Evidence Hub

A Cross-Sectional Study of Nemaline Myopathy

K. Amburgey, Meryl Acker, S. Saeed, R. Amin, A. Beggs, C. Bonnemann, M. Brudno, A. Constantinescu et al.

Neurology, 2021

44 participants · 37 citations

Abstract

Objective Nemaline myopathy (NM) is a rare neuromuscular condition with clinical and genetic heterogeneity. To establish disease natural history, we performed a cross-sectional study of NM, complemented by longitudinal assessment and exploration of pilot outcome measures. Methods Fifty-seven individuals with NM were recruited at 2 family workshops, including 16 examined at both time points. Participants were evaluated by clinical history and physical examination. Functional outcome measures included the Motor Function Measure (MFM), pulmonary function tests (PFTs), myometry, goniometry, and bulbar assessments. Results The most common clinical classification was typical congenital (54%), whereas 42% had more severe presentations. Fifty-eight percent of individuals needed mechanical support, with 26% requiring wheelchair, tracheostomy, and feeding tube. The MFM scale was performed in 44 of 57 participants and showed reduced scores in most with little floor/ceiling effect. Of the 27 individuals completing PFTs, abnormal values were observed in 65%. Last, bulbar function was abnormal in all patients examined, as determined with a novel outcome measure. Genotypes included mutations in ACTA1 (18), NEB (20), and TPM2 (2). Seventeen individuals were genetically unresolved. Patients with pathogenic ACTA1 and NEB variants were largely similar in clinical phenotype. Patients without genetic resolution had more severe disease. Conclusion We present a comprehensive cross-sectional study…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 44 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free