Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy diagnosed in childhood: a muscular dystrophy surveillance, tracking and research network cohort
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Reports of clinical characteristics of FSHD in childhood have often focused on the most severely affected. To include children in clinical trials, it is important to understand the full pediatric spectrum. The Muscular Dystrophy Surveillance, Tracking, and Research Network provides a population-based, cross-sectional cohort of children diagnosed with FSHD. Children diagnosed before 19 years of age during 2008-2019 were included (n = 93). Clinical characteristics abstracted from the medical record included motor symptoms, genetic test results, and family history. Of those with known FSHD type (n = 73 of 93, 78.8 %), 72 (98.6 %) had FSHD1. Among those with FSHD1, the most frequent D4Z4 repeat category was 1-3 repeats (n = 33, 45.8 %) and few had 7-10 repeats (n = 7, 9.7 %). Among those with FSHD1 and known symptom onset age (n = 70), 22 (31.4 %) had early onset disease. Overall, most (88.2 %) were ambulatory at last visit. The number of children diagnosed increased steadily across childhood, suggesting a continuous spectrum of age at onset. The most common co-morbidity was hearing loss (n = 19 of 93, 20.4 %); most commonly among children with FSHD1 and 1-3 D4Z4 repeats (n = 13 of 33, 39.4 %). Our series provides data to support the design of pediatric FSHD trials, critical to ensure timely access to future effective treatments.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy diagnosed in childhood: a muscular dystrophy surveillance, tracking and research network cohort
- Date Crossref
- 01/03/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.