Comparison of CMT1A and CMT2: similarities and differences.
until further notice
SourceJournal of Neurology, 253, 12, (2006), pp. 1572-1580
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Journal of Neurology
SubjectDCN 2: Functional Neurogenomics; NCEBP 10: Human Movement & Fatigue; UMCN 3.1: Neuromuscular development and genetic disorders; NCEBP 10: Human Movement & Fatigue
To evaluate the clinical and electrophysiological similarities and differences between two large groups of patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, i.e. CMT1A and CMT2, we performed a post hoc comparison of clinical and electrophysiological data.Most CMT1A and CMT2 patients had the classical CMT phenotype. Age of onset was significantly later in CMT2. Total areflexia was present in approximately half of the CMT1A patients whereas it was rare in CMT2. Foot deformities and weakness of knee extensor and foot dorsal flexor muscles were more frequent in CMT1A. Median nerve motor nerve conduction velocities (MNCV) were always less than 38 m/s in CMT1A patients, whereas this was also the case in 16% of the CMT2 patients. Sensory nerve conduction velocities showed less overlap. In both CMT1A and CMT2 CMAP and SNAP amplitudes were often reduced or not obtainable in the legs. In CMT1A, SNAP amplitude was more reduced and SNAP duration more prolonged than in CMT2.We conclude that there are no robust clinical signs or symptoms that differentiate between CMT1A and CMT2 patients. Electrodiagnostical studies show a length-dependent motor and sensory axonal dysfunction in both CMT-types. Additional SNAP and SNCV evaluation may be helpful in focusing molecular genetic analysis in the occasional case of CMT2 showing slow motor nerve conduction velocities overlapping with CMT1A values. The reduction of CMAP and SNAP amplitudes in CMT1A is probably a combined effect of demyelination and axonal dysfunction.
Upload full text