Chris Turner1, David Hilton-Jones. 1. aMRC Centre for Neuromuscular Disease, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London bOxford Neuromuscular Centre, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Myotonic dystrophies type 1 and type 2 are progressive multisystem genetic disorders with clinical and genetic features in common. Myotonic dystrophy type 1 is the most prevalent muscular dystrophy in adults and has a wide phenotypic spectrum. The average age of death in myotonic dystrophy type 1 is in the fifth decade. In comparison, myotonic dystrophy type 2 tends to cause a milder phenotype with later onset of symptoms and is less common than myotonic dystrophy type 1. Historically, patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 have not received the medical and social input they need to maximize their quality and quantity of life. This review describes the improved understanding in the molecular and clinical features of myotonic dystrophy type 1 as well as the screening of clinical complications and their management. We will also discuss new potential genetic treatments. RECENT FINDINGS: An active approach to screening and management of myotonic dystrophies type 1 and type 2 requires a multidisciplinary medical, rehabilitative and social team. This process will probably improve morbidity and mortality for patients. Genetic treatments have been successfully used in in-vitro and animal models to reverse the physiological, histopathological and transcriptomic features. SUMMARY: Molecular therapeutics for myotonic dystrophy will probably bridge the translational gap between bench and bedside in the near future. There will still be a requirement for clinical screening of patients with myotonic dystrophy with proactive and systematic management of complications.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Myotonic dystrophies type 1 and type 2 are progressive multisystem genetic disorders with clinical and genetic features in common. Myotonic dystrophy type 1 is the most prevalent muscular dystrophy in adults and has a wide phenotypic spectrum. The average age of death in myotonic dystrophy type 1 is in the fifth decade. In comparison, myotonic dystrophy type 2 tends to cause a milder phenotype with later onset of symptoms and is less common than myotonic dystrophy type 1. Historically, patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 have not received the medical and social input they need to maximize their quality and quantity of life. This review describes the improved understanding in the molecular and clinical features of myotonic dystrophy type 1 as well as the screening of clinical complications and their management. We will also discuss new potential genetic treatments. RECENT FINDINGS: An active approach to screening and management of myotonic dystrophies type 1 and type 2 requires a multidisciplinary medical, rehabilitative and social team. This process will probably improve morbidity and mortality for patients. Genetic treatments have been successfully used in in-vitro and animal models to reverse the physiological, histopathological and transcriptomic features. SUMMARY: Molecular therapeutics for myotonic dystrophy will probably bridge the translational gap between bench and bedside in the near future. There will still be a requirement for clinical screening of patients with myotonic dystrophy with proactive and systematic management of complications.
Authors: Jonathan L Chen; Damian M VanEtten; Matthew A Fountain; Ilyas Yildirim; Matthew D Disney Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Piyali Guhathakurta; Lien A Phung; Ewa Prochniewicz; Sarah Lichtenberger; Anna Wilson; David D Thomas Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Piotr Bienias; Anna Łusakowska; Michał Ciurzyński; Zuzanna Rymarczyk; Katarzyna Irzyk; Michał Konwerski; Kamil Ciąpała; Paweł Kowalski; Anna Kamińska; Piotr Pruszczyk Journal: Clin Auton Res Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 4.435
Authors: Joseph Cheung; Chad Ruoff; Hyatt Moore; Katharine A Hagerman; Jennifer Perez; Sarada Sakamuri; Simon C Warby; Emmanuel Mignot; John Day; Jacinda Sampson Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Ramesh S Yadava; Qing Yu; Mahua Mandal; Frank Rigo; C Frank Bennett; Mani S Mahadevan Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 6.150