This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: The GCH1 gene encodes the enzyme guanosine triphosphate cyclohydrolase I (GTPCH), which catalyzes the rate-limiting step in the biosynthesis of tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4), a critical cofactor in the production of monoamine neurotransmitters. Autosomal dominant GTPCH (adGTPCH) deficiency is the most common cause of dopa-responsive dystonia (DRD), whereas the recessive form (arGTPCH) is an ultrarare and poorly characterized disorder with earlier and more complex presentation that may disrupt neurodevelopmental processes. Here, we delineated the phenotypic spectrum of ARGTPCHD and investigated the predictive value of biochemical and genetic correlates for disease outcome. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to study 4 new cases of arGTPCH deficiency and systematically review patients reported in the literature. METHODS: Clinical, biochemical, and genetic data and treatment response of 45 patients are presented. RESULTS: Three phenotypes were outlined: (1) early-infantile encephalopathic phenotype with profound disability (24 of 45 patients), (2) dystonia-parkinsonism phenotype with infantile/early-childhood onset of developmental stagnation/regression preceding the emergence of movement disorder (7 of 45), and (3) late-onset DRD phenotype (14 of 45). All 3 phenotypes were responsive to pharmacological treatment, which for the first 2 must be initiated early to prevent disabling neurodevelopmental outcomes. A gradient of BH4 defect and genetic variant severity characterizes the 3 clinical subgroups. Hyperphenylalaninemia was not observed in the second and third groups and was associated with a higher likelihood of intellectual disability. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical spectrum of arGTPCH deficiency is a continuum from early-onset encephalopathies to classical DRD. Genotype and biochemical alterations may allow early diagnosis and predict clinical severity. Early treatment remains critical, especially for the most severe patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Novelli et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: