4.6 Article

Long-Term Prognosis of Patients with Infantile-Onset Pompe Disease Diagnosed by Newborn Screening and Treated since Birth

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 166, 期 4, 页码 985-U302

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.10.068

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Council [NSC 99-2628-B-002-007-MY3]
  2. Genzyme Corporation, a Sanofi company
  3. Genzyme, a Sanofi Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the benefit of newborn screening for the long-term prognosis of patients with classic infantile-onset Pompe disease (IOPD). Study design A cohort of patients with classic IOPD were diagnosed by newborn screening, treated with recombinant human acid a-glucosidase (rhGAA), and followed prospectively. Outcome measurements included survival, left ventricular mass, serum creatinine kinase, motor function, mental development, and systemic manifestations. Results Ten patients who presented with left ventricular hypertrophy at diagnosis received rhGAA infusions starting at a median age of 16 days (6-34 days). All patients were cross-reactive immunologic material-positive. After a median treatment time of 63 months (range 28-90 months), all could walk independently, and none required mechanical ventilation. All patients had motor capability sufficient for participating in daily activities, but muscle weakness over the pelvic girdle appeared gradually after 2 years of age. Ptosis was present in one-half of the patients, and speech disorders were common. Anti-rhGAA antibody titers were low (median maximal titer value 1: 1600, range: undetectable similar to 1:12 800). Conclusion By studying patients treated since birth who have no significant anti-rhGAA antibody interference, this prospective study demonstrates that the efficacy of rhGAA therapy is high and consistent for the treatment of classic IOPD. This study also exposes limitations of rhGAA treatment. The etiology of the manifestations in these early-treated patients will require further study.

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