-
Acta Myologica : Myopathies and... Dec 2020The myotonic dystrophies are the commonest cause of adult-onset muscular dystrophy. Phenotypes of DM1 and DM2 are similar, but there are some important differences,... (Review)
Review
The myotonic dystrophies are the commonest cause of adult-onset muscular dystrophy. Phenotypes of DM1 and DM2 are similar, but there are some important differences, including the presence or absence of congenital form, muscles primarily affected (distal vs proximal), involved muscle fiber types (type 1 vs type 2 fibers), and some associated multisystemic phenotypes. There is currently no cure for the myotonic dystrophies but effective management significantly reduces the morbidity and mortality of patients. For the enormous understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of myotonic dystrophy type 1 and myotonic dystrophy type 2, these diseases are now called "spliceopathies" and are mediated by a primary disorder of RNA rather than proteins. Despite clinical and genetic similarities, myotonic dystrophy type 1 and type 2 are distinct disorders requiring different diagnostic and management strategies. Gene therapy for myotonic dystrophy type 1 and myotonic dystrophy type 2 appears to be very close and the near future is an exciting time for clinicians and patients.
Topics: Humans; Microsatellite Repeats; Myotonic Dystrophy; Myotonin-Protein Kinase; RNA-Binding Proteins
PubMed: 33458578
DOI: 10.36185/2532-1900-026 -
Drug Discovery Today Mar 2023The beginning of the 20th decade has witnessed an increase in drug development programs for myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). We have collected nearly 20 candidate drugs... (Review)
Review
The beginning of the 20th decade has witnessed an increase in drug development programs for myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). We have collected nearly 20 candidate drugs with accomplished preclinical and clinical phases, updating our previous drug development pipeline review with new entries and relevant milestones for pre-existing candidates. Three interventional first-in-human clinical trials got underway with distinct drug classes, namely AOC 1001 and DYNE-101 nucleic acid-based therapies, and the small molecule pitolisant, which joins the race toward market authorization with other repurposed drugs, including tideglusib, metformin, or mexiletine, already in clinical evaluation. Furthermore, newly disclosed promising preclinical data for several additional nucleic-acid therapeutic candidates and a CRISPR-based approach, as well as the advent into the pipeline of novel therapeutic programs, increase the plausibility of success in the demanding task of providing valid treatments to patients with DM1.
Topics: Humans; Myotonic Dystrophy; Drug Development
PubMed: 36634841
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2023.103489 -
Neurologia Apr 2020Steinert's disease or myotonic dystrophy type 1 (MD1), (OMIM 160900), is the most prevalent myopathy in adults. It is a multisystemic disorder with dysfunction of...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Steinert's disease or myotonic dystrophy type 1 (MD1), (OMIM 160900), is the most prevalent myopathy in adults. It is a multisystemic disorder with dysfunction of virtually all organs and tissues and a great phenotypical variability, which implies that it has to be addressed by different specialities with experience in the disease. The knowledge of the disease and its management has changed dramatically in recent years. This guide tries to establish recommendations for the diagnosis, prognosis, follow-up and treatment of the complications of MD1.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Consensus guide developed through a multidisciplinary approach with a systematic literature review. Neurologists, pulmonologists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, neuropaediatricians and geneticists have participated in the guide.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The genetic diagnosis should quantify the number of CTG repetitions. MD1 patients need cardiac and respiratory lifetime follow-up. Before any surgery under general anaesthesia, a respiratory evaluation must be done. Dysphagia must be screened periodically. Genetic counselling must be offered to patients and relatives.
CONCLUSION
MD1 is a multisystemic disease that requires specialised multidisciplinary follow-up.
Topics: Deglutition Disorders; Follow-Up Studies; Genetic Counseling; Humans; Myotonic Dystrophy; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 31003788
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2019.01.001 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2023Myotonic dystrophy (DM) is the most common muscular dystrophy in adults. Dominantly inherited CTG and CCTG repeat expansions in and genes cause DM type 1 (DM1) and 2... (Review)
Review
Myotonic dystrophy (DM) is the most common muscular dystrophy in adults. Dominantly inherited CTG and CCTG repeat expansions in and genes cause DM type 1 (DM1) and 2 (DM2), respectively. These genetic defects lead to the abnormal splicing of different mRNA transcripts, which are thought to be responsible for the multiorgan involvement of these diseases. In ours and others' experience, cancer frequency in patients with DM appears to be higher than in the general population or non-DM muscular dystrophy cohorts. There are no specific guidelines regarding malignancy screening in these patients, and the general consensus is that they should undergo the same cancer screening as the general population. Here, we review the main studies that investigated cancer risk (and cancer type) in DM cohorts and those that researched potential molecular mechanisms accounting for DM carcinogenesis. We propose some evaluations to be considered as malignancy screening in patients with DM, and we discuss DM susceptibility to general anesthesia and sedatives, which are often needed for the management of cancer. This review underscores the importance of monitoring the adherence of patients with DM to malignancy screenings and the need to design studies that determine whether they would benefit from a more intensified cancer screening than the general population.
PubMed: 36902726
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12051939 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Strength training or aerobic exercise programmes, or both, might optimise muscle and cardiorespiratory function and prevent additional disuse atrophy and deconditioning... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Strength training or aerobic exercise programmes, or both, might optimise muscle and cardiorespiratory function and prevent additional disuse atrophy and deconditioning in people with a muscle disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and last updated in 2013. We undertook an update to incorporate new evidence in this active area of research.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of strength training and aerobic exercise training in people with a muscle disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Neuromuscular's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL in November 2018 and clinical trials registries in December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or cross-over RCTs comparing strength or aerobic exercise training, or both lasting at least six weeks, to no training in people with a well-described muscle disease diagnosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 trials of aerobic exercise, strength training, or both, with an exercise duration of eight to 52 weeks, which included 428 participants with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD), dermatomyositis, polymyositis, mitochondrial myopathy, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), or myotonic dystrophy. Risk of bias was variable, as blinding of participants was not possible, some trials did not blind outcome assessors, and some did not use an intention-to-treat analysis. Strength training compared to no training (3 trials) For participants with FSHD (35 participants), there was low-certainty evidence of little or no effect on dynamic strength of elbow flexors (MD 1.2 kgF, 95% CI -0.2 to 2.6), on isometric strength of elbow flexors (MD 0.5 kgF, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.8), and ankle dorsiflexors (MD 0.4 kgF, 95% CI -2.4 to 3.2), and on dynamic strength of ankle dorsiflexors (MD -0.4 kgF, 95% CI -2.3 to 1.4). For participants with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (35 participants), there was very low-certainty evidence of a slight improvement in isometric wrist extensor strength (MD 8.0 N, 95% CI 0.7 to 15.3) and of little or no effect on hand grip force (MD 6.0 N, 95% CI -6.7 to 18.7), pinch grip force (MD 1.0 N, 95% CI -3.3 to 5.3) and isometric wrist flexor force (MD 7.0 N, 95% CI -3.4 to 17.4). Aerobic exercise training compared to no training (5 trials) For participants with DMD there was very low-certainty evidence regarding the number of leg revolutions (MD 14.0, 95% CI -89.0 to 117.0; 23 participants) or arm revolutions (MD 34.8, 95% CI -68.2 to 137.8; 23 participants), during an assisted six-minute cycle test, and very low-certainty evidence regarding muscle strength (MD 1.7, 95% CI -1.9 to 5.3; 15 participants). For participants with FSHD, there was low-certainty evidence of improvement in aerobic capacity (MD 1.1 L/min, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.8, 38 participants) and of little or no effect on knee extension strength (MD 0.1 kg, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.9, 52 participants). For participants with dermatomyositis and polymyositis (14 participants), there was very low-certainty evidence regarding aerobic capacity (MD 14.6, 95% CI -1.0 to 30.2). Combined aerobic exercise and strength training compared to no training (6 trials) For participants with juvenile dermatomyositis (26 participants) there was low-certainty evidence of an improvement in knee extensor strength on the right (MD 36.0 N, 95% CI 25.0 to 47.1) and left (MD 17 N 95% CI 0.5 to 33.5), but low-certainty evidence of little or no effect on maximum force of hip flexors on the right (MD -9.0 N, 95% CI -22.4 to 4.4) or left (MD 6.0 N, 95% CI -6.6 to 18.6). This trial also provided low-certainty evidence of a slight decrease of aerobic capacity (MD -1.2 min, 95% CI -1.6 to 0.9). For participants with dermatomyositis and polymyositis (21 participants), we found very low-certainty evidence for slight increases in muscle strength as measured by dynamic strength of knee extensors on the right (MD 2.5 kg, 95% CI 1.8 to 3.3) and on the left (MD 2.7 kg, 95% CI 2.0 to 3.4) and no clear effect in isometric muscle strength of eight different muscles (MD 1.0, 95% CI -1.1 to 3.1). There was very low-certainty evidence that there may be an increase in aerobic capacity, as measured with time to exhaustion in an incremental cycle test (17.5 min, 95% CI 8.0 to 27.0) and power performed at VO max (maximal oxygen uptake) (18 W, 95% CI 15.0 to 21.0). For participants with mitochondrial myopathy (18 participants), we found very low-certainty evidence regarding shoulder muscle (MD -5.0 kg, 95% CI -14.7 to 4.7), pectoralis major muscle (MD 6.4 kg, 95% CI -2.9 to 15.7), and anterior arm muscle strength (MD 7.3 kg, 95% CI -2.9 to 17.5). We found very low-certainty evidence regarding aerobic capacity, as measured with mean time cycled (MD 23.7 min, 95% CI 2.6 to 44.8) and mean distance cycled until exhaustion (MD 9.7 km, 95% CI 1.5 to 17.9). One trial in myotonic dystrophy type 1 (35 participants) did not provide data on muscle strength or aerobic capacity following combined training. In this trial, muscle strength deteriorated in one person and one person had worse daytime sleepiness (very low-certainty evidence). For participants with FSHD (16 participants), we found very low-certainty evidence regarding muscle strength, aerobic capacity and VO peak; the results were very imprecise. Most trials reported no adverse events other than muscle soreness or joint complaints (low- to very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence regarding strength training and aerobic exercise interventions remains uncertain. Evidence suggests that strength training alone may have little or no effect, and that aerobic exercise training alone may lead to a possible improvement in aerobic capacity, but only for participants with FSHD. For combined aerobic exercise and strength training, there may be slight increases in muscle strength and aerobic capacity for people with dermatomyositis and polymyositis, and a slight decrease in aerobic capacity and increase in muscle strength for people with juvenile dermatomyositis. More research with robust methodology and greater numbers of participants is still required.
Topics: Dermatomyositis; Exercise; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscular Diseases; Muscular Dystrophies; Muscular Dystrophy, Facioscapulohumeral; Myotonic Dystrophy; Physical Fitness; Polymyositis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training
PubMed: 31808555
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003907.pub5 -
Genes Feb 2022Myotonic dystrophies (DM) are the most common muscular dystrophies in adults, which can affect other non-skeletal muscle organs such as the heart, brain and... (Review)
Review
Myotonic dystrophies (DM) are the most common muscular dystrophies in adults, which can affect other non-skeletal muscle organs such as the heart, brain and gastrointestinal system. There are two genetically distinct types of myotonic dystrophy: myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and myotonic dystrophy type 2 (DM2), both dominantly inherited with significant overlap in clinical manifestations. DM1 results from CTG repeat expansions in the 3'-untranslated region (3'UTR) of the (dystrophia myotonica protein kinase) gene on chromosome 19, while DM2 is caused by CCTG repeat expansions in intron 1 of the (cellular nucleic acid-binding protein) gene on chromosome 3. Recent advances in genetics and molecular biology, especially in the field of RNA biology, have allowed better understanding of the potential pathomechanisms involved in DM. In this review article, core clinical features and genetics of DM are presented followed by a discussion on the current postulated pathomechanisms and therapeutic approaches used in DM, including the ones currently in human clinical trial phase.
Topics: 3' Untranslated Regions; Brain; Heart; Humans; Myotonic Dystrophy
PubMed: 35205411
DOI: 10.3390/genes13020367 -
Free Neuropathology Jan 2023This review highlights ten important advances in the neuromuscular disease field that were reported in 2022. As with prior updates in this article series, the...
This review highlights ten important advances in the neuromuscular disease field that were reported in 2022. As with prior updates in this article series, the overarching topics include (i) advances in understanding of fundamental neuromuscular biology; (ii) new / emerging diseases; (iii) advances in understanding of disease etiology and pathogenesis; (iv) diagnostic advances; and (v) therapeutic advances. Within this general framework, the individual disease entities that are discussed in more detail include neuromuscular complications of COVID-19 (another look at the topic first covered in the 2021 and 2022 reviews), DNAJB4-associated myopathy, NMNAT2-deficient hereditary axonal neuropathy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, sporadic inclusion body myositis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In addition, the review highlights a few other advances (including new insights into mechanisms of fiber maturation during muscle regeneration and fiber rebuilding following reinnervation, improved genetic testing methods for facioscapulohumeral and myotonic muscular dystrophies, and the use of SARM1 inhibitors to block Wallerian degeneration) that will be of significant interest for clinicians and researchers who specialize in neuromuscular disease.
PubMed: 37283936
DOI: 10.17879/freeneuropathology-2023-4682 -
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2022Current studies concerning myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) are in the process of transitioning from molecular investigations to preclinical and clinical trials [...].
Current studies concerning myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) are in the process of transitioning from molecular investigations to preclinical and clinical trials [...].
Topics: Humans; Myotonic Dystrophy
PubMed: 36233257
DOI: 10.3390/ijms231911954