Why the study?
Correct phenotypic classification of patients with FSHD is crucial for directing genetic diagnosis and defining outcome measures in clinical trials.
Does phenotypic classification using the CCEF predict the clinical course in patients with FSHD1?
Does phenotypic classification using the CCEF predict the clinical course in patients with FSHD1?
Phenotypic classification of FSHD patients using the CCEF identifies distinct clinical courses, with facial sparing phenotypes exhibiting milder disease.
CCEF classification supports FSHD phenotyping in UK registry patients; leaves open prospective validation for trial endpoints.
INTRODUCTION: The correct phenotypic classification of patients with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is crucial for directing genetic diagnosis and for the definition of outcome measures in clinical trials. METHODS: Our objective was to ascertain the utility of the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Form (CCEF), the clinical classification proposed by the Italian Clinical Network for FSHD, in an independent FSHD patient population from the UK FSHD Patient Registry. We subdivided the patients into group 1, classic FSHD phenotype/category A of CCEF, and group 2, facial sparing phenotypes/category B1 of CCEF. RESULTS: Among 642 patients with FSHD1, 68.1% reported facial and shoulder weakness, whereas 24.1% reported shoulder weakness without facial impairment. The phenotype in group 2 was milder, with a higher mean age at onset (P < 0.0001) and less severe motor disability. DISCUSSION: Patients with different FSHD phenotypes may have different disease courses. Muscle Nerve 59:711-713, 2019.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ricci et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: