Dysimmune mononeuropathies: A diagnosis not to be missed

reserved10mixedGarnero, Martina; Martinoli, Carlo; Tagliafico, Alberto; Bignotti, Bianca; Benedetti, Luana; Beronio, Alessandro; Reni, Lizia; Grandis, Marina; Mancardi, Giovanni Luigi; Schenone, AngeloGarnero, Martina; Martinoli, Carlo; Tagliafico, Alberto; Bignotti, Bianca; Benedetti, Luana; Beronio, Alessandro; Reni, Lizia; Grandis, Marina; Mancardi, GIOVANNI LUIGI; Schenone, Angel

Influence of comorbidities on the phenotype of patients affected by Charcot?Marie?Tooth neuropathy type 1A

Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 1A (CMT1A) is the most common inherited neuropathy. The phenotype of patients affected by CMT1A is highly variable and may be influenced by several conditions. We evaluated how comorbidities such as diabetes, hypothyroidism, exposure to toxins and obesity can modify or exacerbate the clinical and neurophysiological phenotype of CMT1A patients. Disability was measured using the classic CMT neuropathy score. Compared to controls, all groups of CMT1A patients with comorbidities had higher CMT neuropathy score. In particular, patients with CMT1A and diabetes mellitus show motor subscores which are significantly higher than in control CMT1A. Amplitudes of ulnar CMAP are lower in patients with CMT1A and diabetes mellitus, but not at a significant level. As expected, motor nerve conduction velocity is not influenced by any of the comorbidities. The presence of concomitant diseases shows a tendency to worsen the clinical and neurophysiological CMT1A phenotype, especially in patients with CMT1A and diabetes mellitus, where higher values in the CMT neuropathy score and clinical motor subscore have been observed

Patients' and physicians' interpretation of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity

To test if and how chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is perceived differently by patients and physicians, making assessment and interpretation challenging. We performed a secondary analysis of the CI-PeriNomS study which included 281 patients with stable CIPN. We tested: (a) the association between patients' perception of activity limitation in performing eight common tasks and neurological impairment and (b) how the responses to questions related to these daily activities are interpreted by the treating oncologist. To achieve this, we compared patients' perception of their activity limitation with neurological assessment and the oncologists' blind interpretation. Distribution of the scores attributed by oncologists to each daily life maximum limitation ("impossible") generated three groups: Group 1 included limitations oncologists attributed mainly to motor impairment; Group 2 ones mainly attributed to sensory impairment and Group 3 ones with uncertain motor and sensory impairment. Only a subset of questions showed a significant trend between severity in subjective limitation, reported by patients, and neurological impairment. In Group 1, neurological examination confirmed motor impairment in only 51%-65% of patients; 76%-78% of them also had vibration perception impairment. In Group 2, sensory impairment ranged from 84% to 100%; some degree of motor impairment occurred in 43%-56% of them. In Group 3 strength reduction was observed in 49%-50% and sensory perception was altered in up to 82%. Interpretation provided by the panel of experienced oncologists was inconsistent with the neurological impairment. These observations highlight the need of a core set of outcome measures for future CIPN trials