| Literature DB >> 30259176 |
Wolfgang N Löscher1, Eva-Maria Oberreiter2, Marcus Erdler3, Stefan Quasthoff4, Valeriu Culea4, Klaus Berek5, Norbert Embacher6, Susanne Grinzinger7, Isolde Hess8, Franz Stefan Höger9, Corinne G C Horlings2, Michael Huemer10, Julia Jecel11, Waltraud Kleindienst7, Eva Laich12, Petra Müller13, Dierk Oel13, Wolfgang Örtl14, Eva Lenzenweger15, Jakob Rath16, Klaus Stadler13, Karl Stieglbauer17, Claudia Thaler-Wolf18, Julia Wanschitz2, Fritz Zimprich16, Hakan Cetin16, Raffi Topakian13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare neuropathy and detailed descriptions of larger patient cohorts are scarce. The objective of this study was to evaluate epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory features of MMN patients and their response to treatment in Austria and to compare these data with those from the literature.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-GM1 antibody; Conduction block; Intravenous immunoglobulin; Multifocal motor neuropathy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30259176 PMCID: PMC6244652 DOI: 10.1007/s00415-018-9071-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurol ISSN: 0340-5354 Impact factor: 4.849
Clinical characteristics of 57 Austrian MMN patients
| Upper limb onset | Lower limb onset | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 44 | 13 |
| Distal onset ( | 40 | 13 |
| Proximal onset ( | 4 | 0 |
| Weakness at time of diagnosis (MRC; mean, range) | 3 (0–4.5) | 3 (1.5–4.5) |
| Atrophy at last visit ( | 40 | 10 |
Fig. 1Effect of ivig treatment on strength and disability. a Muscle strength (MRC) of the weakest muscle of the arms and b upper limb INCAT score are shown before treatment, after the first three treatment cycles (n = 51) and at the last follow-up (n = 46). Strength was grouped in MRC < 3, MRC 3 and 3.5, MRC 4 and 4.5, and MRC = 5
Frequency and distribution of conduction blocks found in nerve conduction studies
| No (%) | |
|---|---|
| Total | 111 |
| Median | 37 (33.3) |
| Ulnar | 39 (35.1) |
| Radial | 14 (12.6) |
| Musculocutaneous | 6 (5.4) |
| Peroneal | 9 (8.1) |
| Tibial | 6 (5.4) |
Fig. 2Changes of diagnostic delay over time are shown
Dosing of IVIG at the beginning (first three treatment cycles) of treatment and the last follow-up; mean ± SD (median; range)
| Total IVIG dose/treatment cycle (g/kg) | Treatment interval (weeks) | |
|---|---|---|
| Initial | 1.76 ± 0.45 | 5.6 ± 2.1 (5; 2–12) |
| Last follow-up | 1,06 ± 0.54 | 5.1 ± (5.7) |
Fig. 3Effects of IVIG treatment on clinical global impression (CGI) after the first three treatment cycles (white bars) and at the last follow-up (black bars)