4.7 Article

Clinical and genetic factors predicting Dravet syndrome in infants with SCN1A mutations

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 88, 期 11, 页码 1037-1044

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003716

关键词

-

资金

  1. EU [N602531]
  2. RESIDRAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore the prognostic value of initial clinical and mutational findings in infants with SCN1A mutations. Methods: Combining sex, age/fever at first seizure, family history of epilepsy, EEG, and mutation type, we analyzed the accuracy of significant associations in predicting Dravet syndrome vs milder outcomes in 182 mutation carriers ascertained after seizure onset. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of all parameters, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, diagnostic odds ratios, and positive and negative predictive values and the accuracy of combined information. We also included in the study demographic and mutational data of the healthy relatives of mutation carrier patients. Results: Ninety-seven individuals (48.5%) had Dravet syndrome, 49 (23.8%) had generalized/ genetic epilepsy with febrile seizures plus, 30 (14.8%) had febrile seizures, 6 (3.5%) had focal epilepsy, and 18 (8.9%) were healthy relatives. The association study indicated that age at first seizure and frameshift mutations were associated with Dravet syndrome. The risk of Dravet syndrome was 85% in the 0-to 6-month group, 51% in the 6-to 12-month range, and 0% after the 12th month. ROC analysis identified onset within the sixth month as the diagnostic cutoff for progression to Dravet syndrome (sensitivity 5 83.3%, specificity 5 76.6%). Conclusions: In individuals with SCN1A mutations, age at seizure onset appears to predict outcome better than mutation type. Because outcome is not predetermined by genetic factors only, early recognition and treatment that mitigates prolonged/repeated seizures in the first year of life might also limit the progression to epileptic encephalopathy.

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

4.7
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