Journal of diabetes and its complications · 2024
Prevalence and clinical implications of diabetes mellitus in autoimmune nodopathies: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tentolouris Anastasios, Stefanou Maria-Ioanna, Vrettou Anastasia V, Palaiodimou Lina, Moschovos Christos, Papadopoulou Marianna, Kokotis Panagiotis, Eleftheriadou Ioanna, Tentolouris Nikolaos, Tsivgoulis Georgios
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Autoimmune nodopathies comprise a newly-established subtype of immune-mediated peripheral neuropathies, characterized by circulating autoantibodies that target nodal-paranodal proteins, including contactin-1 (CNTN1), contactin-associated protein-1 (Caspr1), neurofascin-155 (NF155) and neurofascin-isoforms (NF140 and NF186). Emerging evidence suggests that diabetes mellitus (DM) may confer increased risk for autoimmune nodopathies.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed including studies reporting on patients harboring nodal/paranodal antibodies (CNTN1, Caspr1, NF155, NF140 and NF186). We sought to evaluate: (1) the prevalence of DM among patients with autoimmune nodopathies; (2) the phenotype of DM-patients harboring different types of nodal/paranodal antibodies; (3) clinical features that allow distinction of autoimmune nodopathies from diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).
RESULTS: Five cohort studies, 3 case-reports and one case-series study were identified comprising 114 patients with autoimmune nodopathies. DM prevalence was documented to range between 10.5 % and 60 %. DM-patients harbored mostly paranodal antibodies; CNTN1: 58.3 %, followed by pan-neurofascin: 33.3 %, and Caspr1: 25 % antibodies. No significant differences in clinical phenotype were uncovered between DM-patients and their non-DM counterparts. Overall, DM patients were refractory to intravenous-immunoglobulins (IVIG), but responded well to escalation immunotherapies. Compared to DPN, distinctive features of autoimmune nodopathy comprised: (i) severe ataxia, tremor, and cranial nerve involvement; (ii) neurophysiological findings indicative of nodal-paranodal pathology, including (reversible) conduction failure and conduction velocity slowing, often accompanied by reduced compound muscle and sensory nerve action potentials; and (iii) marked protein-elevation or albuminocytological dissociation in cerebrospinal fluid analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: DM patients fall under the typical clinical phenotype of autoimmune nodopathy, displaying predominantly paranodal antibodies. Early suspicion is crucial, as unlike DPN, diagnosis of autoimmune nodopathy unfolds therapeutic perspectives.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed including studies reporting on patients harboring nodal/paranodal antibodies (CNTN1, Caspr1, NF155, NF140 and NF186). We sought to evaluate: (1) the prevalence of DM among patients with autoimmune nodopathies; (2) the phenotype of DM-patients harboring different types of nodal/paranodal antibodies; (3) clinical features that allow distinction of autoimmune nodopathies from diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).
RESULTS: Five cohort studies, 3 case-reports and one case-series study were identified comprising 114 patients with autoimmune nodopathies. DM prevalence was documented to range between 10.5 % and 60 %. DM-patients harbored mostly paranodal antibodies; CNTN1: 58.3 %, followed by pan-neurofascin: 33.3 %, and Caspr1: 25 % antibodies. No significant differences in clinical phenotype were uncovered between DM-patients and their non-DM counterparts. Overall, DM patients were refractory to intravenous-immunoglobulins (IVIG), but responded well to escalation immunotherapies. Compared to DPN, distinctive features of autoimmune nodopathy comprised: (i) severe ataxia, tremor, and cranial nerve involvement; (ii) neurophysiological findings indicative of nodal-paranodal pathology, including (reversible) conduction failure and conduction velocity slowing, often accompanied by reduced compound muscle and sensory nerve action potentials; and (iii) marked protein-elevation or albuminocytological dissociation in cerebrospinal fluid analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: DM patients fall under the typical clinical phenotype of autoimmune nodopathy, displaying predominantly paranodal antibodies. Early suspicion is crucial, as unlike DPN, diagnosis of autoimmune nodopathy unfolds therapeutic perspectives.