4.7 Article

A nationwide epidemiological study of myasthenia gravis in Latvia

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 519-526

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.13535

关键词

AChR; epidemiology; incidence; LRP4; MuSK; myasthenia gravis; prevalence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purposeMyasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by fatigable muscle weakness due to antibody-mediated impairment of neuromuscular transmission. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and prevalence of MG in Latvia, and to characterize this population by well-established clinical parameters such as age at onset, presence of associated antibodies and thymus pathology. MethodsAll prevalent cases on 1 January 2015 and cases of patients newly presenting with MG symptoms from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014 were selected from the database of the Neuromuscular Disease Clinic of Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital and Children's Clinical University Hospital. Crude rates were calculated based on population data. These were directly age-standardized to the European and World Health Organization world standard populations. The analysis of clinical characteristics was carried out in a cohort of patients who had undergone a complete set of electrophysiological, serological and radiological investigations (n=153; 68%). ResultsDuring the study period 99 incident and 226 prevalent cases were identified. The total crude MG incidence was 9.7 per million person-years. The prevalence of MG on 1 January 2015 was 113.8 per million. 54.2% of patients tested positive for acetylcholine receptor antibodies, 7.8% for muscle specific kinase antibodies and 1.3% for lipoprotein related protein 4 antibodies. ConclusionsThis is the first study of MG in Latvia and the second population-based study of MG in Eastern Europe. Our epidemiological results are similar to those in some other European and Northern American countries, and show high prevalence and increasing incidence of late-onset MG.

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