| Literature DB >> 26849574 |
Celine Dogan1, Marie De Antonio1,2, Dalil Hamroun3, Hugo Varet1, Marianne Fabbro1, Felix Rougier1, Khadija Amarof4, Marie-Christine Arne Bes5, Anne-Laure Bedat-Millet6, Anthony Behin7, Remi Bellance4, Françoise Bouhour8, Celia Boutte9, François Boyer10, Emmanuelle Campana-Salort11, Françoise Chapon12, Pascal Cintas5, Claude Desnuelle13, Romain Deschamps4, Valerie Drouin-Garraud6, Xavier Ferrer14, Helene Gervais-Bernard8, Karima Ghorab15, Pascal Laforet7, Armelle Magot16, Laurent Magy15, Dominique Menard17, Marie-Christine Minot17, Aleksandra Nadaj-Pakleza18, Sybille Pellieux19, Yann Pereon16, Marguerite Preudhomme20, Jean Pouget11, Sabrina Sacconi13, Guilhem Sole14, Tanya Stojkovich7, Vincent Tiffreau20, Andoni Urtizberea21, Christophe Vial8, Fabien Zagnoli22, Gilbert Caranhac23, Claude Bourlier24, Gerard Riviere24, Alain Geille24, Romain K Gherardi1, Bruno Eymard7, Jack Puymirat25, Sandrine Katsahian2, Guillaume Bassez1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myotonic Dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is one of the most heterogeneous hereditary disease in terms of age of onset, clinical manifestations, and severity, challenging both medical management and clinical trials. The CTG expansion size is the main factor determining the age of onset although no factor can finely predict phenotype and prognosis. Differences between males and females have not been specifically reported. Our aim is to study gender impact on DM1 phenotype and severity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26849574 PMCID: PMC4744025 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Patient selection of DM-Scope registry.
Fig 2Design of cross-sectional observational study and respective contribution of three national databases: DM-Scope, FDM-S, PMSI Relevant clinical and epidemiological data from French DM1 adult patients (n = 1409), enrolled in DM-Scope registry, were compared to two complementary independent databases, AFM French DM1 survey of patients health and medical care (FDM-S, n = 970 patients) and the National Health Service Database (PMSI, n = 3301), according to similar criteria (age>18y, standardized nationwide collection).
Analyses focused on gender effect as a modifying factor of DM1 clinical phenotype, socio-economic status, morbidity and mortality.
Characteristics of patients in the DM-scope registry.
| Mean age of patients in yrs (SD) | Mean age of onset (SD) | Mean CTG expansion (SD) | Congenital form in % | Infantile form in % | Juvenile form in % | Adult form in % | Late onset form in % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42.65 (12,8) | 24.53 (14) | 647.72 (452) | 3.59 | 15.72 | 25.66 | 42.21 | 12.83 | |
| 42.38 (13.4) | 23.72 (15) | 628.9 (433) | 4.59 | 17.72 | 24.68 | 39.72 | 13.29 | |
| 42.52 (13) | 24.15 (14) | 639.1 (443) | 4.05 | 16.65 | 25.2 | 41.05 | 13.04 | |
Fig 3CTG repeat expansion size in male and female individuals according to DM1 clinical forms.
Analyses assessed robustness of the conventional age of onset-based classification of DM1 with regard to the triplet expansion size. Inside each clinical form, no difference in CTG expansion size was observed between male and female groups. Performed tests: multiple comparison of mean (non parametric Kruskal Wallis test and post hoc test; * p<0.05, ** p<0.001, ***p<0.0001).
Gender effect on disease transmission and CTG expansion.
| Parental transmission | Congenital form | Infantile form | Juvenile form | Adult form | Late onset form | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 91 | 50 | 28 | 33 | 32 | 37 | |
| 1337 (684) | 1051 (401) | 784 (369) | 617 (393) | 294 (310) | 804 (507) | |
| 1190 (711) | 760 (376) | 668 (399) | 538 (359) | 346 (340) | 600 (393) | |
Fig 4Gender impact on severity of symptoms expressed as risk ratio on 95% confidence interval.
This diagram represents the gender relative risk ratio value for each symptom with its 95% confidence interval (segment). A risk ratio is significant if the confidence interval does not cross the vertical line at value 1. The width of confidence interval depends on estimate standard deviation and consequently on observations number.
Comparison of most disabling symptoms in FDM-S to DM-Scope registry related findings.
| 45% | 34% | 47% | 51% | 50% | 40% | 9% | 29% | ||
| 37% | 23% | 59% | 32% | 34% | 44% | 7.2% | 25% | ||
| 44.4% | 40% | 58.9% | 49% | 44% | 21.7% | 9.4% | 44.1% | ||
| 37.7% | 29.5% | 67.4% | 37% | 30% | 25.3% | 8% | 52.1% | ||