4.5 Review

Congenital myasthenic syndromes

期刊

ORPHANET JOURNAL OF RARE DISEASES
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-019-1025-5

关键词

Myasthenic syndrome; Myasthenia; Repetitive nerve stimulation; Fatigue; Weakness; Hereditary; Genes; Mutation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired neuromuscular transmission. Since the field of CMSs is steadily expanding, the present review aimed at summarizing and discussing current knowledge and recent advances concerning the etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of CMSs. Methods: Systematic literature review. Results: Currently, mutations in 32 genes are made responsible for autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive CMSs. These mutations concern 8 presynaptic, 4 synaptic, 15 post-synaptic, and 5 glycosilation proteins. These proteins function as ion-channels, enzymes, or structural, signalling, sensor, or transporter proteins. The most common causative genes are CHAT, COLQ, RAPSN, CHRNE, DOK7, and GFPT1. Phenotypically, these mutations manifest as abnormal fatigability or permanent or fluctuating weakness of extra-ocular, facial, bulbar, axial, respiratory, or limb muscles, hypotonia, or developmental delay. Cognitive disability, dysmorphism, neuropathy, or epilepsy are rare. Low- or high-frequency repetitive nerve stimulation may show an abnormal increment or decrement, and SF-EMG an increased jitter or blockings. Most CMSs respond favourably to acetylcholine-esterase inhibitors, 3,4-diamino-pyridine, salbutamol, albuterol, ephedrine, fluoxetine, or atracurium. Conclusions: CMSs are an increasingly recognised group of genetically transmitted defects, which usually respond favorably to drugs enhancing the neuromuscular transmission. CMSs need to be differentiated from neuromuscular disorders due to muscle or nerve dysfunction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据