Case report shows suspected congenital myasthenic syndrome in an adult with rheumatoid arthritis, suggesting the need for genetic testing.
Background:Congenital myasthenic syndrome (CMS) is a clinically and genetically heterogeneous disorder of neuromuscular transmission, with more than 35 associated genes.Although CMS typically presents at birth or in early childhood, adult-onset forms are increasingly recognized and frequently mimic seronegative autoimmune myasthenia gravis, causing diagnostic delay.Its prevalence (2.8-14.8 per million) is probably underestimated, particularly for mild, late-onset, or atypical phenotypes. Case Report:A 42-year-old man with well-controlled seropositive rheumatoid arthritis presented with progressive fatigue, fluctuating proximal weakness (Medical Research Council grade 4/5 with fatigability), bilateral ptosis, and intermittent diplopia.Nerve conduction studies, repetitive nerve stimulation, and electromyography were normal, and a comprehensive autoimmune and myositis antibody panel was negative, prompting genetic testing.Whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing identified a heterozygous pathogenic CHRND variant; additional variants of uncertain or unrelated significance were also detected.Because CHRND-related CMS is classically autosomal recessive and single-fiber electromyography was not performed, a single heterozygous variant cannot be regarded as confirmatory, and the diagnosis is considered suspected rather than definitive.Pyridostigmine produced clinically meaningful improvement-reduced ptosis, resolved diplopia, and improved endurancethat was sustained at the 6-week follow-up. Conclusions:CMS should be considered in adults with fatigable weakness and atypical neuromuscular features once autoimmune causes are excluded; however, a single heterozygous variant without confirmatory electrophysiology limits diagnostic certainty.To our knowledge, this is the first report of a suspected CHRND-associated adultonset CMS with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis.Broad genetic testing is valuable when phenotype and serology diverge, but results must be interpreted cautiously alongside electrophysiological confirmation before a definitive diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: