time in Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients treated with glucocorticoids (GCs) > 1 year compared to GC naive patients in the Cooperative International Research Group Duchenne Natural History Study, a multicenter prospective cohort study. 397 participants underwent 2799 pulmonary function assessments over a period up to 10 years. Fifty-three GC naive participants (< 1 month exposure) were compared to 322 subjects with > 1 year cumulative GC treatment. Forced vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFr), maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures were performed and calculated as a percent predicted (%p). GC treatment slowed the rate of pulmonary decline as measured by FVC%p, in patients aged 7-9.9 years. GC treatment slowed 12 and 24-month progression of percent predicted spirometry to a greater degree in those with baseline FVC%p from < 80-34%. GC treatment resulted in higher peak absolute FVC and PEFr values with later onset of decline. Progression to an absolute FVC < 1 liter was delayed by GC treatment. Patients who reached a FVC below 1 L were 4.1 times more likely to die (p=0.017). Long-term glucocorticoid treatment slows pulmonary disease progression in Duchenne dystrophy throughout the lifespan. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available