4.6 Review

Copper Deficiency as Wilson's Disease Overtreatment: A Systematic Review

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 13, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13142424

关键词

Wilson's disease; copper; neuropathy; myelopathy; pancytopenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review examines the occurrence of copper deficiency (CD) in Wilson's disease (WD) patients during treatment. CD diagnosis is based on symptoms and blood tests, and regular monitoring of copper metabolism is necessary during treatment. Temporary cessation of anti-copper treatment can usually reverse serum copper reductions seen in CD.
Background: Treatment of Wilson's disease (WD), an inherited disease characterized by copper overload, is lifelong and there is the possibility that copper deficiency (CD) may occur. We systematically reviewed the literature to describe treatment patterns, symptoms and outcomes associated with CD. Methods: Using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the PubMed database was searched up to 6 April 2023. Results: Across 17 articles, 20 cases of CD were described, most commonly (15 cases) in WD patients treated with zinc salts (ZS), less often on combined chelator and ZS therapy (3 cases), molybdate salts plus ZS (1), or molybdate alone (1). CD symptoms occurred insidiously, including sideroblastic anemia, neutropenia, axonal sensory neuropathy, posterior cord myelopathy and increased ratio of epileptic seizures (or epilepsy). CD diagnosis was based on symptoms and severely reduced urinary copper excretion (<20 & mu;g/24 h [<0.3 & mu;mol/24 h] on ZS, or <100 & mu;g/24 h [<1.6 & mu;mol/24 h] on chelators) with low total serum copper and ceruloplasmin. Conclusions: Awareness of CD and regular monitoring of copper metabolism is needed during WD treatment. Temporary cessation of anti-copper treatment usually reverses serum copper reductions as well as pancytopenia; however, some symptoms, especially neuropathy and myelopathy, may persist.

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

4.6
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