Clinical and genetic evaluation of hereditary myopathies in an adult Saudi cohort

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of hereditary myopathy is often challenging owing to overlapping clinical phenotypes and muscle histopathological findings. This retrospective study aimed to identify the phenotypic and genotypic spectra of hereditary myopathies at a tertiary hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients with hereditary myopathy who were evaluated between January 2018 and December 2022. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients (78 families) were included, two-thirds were men with a mean age of 35 (SD 14.2) years. Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD) was the most prevalent clinical diagnosis (25 cases; 29%), of whom, a genetic diagnosis was achieved in 15 of 22 patients tested (68%). In genetically confirmed LGMD, the most prevalent disorders were dysferlinopathy (27%) followed by fukutin-related protein (FKRP) - related limb girdle muscular dystrophy (20%), sarcoglycanopathy (20%), lamin A/C related myopathy (13%), and calpain-3 myopathy (13%). In 26 patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants, the genetic testing method was whole exome sequencing (WES) (42%), Next generation sequencing (NGS) (31%), and targeted single gene analysis (27%). The sensitivity of each genetic testing method was as follows: 100% for targeted single-gene analysis, 100% for targeted analysis of D4Z4 repeat array units, 88% for myotonic dystrophy protein kinase (DMPK) repeat expansion analysis, 42% for NGS-neuromuscular panel, and 46% for WES. CONCLUSION: The prevalent types of hereditary myopathies were consistent with those reported locally and internationally. This study highlights the diagnostic yield of various molecular genetic tests for the diagnosis of hereditary myopathy in an adult cohort and the need for improved access to advanced molecular testing in cases suspected to have facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) or mitochondrial myopathies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.