4.5 Article

Clinical and Genetic Heterogeneity in a Cohort of Chinese Children With Dopa-Responsive Dystonia

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2020.00083

Keywords

dopa-responsive dystonia; L-dopa; genetic test; clinical and genetic heterogeneity; prognosis of dopa-responsive dystonia

Categories

Funding

  1. 985 Peking University
  2. Clinical Hospital Cooperation Project [2013-1-06]
  3. Wu Jieping Medical Fund [320.6750.17091]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the genetic and clinical features of dopa-responsive dystonia (DRD) in China. Method: Characteristics of gene mutations and clinical manifestations of 31 patients diagnosed with DRD were analyzed retrospectively. Result: From January 2000 to January 2019, 31 patients were diagnosed with DRD. Twenty (64.5%) were male, and 11 (35.5%) were female. Ten patients (32.3%) had classic DRD, 19 (61.3%) had DRD-plus, and 2 (6.4%) patients had mutations in the dopamine synthetic pathway (PTS gene mutation) without a typical phenotype (not DRD or DRD-plus). Twenty-eight (90.3%) patients underwent genetic testing. Homozygous or compound heterozygous TH gene mutations were found in 22 patients. GCH1 and PTS gene mutations were found in 2 patients. Heterozygous TH mutation and genetic testing were negative in 1 patient. They took different doses of L-dopa, ranging from 0.4 to 8.7 mg/kg/d. Patients with classic DRD responded well. In patients with DRD-plus, 94.7% (18/19) responded well with residual symptoms. One patient (5.3%) did not show any improvement. Conclusion: DRD can be divided into classic DRD and DRD-plus. In this cohort, the most common pathogenic gene was TH. Fever was the important inducing factor of the disease. L-dopa has sustained and stable effects on patients with classic DRD. In patients with DRD-plus, treatment with L-dopa could ameliorate most of the symptoms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available