Propionic acidemia: clinical course and outcome in 55 pediatric and adolescent patients

BACKGROUND: Propionic acidemia is an inherited disorder caused by deficiency of propionyl-CoA carboxylase. Although it is one of the most frequent organic acidurias, information on the outcome of affected individuals is still limited. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Clinical and outcome data of 55 patients with propionic acidemia from 16 European metabolic centers were evaluated retrospectively. 35 patients were diagnosed by selective metabolic screening while 20 patients were identified by newborn screening. Endocrine parameters and bone age were evaluated. In addition, IQ testing was performed and the patients' and their families' quality of life was assessed. RESULTS: The vast majority of patients (>85%) presented with metabolic decompensation in the neonatal period. Asymptomatic individuals were the exception. About three quarters of the study population was mentally retarded, median IQ was 55. Apart from neurologic symptoms, complications comprised hematologic abnormalities, cardiac diseases, feeding problems and impaired growth. Most patients considered their quality of life high. However, according to the parents' point of view psychic problems were four times more common in propionic acidemia patients than in healthy controls. CONCLUSION: Our data show that the outcome of propionic acidemia is still unfavourable, in spite of improved clinical management. Many patients develop long-term complications affecting different organ systems. Impairment of neurocognitive development is of special concern. Nevertheless, self-assessment of quality of life of the patients and their parents yielded rather positive results

Cross-sectional study of 168 patients with hepatorenal tyrosinaemia and implications for clinical practice

BackgroundHepatorenal tyrosinaemia (Tyr 1) is a rare inborn error of tyrosine metabolism. Without treatment, patients are at high risk of developing acute liver failure, renal dysfunction and in the long run hepatocellular carcinoma. The aim of our study was to collect cross-sectional data.MethodsVia questionnaires we collected retrospective data of 168 patients with Tyr 1 from 21 centres (Europe, Turkey and Israel) about diagnosis, treatment, monitoring and outcome. In a subsequent consensus workshop, we discussed data and clinical implications.ResultsEarly treatment by NTBC accompanied by diet is essential to prevent serious complications such as liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma and renal disease. As patients may remain initially asymptomatic or develop uncharacteristic clinical symptoms in the first months of life newborn mass screening using succinylacetone (SA) as a screening parameter in dried blood is mandatory for early diagnosis. NTBC-treatment has to be combined with natural protein restriction supplemented with essential amino acids. NTBC dosage should be reduced to the minimal dose allowing metabolic control, once daily dosing may be an option in older children and adults in order to increase compliance. Metabolic control is judged by SA (below detection limit) in dried blood or urine, plasma tyrosine (<400 ¿M) and NTBC-levels in the therapeutic range (20¿40 ¿M). Side effects of NTBC are mild and often transient.Indications for liver transplantation are hepatocellular carcinoma or failure to respond to NTBC. Follow-up procedures should include liver and kidney function tests, tumor markers and imaging, ophthalmological examination, blood count, psychomotor and intelligence testing as well as therapeutic monitoring (SA, tyrosine, NTBC in blood).ConclusionBased on the data from 21 centres treating 168 patients we were able to characterize current practice and clinical experience in Tyr 1. This information could form the basis for clinical practice recommendations, however further prospective data are required to underpin some of the recommendations

Cross-sectional study of 168 patients with hepatorenal tyrosinaemia and implications for clinical practice.

Background: Hepatorenal tyrosinaemia (Tyr 1) is a rare inborn error of tyrosine metabolism. Without treatment, patients are at high risk of developing acute liver failure, renal dysfunction and in the long run hepatocellular carcinoma. The aim of our study was to collect cross-sectional data

Cystathionine β-synthase deficiency in the E-HOD registry-part I:pyridoxine responsiveness as a determinant of biochemical and clinical phenotype at diagnosis

Cystathionine ß-synthase (CBS) deficiency has a wide clinical spectrum, ranging from neurodevelopmental problems, lens dislocation and marfanoid features in early childhood to adult onset disease with predominantly thromboembolic complications. We have analysed clinical and laboratory data at the time of diagnosis in 328 patients with CBS deficiency from the E-HOD (European network and registry for Homocystinurias and methylation Defects) registry. We developed comprehensive criteria to classify patients into four groups of pyridoxine responsivity: non-responders (NR), partial, full and extreme responders (PR, FR and ER, respectively). All groups showed overlapping concentrations of plasma total homocysteine while pyridoxine responsiveness inversely correlated with plasma/serum methionine concentrations. The FR and ER groups had a later age of onset and diagnosis and a longer diagnostic delay than NR and PR patients. Lens dislocation was common in all groups except ER but the age of dislocation increased with increasing responsiveness. Developmental delay was commonest in the NR group while no ER patient had cognitive impairment. Thromboembolism was the commonest presenting feature in ER patients, whereas it was least likely at presentation in the NR group. This probably is due to the differences in ages at presentation: all groups had a similar number of thromboembolic events per 1000 patient-years. Clinical severity of CBS deficiency depends on the degree of pyridoxine responsiveness. Therefore, a standardised pyridoxine-responsiveness test in newly diagnosed patients and a critical review of previous assessments is indispensable to ensure adequate therapy and to prevent or reduce long-term complications

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

BackgroundMultisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments.MethodsThe Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370.FindingsWe enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2-11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75-1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58-1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91-1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70-1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11-0·20]; p&lt;0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50-0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38-0·67]; p&lt;0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45-0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups.InterpretationRecovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries.FundingImperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health