-
International Journal of Cardiology Sep 2022Loeys-Dietz syndrome (LDS) is a connective tissue disorder that arises from mutations altering the transforming growth factor β signalling pathway. Due to the recent... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Loeys-Dietz syndrome (LDS) is a connective tissue disorder that arises from mutations altering the transforming growth factor β signalling pathway. Due to the recent discovery of the underlying genetic mutations leading to LDS, the spectrum of characteristics and complications is not fully understood.
METHODS
Our search included five databases (Pubmed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE and google scholar) and included variations of "Loeys-Dietz Syndrome" as search terms, using all available data until February 2021. All study types were included. Three reviewers screened 1394 abstracts, of which 418 underwent full-text review and 392 were included in the final analysis.
RESULTS
We identified 3896 reported cases of LDS with the most commonly reported features and complications being: aortic aneurysms and dissections, arterial tortuosity, high arched palate, abnormal uvula and hypertelorism. LDS Types 1 and 2 share many clinical features, LDS Type 2 appears to have a more aggressive aortic disease. LDS Type 3 demonstrated an increased prevalence of mitral valve prolapse and arthritis. LDS Type 4 and 5 demonstrated a lower prevalence of musculoskeletal and cardiovascular involvement. Amongst 222 women who underwent 522 pregnancies, 4% experienced an aortic dissection and the peripartum mortality rate was 1%.
CONCLUSION
We observed that LDS is a multisystem connective tissue disorder that is associated with a high burden of complications, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Ongoing attempts to better characterise these features will allow clinicians to appropriately screen and manage these complications.
Topics: Aortic Dissection; Arteries; Connective Tissue Diseases; Female; Humans; Loeys-Dietz Syndrome; Mutation; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35662564
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.05.065 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Feb 2019Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired...
OBJECTIVES
Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired neuromuscular transmission. Since the field of CMSs is steadily expanding, the present review aimed at summarizing and discussing current knowledge and recent advances concerning the etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of CMSs.
METHODS
Systematic literature review.
RESULTS
Currently, mutations in 32 genes are made responsible for autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive CMSs. These mutations concern 8 presynaptic, 4 synaptic, 15 post-synaptic, and 5 glycosilation proteins. These proteins function as ion-channels, enzymes, or structural, signalling, sensor, or transporter proteins. The most common causative genes are CHAT, COLQ, RAPSN, CHRNE, DOK7, and GFPT1. Phenotypically, these mutations manifest as abnormal fatigability or permanent or fluctuating weakness of extra-ocular, facial, bulbar, axial, respiratory, or limb muscles, hypotonia, or developmental delay. Cognitive disability, dysmorphism, neuropathy, or epilepsy are rare. Low- or high-frequency repetitive nerve stimulation may show an abnormal increment or decrement, and SF-EMG an increased jitter or blockings. Most CMSs respond favourably to acetylcholine-esterase inhibitors, 3,4-diamino-pyridine, salbutamol, albuterol, ephedrine, fluoxetine, or atracurium.
CONCLUSIONS
CMSs are an increasingly recognised group of genetically transmitted defects, which usually respond favorably to drugs enhancing the neuromuscular transmission. CMSs need to be differentiated from neuromuscular disorders due to muscle or nerve dysfunction.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Humans; Mutation; Myasthenic Syndromes, Congenital; Neuromuscular Agents; Proteins
PubMed: 30808424
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-019-1025-5 -
BMJ Open Jan 2016To measure test accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes using cell-free fetal DNA and identify factors affecting accuracy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To measure test accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes using cell-free fetal DNA and identify factors affecting accuracy.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and the Cochrane Library published from 1997 to 9 February 2015, followed by weekly autoalerts until 1 April 2015.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
English language journal articles describing case-control studies with ≥ 15 trisomy cases or cohort studies with ≥ 50 pregnant women who had been given NIPT and a reference standard.
RESULTS
41, 37 and 30 studies of 2012 publications retrieved were included in the review for Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes. Quality appraisal identified high risk of bias in included studies, funnel plots showed evidence of publication bias. Pooled sensitivity was 99.3% (95% CI 98.9% to 99.6%) for Down, 97.4% (95.8% to 98.4%) for Edwards, and 97.4% (86.1% to 99.6%) for Patau syndrome. The pooled specificity was 99.9% (99.9% to 100%) for all three trisomies. In 100,000 pregnancies in the general obstetric population we would expect 417, 89 and 40 cases of Downs, Edwards and Patau syndromes to be detected by NIPT, with 94, 154 and 42 false positive results. Sensitivity was lower in twin than singleton pregnancies, reduced by 9% for Down, 28% for Edwards and 22% for Patau syndrome. Pooled sensitivity was also lower in the first trimester of pregnancy, in studies in the general obstetric population, and in cohort studies with consecutive enrolment.
CONCLUSIONS
NIPT using cell-free fetal DNA has very high sensitivity and specificity for Down syndrome, with slightly lower sensitivity for Edwards and Patau syndrome. However, it is not 100% accurate and should not be used as a final diagnosis for positive cases.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42014014947.
Topics: Biomarkers; Chromosome Disorders; Chromosomes, Human, Pair 13; Chromosomes, Human, Pair 18; DNA; Down Syndrome; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Trisomy; Trisomy 13 Syndrome; Trisomy 18 Syndrome
PubMed: 26781507
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010002 -
Acta Clinica Croatica Dec 2021Congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a disorder of myocardial repolarization defined by a prolonged QT interval on electrocardiogram (ECG) that can cause ventricular... (Review)
Review
Congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a disorder of myocardial repolarization defined by a prolonged QT interval on electrocardiogram (ECG) that can cause ventricular arrhythmias and lead to sudden cardiac death. LQTS was first described in 1957 and since then its genetic etiology has been researched in many studies, but it is still not fully understood. Depending on the type of monogenic mutation, LQTS is currently divided into 17 subtypes, with LQT1, LQT2, and LQT3 being the most common forms. Based on the results of a prospective study, it is suggested that the real prevalence of congenital LQTS is around 1:2000. Clinical manifestations of congenital LQTS include LQTS-attributable syncope, aborted cardiac arrest, and sudden cardiac death. Many patients with congenital LQTS will remain asymptomatic for life. The initial diagnostic evaluation of congenital LQTS includes obtaining detailed personal and multi-generation family history, physical examination, series of 12-lead ECG recordings, and calculation of the LQTS diagnostic score, called Schwartz score. Patients are also advised to undertake 24-hour ambulatory monitoring, treadmill/cycle stress testing, and LQTS genetic testing for definitive confirmation of the diagnosis. Currently available treatment options include lifestyle modifications, medication therapy with emphasis on beta-blockers, device therapy and surgical therapy, with beta-blockers being the first-line treatment option, both in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.
Topics: Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Electrocardiography; Genotype; Humans; Long QT Syndrome; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 35734489
DOI: 10.20471/acc.2021.60.04.22 -
Systematic Reviews Jan 2023Rett syndrome is a rare, severe neurodevelopmental disorder. Almost all cases occur in girls, in association with spontaneous (non-inherited) mutations involving the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rett syndrome is a rare, severe neurodevelopmental disorder. Almost all cases occur in girls, in association with spontaneous (non-inherited) mutations involving the methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 gene located on the X chromosome. Diagnostic criteria for typical Rett syndrome require a period of regression, followed by recovery or stabilization, and fulfillment of all four main criteria (loss of purposeful hand skills, loss of spoken language, gait abnormalities, and stereotypic hand movements). Our objective was to estimate the prevalence of Rett syndrome in the general population, stratified by sex.
METHODS
We conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and LIVIVO to retrieve studies published in English between Jan. 1, 2000, and June 30, 2021. Pooled prevalence with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis based on a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link.
RESULTS
Ten eligible studies were identified (all in females), with a combined sample size of 9.57 million women and 673 Rett syndrome cases. The pooled prevalence estimate (random effects) was 7.1 per 100,000 females (95% CI: 4.8, 10.5, heterogeneity p < 0.001). Despite greatly variable precision of estimation, all estimates were compatible with a prevalence range of approximately 5 to 10 cases per 100,000 females based on their respective 95% CIs.
CONCLUSION
These findings may facilitate planning of therapeutic trials in this indication in terms of target sample size and accrual times.
Topics: Humans; Female; Rett Syndrome; Methyl-CpG-Binding Protein 2; Prevalence; Mutation
PubMed: 36642718
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02169-6 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2023Wolfram-like syndrome (WFLS) is a recently described autosomal dominant disorder with phenotypic similarities to autosomal recessive Wolfram syndrome (WS), including... (Review)
Review
Wolfram-like syndrome (WFLS) is a recently described autosomal dominant disorder with phenotypic similarities to autosomal recessive Wolfram syndrome (WS), including optic atrophy, hearing impairment, and diabetes mellitus. We summarize current literature, define the clinical characteristics, and investigate potential genotype phenotype correlations. A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBACE, and Cochrane Library. We included studies reporting patients with a clinical picture consisting at least 2 typical clinical manifestations of WSF1 disorders and heterozygous mutations in WFS1. In total, 86 patients from 35 studies were included. The most common phenotype consisted of the combination of optic atrophy (87%) and hearing impairment (94%). Diabetes mellitus was seen in 44% of the patients. Nineteen percent developed cataract. Patients with missense mutations in WFS1 had a lower number of clinical manifestations, less chance of developing diabetes insipidus, but a younger age at onset of hearing impairment compared to patients with nonsense mutations or deletions causing frameshift. There were no studies reporting decreased life expectancy. This review shows that, within the spectrum of WFS1-associated disorders or "wolframinopathies," autosomal dominantly inherited WFLS has a relatively mild phenotype compared to autosomal recessive WS. The clinical manifestations and their age at onset are associated with the specific underlying mutations in the WFS1 gene.
Topics: Humans; Hearing Loss; Mutation; Optic Atrophy; Tungsten; Wolfram Syndrome
PubMed: 36764396
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2023.01.012 -
Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal... Jul 2022Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been assimilated into prenatal care. Prior studies examined clinical validity and technical performance in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been assimilated into prenatal care. Prior studies examined clinical validity and technical performance in high-risk populations. This systematic evidence review evaluates NIPS performance in a general-risk population.
METHODS
Medline (PubMed) and Embase were used to identify studies examining detection of Down syndrome (T21), trisomy 18 (T18), trisomy 13 (T13), sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal trisomies, copy number variants, and maternal conditions, as well as studies assessing the psychological impact of NIPS and the rate of subsequent diagnostic testing. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled estimates of NIPS performance (P < .05). Heterogeneity was investigated through subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 87 studies met inclusion criteria. Diagnostic odds ratios were significant (P < .0001) for T21, T18, and T13 for singleton and twin pregnancies. NIPS was accurate (≥99.78%) in detecting sex chromosome aneuploidies. Performance for rare autosomal trisomies and copy number variants was variable. Use of NIPS reduced diagnostic tests by 31% to 79%. Conclusions regarding psychosocial outcomes could not be drawn owing to lack of data. Identification of maternal conditions was rare.
CONCLUSION
NIPS is a highly accurate screening method for T21, T18, and T13 in both singleton and twin pregnancies.
Topics: Cell-Free Nucleic Acids; Down Syndrome; Female; Humans; Noninvasive Prenatal Testing; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis; Sex Chromosome Aberrations; Trisomy; Trisomy 13 Syndrome; Trisomy 18 Syndrome
PubMed: 35608568
DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.019 -
Neuroepidemiology 2014Hereditary cerebellar ataxias (HCA) and hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSP) are two groups of neurodegenerative disorders that usually present with progressive gait... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hereditary cerebellar ataxias (HCA) and hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSP) are two groups of neurodegenerative disorders that usually present with progressive gait impairment, often leading to permanent disability. Advances in genetic research in the last decades have improved their diagnosis and brought new possibilities for prevention and future treatments. Still, there is great uncertainty regarding their global epidemiology.
SUMMARY
Our objective was to assess the global distribution and prevalence of HCA and HSP by a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies. The MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched (1983-2013) for studies performed in well-defined populations and geographical regions. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies and extracted data and predefined methodological parameters. Overall, 22 studies were included, reporting on 14,539 patients from 16 countries. Multisource population-based studies yielded higher prevalence values than studies based primarily on hospitals or genetic centres. The prevalence range of dominant HCA was 0.0-5.6/10(5), with an average of 2.7/10(5) (1.5-4.0/10(5)). Spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 (SCA3)/Machado-Joseph disease was the most common dominant ataxia, followed by SCA2 and SCA6. The autosomal recessive (AR) HCA (AR-HCA) prevalence range was 0.0-7.2/10(5), the average being 3.3/10(5) (1.8-4.9/10(5)). Friedreich ataxia was the most frequent AR-HCA, followed by ataxia with oculomotor apraxia or ataxia-telangiectasia. The prevalence of autosomal dominant (AD) HSP (AD-HSP) ranged from 0.5 to 5.5/10(5) and that of AR-HSP from 0.0 to 5.3/10(5), with pooled averages of 1.8/10(5) (95% CI: 1.0-2.7/10(5)) and 1.8/10(5) (95% CI: 1.0-2.6/10(5)), respectively. The most common AD-HSP form in every population was spastic paraplegia, autosomal dominant, type 4 (SPG4), followed by SPG3A, while SPG11 was the most frequent AR-HSP, followed by SPG15. In population-based studies, the number of families without genetic diagnosis after systematic testing ranged from 33 to 92% in the AD-HCA group, and was 40-46% in the AR-HCA, 45-67% in the AD-HSP and 71-82% in the AR-HSP groups.
KEY MESSAGES
Highly variable prevalence values for HCA and HSP are reported across the world. This variation reflects the different genetic make-up of the populations, but also methodological heterogeneity. Large areas of the world remain without prevalence studies. From the available data, we estimated that around 1:10,000 people are affected by HCA or HSP. In spite of advances in genetic research, most families in population-based series remain without identified genetic mutation after extensive testing. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Topics: Cerebellar Ataxia; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Paraplegia; Prevalence; Spastic Paraplegia, Hereditary; Spinocerebellar Degenerations
PubMed: 24603320
DOI: 10.1159/000358801 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Oct 2019To estimate the procedure-related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the procedure-related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an updated meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies reporting complications following CVS or amniocentesis. Eligible for inclusion were large controlled studies reporting data for pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation. Study authors were contacted when required to identify additional necessary data. Data for cases that had an invasive procedure and controls were inputted into contingency tables and the risk of miscarriage was estimated for each study. Summary statistics based on a random-effects model were calculated after taking into account the weighting for each study included in the systematic review. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage was estimated as a weighted risk difference from the summary statistics for cases and controls. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the similarity in risk levels for chromosomal abnormality between the invasive-testing and control groups. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. Egger's bias was estimated to assess reporting bias in published studies.
RESULTS
The electronic search yielded 2943 potential citations, from which 12 controlled studies for amniocentesis and seven for CVS were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. A total of 580 miscarriages occurred following 63 723 amniocentesis procedures, resulting in a weighted risk of pregnancy loss of 0.91% (95% CI, 0.73-1.09%). In the control group, there were 1726 miscarriages in 330 469 pregnancies with a loss rate of 0.58% (95% CI, 0.47-0.70%). The weighted procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.11-0.49%; I = 70.1%). A total of 163 miscarriages occurred following 13 011 CVS procedures, resulting in a risk of pregnancy loss of 1.39% (95% CI, 0.76-2.02%). In the control group, there were 1946 miscarriages in 232 680 pregnancies with a loss rate of 1.23% (95% CI, 0.86-1.59%). The weighted procedure-related risk of miscarriage following CVS was 0.20% (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.52%; I = 52.7%). However, when studies including only women with similar risk profiles for chromosomal abnormality in the intervention and control groups were considered, the procedure-related risk for amniocentesis was 0.12% (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.30%; I = 44.1%) and for CVS it was -0.11% (95% CI, -0.29 to 0.08%; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are lower than currently quoted to women. The risk appears to be negligible when these interventions were compared to control groups of the same risk profile. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Chromosome Aberrations; Embryo Loss; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Prenatal Diagnosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31124209
DOI: 10.1002/uog.20353 -
Human Reproduction Update Apr 2020Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) occurs in 1-3% of all couples trying to conceive. No consensus exists regarding when to perform testing for risk factors in couples with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) occurs in 1-3% of all couples trying to conceive. No consensus exists regarding when to perform testing for risk factors in couples with RPL. Some guidelines recommend testing if a patient has had two pregnancy losses whereas others advise to test after three losses.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on the prevalence of abnormal test results for RPL amongst patients with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We also aimed to contribute to the debate regarding whether the investigations for RPL should take place after two or three or more pregnancy losses.
SEARCH METHODS
Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search in OVID Medline and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. A search for RPL was combined with a broad search for terms indicative of number of pregnancy losses, screening/testing for pregnancy loss or the prevalence of known risk factors. Meta-analyses were performed in case of adequate clinical and statistical homogeneity. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
OUTCOMES
From a total of 1985 identified publications, 21 were included in this systematic review and 19 were suitable for meta-analyses. For uterine abnormalities (seven studies, odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.79-1.27, I2 = 0%) and for antiphospholipid syndrome (three studies, OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.25, I2 = 0%) we found low quality evidence for a lack of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We found insufficient evidence of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses for chromosomal abnormalities (10 studies, OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55-1.10), inherited thrombophilia (five studies) and thyroid disorders (two studies, OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.06-4.56).
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
A difference in prevalence in uterine abnormalities and antiphospholipid syndrome is unlikely in women with two versus three pregnancy losses. We cannot exclude a difference in prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities, inherited thrombophilia and thyroid disorders following testing after two versus three pregnancy losses. The results of this systematic review may support investigations after two pregnancy losses in couples with RPL, but it should be stressed that additional studies of the prognostic value of test results used in the RPL population are urgently needed. An evidenced-based treatment is not currently available in the majority of cases when abnormal test results are present.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Chromosome Aberrations; Female; Fertilization; Humans; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Thrombophilia; Thyroid Diseases; Urogenital Abnormalities; Uterus
PubMed: 32103270
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz048