| Literature DB >> 33969391 |
Riccardo Currò1,2, Alessandro Salvalaggio3, Stefano Tozza4, Chiara Gemelli5,6, Natalia Dominik7, Valentina Galassi Deforie7, Francesca Magrinelli8,9, Francesca Castellani3, Elisa Vegezzi1,2, Pietro Businaro1,2, Ilaria Callegari1,2, Anna Pichiecchio1,2, Giuseppe Cosentino1,2, Enrico Alfonsi2, Enrico Marchioni2, Silvia Colnaghi2, Simone Gana2, Enza Maria Valente2,10, Cristina Tassorelli1,2, Stephanie Efthymiou7, Stefano Facchini7, Aisling Carr7, Matilde Laura7, Alexander M Rossor7, Hadi Manji7, Michael P Lunn7, Elena Pegoraro3, Lucio Santoro4, Marina Grandis5,6, Emilia Bellone5,6,11, Nicholas J Beauchamp12, Marios Hadjivassiliou13, Diego Kaski14,15, Adolfo M Bronstein14, Henry Houlden7, Mary M Reilly7, Paola Mandich5,6,11, Angelo Schenone5,6, Fiore Manganelli4, Chiara Briani3, Andrea Cortese1,7.
Abstract
After extensive evaluation, one-third of patients affected by polyneuropathy remain undiagnosed and are labelled as having chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy, which refers to a sensory or sensory-motor, axonal, slowly progressive neuropathy of unknown origin. Since a sensory neuropathy/neuronopathy is identified in all patients with genetically confirmed RFC1 cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy, vestibular areflexia syndrome, we speculated that RFC1 expansions could underlie a fraction of idiopathic sensory neuropathies also diagnosed as chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy. We retrospectively identified 225 patients diagnosed with chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (125 sensory neuropathy, 100 sensory-motor neuropathy) from our general neuropathy clinics in Italy and the UK. All patients underwent full neurological evaluation and a blood sample was collected for RFC1 testing. Biallelic RFC1 expansions were identified in 43 patients (34%) with sensory neuropathy and in none with sensory-motor neuropathy. Forty-two per cent of RFC1-positive patients had isolated sensory neuropathy or sensory neuropathy with chronic cough, while vestibular and/or cerebellar involvement, often subclinical, were identified at examination in 58%. Although the sensory ganglia are the primary pathological target of the disease, the sensory impairment was typically worse distally and symmetric, while gait and limb ataxia were absent in two-thirds of the cases. Sensory amplitudes were either globally absent (26%) or reduced in a length-dependent (30%) or non-length dependent pattern (44%). A quarter of RFC1-positive patients had previously received an alternative diagnosis, including Sjögren's syndrome, sensory chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and paraneoplastic neuropathy, while three cases had been treated with immune therapies.Entities:
Keywords: CANVAS; RFC1; chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy; sensory neuropathy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33969391 PMCID: PMC8262986 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awab072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain ISSN: 0006-8950 Impact factor: 13.501
Figure 1Flow chart for enrolment of patients with sensory and sensory-motor CIAP. ENMG = electroneuromyography; HSN = hereditary sensory neuropathy; PN = polyneuropathy.
Clinical features of RFC1+ patients at disease onset and at most recent evaluation
| Demographics |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Males | 25 (58%) | |
| Positive family history | 1 (2%) | |
| Age at onset | 56 (30–75) | |
| Age at examination | 67 (41–86) | |
|
|
|
|
| Numbness | 21 (49%) | 27 (63%) |
| Unsteadiness | 19 (44%) | 30 (70%) |
| Tingling/pins and needles | 14 (33%) | 20 (46%) |
| Pain | 10 (23%) | 17 (39%) |
| Distribution | ||
| Length dependent | NA | 20/29 (69%) |
| Non-length-dependent | NA | 9/29 (31%) |
| Dysautonomia | 2 (5%) | 9 (21%) |
| Dysarthria/dysphagia | 1 (2%) | 10 (23%) |
| Oscillopsia | 1 (2%) | 4 (9%) |
| Chronic cough | NA | 26/37 (70%) |
NA = not available.
Figure 2Detailed neurological examination of HIT = head-impulse test; LL = lower limbs; UL = upper limbs; vVOR = visually-enhanced vestibulo-ocular reflex.
Figure 3Graphic representation of the distribution of abnormalities at sensory examination. The different shades of colour correspond to different percentages of patients with reduced sensation in the specific area.
Details of nerve conduction studies in RFC1+ patients
| Sensory nerves | Reduced SAPs | Absent SAPs | Amplitude (µV) | SCV (m/s) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reference Radial |
– 10/21 (48%) |
– 11/21 (52%) |
>10 2.6 (0.37–9.4) |
>48 50 (39–62) | |||||
|
Ref Ulnar |
– 11/30 (37%) |
– 18/30 (60%) |
>6 2.4 (0.5–6.2) |
>46 49.1 (39.7–61) | |||||
|
Reference Median |
– 16/30 (53%) |
– 14/30 (47%) |
>8 3.4 (0.3–7.4) |
>43.5 47 (36–56.5) | |||||
|
Reference Sural |
– 18/39 (46%) |
– 19/39 (49%) |
>6 1.8 (0.2–11.6) |
>42 41.8 (31.4–51) | |||||
|
Reference Sup. Peroneal |
– 6/17 (35%) |
– 11/17 (65%) |
>6 1.8 (0.19–4) |
>40 40 (37–43) | |||||
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||||||
|
Reference Ulnar |
– 1/19 (5%) |
– 0/19 (0%) |
>5 9.6 (4.7–16.4) |
>48 55 (50–73) | |||||
|
Reference Median |
– 2/25 (8%) |
– 0/25 (0%) |
>6 10.4 (4–16.3) |
>46.8 54 (48–62.9) | |||||
|
Reference Peroneal |
– 2/34 (6%) |
– 0/34 (0%) |
>2 5 (0.7–17.1) |
>41 45.2 (37.3–52.8) | |||||
|
Reference Tibial |
– 1/21 (4%) |
– 0/21 (0%) |
>5 8.1 (2.9–19) |
>40.6 43 (38.8–51.2) | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| Absent LL SAPs/Reduced UL SAPs = 5 | LL SAPs < UL SAPs = 8 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Absent SAPs at four limbs = 11 |
Absent UL SAPs/ Reduced LL SAPs = 5 | UL SAPs < LL SAPs = 9 | Globally absent SAPs with at least one SAP preserved = 5 | ||||||
Values are expressed as median (range) or n (%). CMAPs = compound muscle action potentials; LL = lower limbs; MCV = motor conduction velocity; SAPs = sensory action potentials; SCV = sensory conduction velocity; Sup. Peroneal = superficial peroneal; UL = upper limbs.
Figure 4Distribution of system involvement in Patients with isolated sensory neuropathy were further subdivided depending on the presence of cough; patients with complex neuropathy who did not have the full triad of CANVAS were further classified depending on the presence of vestibular or cerebellar dysfunction.
Comparison of main clinical features and investigation results in RFC1-positive and -negative patients
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age at onset | 56 (30–75) | 58 (12–85) | 0.17 |
| Male sex | 25/43 (58%) | 38/60 (63%) | 0.59 |
| Cough | 26/37 (70%) | 5/54 (9%) |
|
| Unsteadiness | 30/43 (70%) | 29/55 (53%) | 0.08 |
| History of falls | 15/43 (35%) | 6/56 (10%) |
|
| Chronic progression | 35/43 (81%) | 29/58 (50%) |
|
| Need for walking support | 16/43 (37%) | 6/58 (10%) |
|
| Sensory symptoms (non-length-dependent distribution) | 9/29 (31%) | 13/47 (28%) | 0.95 |
| Impaired vibratory sensation at knee or above | 27/43 (63%) | 13/57 (22%) |
|
| Non length-dependent pattern at NCS | 30/43 (70%) | 15/55 (27%) |
|
| Absent SAPs at UL | 22/35 (63%) | 10/40 (25%) |
|
| Cerebellar symptoms | 10/43 (23%) | 4/56 (7%) |
|
| Cerebellar signs | 20/40 (50%) | 12/58 (21%) |
|
| Vestibular symptoms | 4/43 (9%) | 1/58 (1%) | 0.09 |
| Vestibular signs | 12/26 (46%) | 2/37 (5%) |
|
Values are provided mean (range) or n (%). Values in bold indicate significance. NCS = nerve conduction studies; SAPs = sensory action potentials; UL= upper limbs.
Figure 5The ‘iceberg’ hypothesis for RFC1 spectrum disorders. Complex neuropathy was defined by the contemporary presence of neuropathy and vestibular or cerebellar involvement.