Search

POINTS CLES La sclerose laterale amyotrophique (SLA) est une maladie progressive invalidante due a une degenerescence des motoneurones dans le cerveau et la moelle epiniere; elle provoque faiblesse, atrophie musculaire, fasciculations et spasticite[1][1]. La forme la plus frequente est

We report the recruitment activities and outcomes of a multi-disease neuromuscular patient registry in Canada. The Canadian Neuromuscular Disease Registry (CNDR) registers individuals across Canada with a confirmed diagnosis of a neuromuscular disease. Diagnosis and contact information are collected across all diseases and detailed prospective data is collected for 5 specific diseases: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), Myotonic Dystrophy (DM), Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy (LGMD), and Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Since 2010, the CNDR has registered 4306 patients (1154 pediatric and 3148 adult) with 91 different neuromuscular diagnoses and has facilitated 125 projects (73 academic, 3 not-for-profit, 3 government, and 46 commercial) using registry data. In conclusion, the CNDR is an effective and productive pan-neuromuscular registry that has successfully facilitated a substantial number of studies over the past 10 years.

KEY POINTS Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a debilitating, progressive disease with degeneration of motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord causing weakness, muscle atrophy, fasciculations and spasticity.[1][1] Onset in the limbs, with extremity weakness and impairment in mobility, is the

Acute Guillain-Barre syndrome is the most common cause of neuromuscular paralysis. Plasma exchange and intravenous immune globulin (IV IgG) are both effective treatments for this condition and the purpose of this report was to compare the cost-effectiveness of these two modalities. A MEDLINE search was performed to identify randomized studies that compared the use of IV IgG and plasma exchange for treatment of acute Guillain-Barre syndrome to determine if one modality was more effective and/or safer for the management of this condition. A decision analysis was structured around the alternatives facing neurologists who must choose a treatment regimen for patients diagnosed with acute Guillain-Barre syndrome who require active therapy. Cost information was obtained directly from product manufacturers and hospital sources. Two head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of plasma exchange and IV IgG for treatment of acute Guillain-Barre syndrome determined that there was insufficient evidence to suggest one therapy was more effective than the other; therefore, a cost minimization analysis was performed. The costs per patient of plasma exchange and IV IgG for the treatment of acute Guillain-Barre syndrome were $6,204 and $10,165, respectively. A sensitivity analysis determined the model was sensitive to the cost of IV IgG. The cost savings per patient treatment for the use of plasma exchange varied from $304 to $6,625 depending on the IV IgG product selected. Plasma exchange and IV IgG are both effective treatments for Guillain-Barre syndrome. However, our analysis determined plasma exchange on average was almost $4,000 less costly per patient than IV IgG. Further research is required to determine the impact of patient and physician preferences on the treatment of this disorder.

BACKGROUND: Polyneuropathy, a common complication of diabetes mellitus, causes pain and sensory and motor deficits in the limbs, and is also an important independent predictor of foot ulceration. Inhibiting the metabolism of glucose by the polyol pathway using aldose reductase inhibitors is a potential mechanism to slow or reverse the neuropathy's progression. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of aldose reductase inhibitors on the progression of symptoms, signs or functional disability in diabetic polyneuropathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register, MEDLINE (from January 1966 to May 2007), EMBASE (from January 1980 to May 2007) and LILACS (from 1982 to May 2007). We reviewed bibliographies of randomized trials identified, and contacted authors and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing an aldose reductase inhibitor with control, and lasting at least six months. The primary outcome measure was change in neurological function, measured in various ways, including strength testing, sensory examination, and composite scores of neurological examination. Secondary outcome measures were nerve conduction studies, neuropathic symptoms, quality of life, occurrence of foot ulcers and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials included in the review were selected and assessed independently by at least two of us. Methodological criteria and study results were recorded on data extraction forms. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty‐two randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Many had significant methodological flaws. Change in neurological function, our primary outcome measure, was assessed in 29 trials, but sufficient data for meta‐analysis were only available in 13 studies, involving 879 treated participants and 909 controls. There was no overall significant difference between the treated and control groups (SMD ‐0.25, 95% CI ‐0.56 to 0.05), although one subgroup analysis (four trials using tolrestat) favored treatment. A benefit for neuropathic symptoms was suggested by a group of trials using a dichotomized endpoint (improvement or not), but this was contradicted by another group of trials which measured symptoms on a continuous scale. There was no overall benefit on nerve conduction parameters (27 studies) or foot ulceration (one study). Quality of life was not assessed in any of the studies. While most adverse events were infrequent and minor, three compounds had dose limiting adverse events that lead to their withdrawal from human use: severe hypersensitivity reactions with sorbinil, elevation of creatinine with zenarestat, and alteration of liver function with tolrestat. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference between aldose reductase inhibitors and placebo in the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy. Any future clinical trials of aldose reductase inhibitors should be restricted to compounds proven to have substantial biological or preclinical advantages over previously tested agents.