4.7 Article

Pompe disease in Austria: clinical, genetic and epidemiological aspects

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 265, Issue 1, Pages 159-164

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-017-8686-6

Keywords

Pompe disease; Clinical phenotype; Genetics; Enzyme replacement therapy; Epidemiology

Funding

  1. University of Innsbruck
  2. Medical University of Innsbruck

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we performed a survey of infantile and late-onset Pompe disease (IOPD and LOPD) in Austria. Paediatric and neuromuscular centres were contacted to provide a set of anonymized clinical and genetic data of patients with IOPD and LOPD. The number of patients receiving enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) was obtained from the pharmaceutical company providing alglucosidase alfa. We found 25 patients in 24 families, 4 IOPD and 21 LOPD with a resulting prevalence of 1:350,914. The most frequent clinical manifestation in LOPD was a lower limb-girdle phenotype combined with axial weakness. Three patients were clinically pauci- or asymptomatic and were diagnosed because of persistent hyperCKemia. Diagnostic delay in LOPD was 7.4 +/- 9.7 years. The most common mutation was c.-32-13T > G. All IOPD and 17 symptomatic LOPD patients are receiving ERT. Standardized follow-up was only available in six LOPD patients for the 6-min walk test (6minWT) and in ten for the forced vital capacity (FVC). Mean FVC did not decline (before ERT; 63.6 +/- 39.7%; last evaluation during ERT: 61.9 +/- 26.9%; P = 0.5) while there was a trend to decline in the mean distance covered by the 6minWT (before ERT: 373.5 +/- 117.9 m; last evaluation during ERT: 308.5 +/- 120.8 m; P = 0.077). The study shows a lower prevalence of Pompe disease in Austria than in other European countries and corroborates a limb-girdle phenotype with axial weakness as the most common clinical presentation, although asymptomatic hyperCKemia may be the first indication of LOPD.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available