Literature DB >> 35312090

Time to diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy remains unchanged: Findings from the Muscular Dystrophy Surveillance, Tracking, and Research Network, 2000-2015.

Shiny Thomas1, Kristin M Conway2, Olushola Fapo1, Natalie Street3, Katherine D Mathews4, Joshua R Mann5, Paul A Romitti2, Aida Soim1, Christina Westfield1, Deborah J Fox1, Emma Ciafaloni6.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: With current and anticipated disease-modifying treatments, including gene therapy, an early diagnosis for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is crucial to assure maximum benefit. In 2009, a study from the Muscular Dystrophy Surveillance, Tracking, and Research Network (MD STARnet) showed an average diagnosis age of 5 years among males with DMD born from January 1, 1982 to December 31, 2000. Initiatives were implemented by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and patient organizations to reduce time to diagnosis. We conducted a follow-up study in a surveillance cohort born after January 1, 2000 to determine whether there has been an improvement in time to diagnosis.
METHODS: We assessed the age of diagnosis among males with DMD born from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2015 using data collected by six US MD STARnet surveillance sites (Colorado, Iowa, western New York State, the Piedmont region of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah). The analytic cohort included 221 males with definite or probable DMD diagnosis without a documented family history. We computed frequency count and percentage for categorical variables, and mean, median, and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables.
RESULTS: The mean [median] ages in years of diagnostic milestones were: first signs, 2.7 [2.0]; first creatine kinase (CK), 4.6 [4.6]; DNA/muscle biopsy testing, 4.9 [4.8]; and time from first signs to diagnostic confirmation, 2.2 [1.4]. DISCUSSION: The time interval between first signs of DMD and diagnosis remains unchanged at 2.2 years. This results in lost opportunities for timely genetic counseling, implementation of standards of care, initiation of glucocorticoids, and participation in clinical trials.
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Duchenne muscular dystrophy; MD STARnet; delay; diagnostic criteria; muscle dystrophy; surveillance

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35312090      PMCID: PMC9308714          DOI: 10.1002/mus.27532

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Muscle Nerve        ISSN: 0148-639X            Impact factor:   3.852


  22 in total

1.  The muscular Dystrophy Surveillance Tracking and Research Network (MD STARnet): surveillance methodology.

Authors:  Lisa A Miller; Paul A Romitti; Christopher Cunniff; Charlotte Druschel; Katherine D Mathews; F John Meaney; Dennis Matthews; Jiji Kantamneni; Zhen-Fang Feng; Nancy Zemblidge; Timothy M Miller; Jennifer Andrews; Deborah Fox; Emma Ciafaloni; Shree Pandya; April Montgomery; Aileen Kenneson
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2006-11

Review 2.  Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 2: respiratory, cardiac, bone health, and orthopaedic management.

Authors:  David J Birnkrant; Katharine Bushby; Carla M Bann; Benjamin A Alman; Susan D Apkon; Angela Blackwell; Laura E Case; Linda Cripe; Stasia Hadjiyannakis; Aaron K Olson; Daniel W Sheehan; Julie Bolen; David R Weber; Leanne M Ward
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 44.182

Review 3.  Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 3: primary care, emergency management, psychosocial care, and transitions of care across the lifespan.

Authors:  David J Birnkrant; Katharine Bushby; Carla M Bann; Susan D Apkon; Angela Blackwell; Mary K Colvin; Linda Cripe; Adrienne R Herron; Annie Kennedy; Kathi Kinnett; James Naprawa; Garey Noritz; James Poysky; Natalie Street; Christina J Trout; David R Weber; Leanne M Ward
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 44.182

Review 4.  A Historical and Current Review of Newborn Screening for Neuromuscular Disorders From Around the World: Lessons for the United States.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Angus John Clarke
Journal:  Pediatr Neurol       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 3.372

5.  Engineered DNA plasmid reduces immunity to dystrophin while improving muscle force in a model of gene therapy of Duchenne dystrophy.

Authors:  Peggy P Ho; Lauren J Lahey; Foteini Mourkioti; Peggy E Kraft; Antonio Filareto; Moritz Brandt; Klas E G Magnusson; Eric E Finn; Jeffrey S Chamberlain; William H Robinson; Helen M Blau; Lawrence Steinman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 12.779

6.  Longitudinal effect of eteplirsen versus historical control on ambulation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Authors:  Jerry R Mendell; Nathalie Goemans; Linda P Lowes; Lindsay N Alfano; Katherine Berry; James Shao; Edward M Kaye; Eugenio Mercuri
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 10.422

7.  A Roadmap to Newborn Screening for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

Authors:  Samiah A Al-Zaidy; Michele Lloyd-Puryear; Annie Kennedy; Veronica Lopez; Jerry R Mendell
Journal:  Int J Neonatal Screen       Date:  2017-04-07

8.  Assessment of Systemic Delivery of rAAVrh74.MHCK7.micro-dystrophin in Children With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jerry R Mendell; Zarife Sahenk; Kelly Lehman; Carrie Nease; Linda P Lowes; Natalie F Miller; Megan A Iammarino; Lindsay N Alfano; Amanda Nicholl; Samiah Al-Zaidy; Sarah Lewis; Kathleen Church; Richard Shell; Linda H Cripe; Rachael A Potter; Danielle A Griffin; Eric Pozsgai; Ashish Dugar; Mark Hogan; Louise R Rodino-Klapac
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 18.302

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.