Federica Ricci

Aicardi-Goutières syndrome is an inflammatory disease occurring due to mutations in any of TREX1, RNASEH2A, RNASEH2B, RNASEH2C, SAMHD1, ADAR or IFIH1. We report on 374 patients from 299 families with mutations in these seven genes. Most patients conformed to one of two fairly stereotyped clinical profiles; either exhibiting an in utero disease-onset (74 patients; 22.8% of all patients where data were available), or a post-natal presentation, usually within the first year of life (223 patients; 68.6%), characterized by a sub-acute encephalopathy and a loss of previously acquired skills. Other clinically distinct phenotypes were also observed; particularly, bilateral striatal necrosis (13 patients; 3.6%) and non-syndromic spastic paraparesis (12 patients; 3.4%). We recorded 69 deaths (19.3% of patients with follow-up data). Of 285 patients for whom data were available, 210 (73.7%) were profoundly disabled, with no useful motor, speech and intellectual function. Chilblains, glaucoma, hypothyroidism, cardiomyopathy, intracerebral vasculitis, peripheral neuropathy, bowel inflammation and systemic lupus erythematosus were seen frequently enough to be confirmed as real associations with the Aicardi-Goutieres syndrome phenotype. We observed a robust relationship between mutations in all seven genes with increased type I interferon activity in cerebrospinal fluid and serum, and the increased expression of interferon-stimulated gene transcripts in peripheral blood. We recorded a positive correlation between the level of cerebrospinal fluid interferon activity assayed within one year of disease presentation and the degree of subsequent disability. Interferon-stimulated gene transcripts remained high in most patients, indicating an ongoing disease process. On the basis of substantial morbidity and mortality, our data highlight the urgent need to define coherent treatment strategies for the phenotypes associated with mutations in the Aicardi-Goutières syndrome-related genes. Our findings also make it clear that a window of therapeutic opportunity exists relevant to the majority of affected patients and indicate that the assessment of type I interferon activity might serve as a useful biomarker in future clinical trials.

Importance: Corticosteroids improve strength and function in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, there is uncertainty regarding the optimum regimen and dosage. Objective: To compare efficacy and adverse effects of the 3 most frequently prescribed corticosteroid regimens in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, parallel-group randomized clinical trial including 196 boys aged 4 to 7 years with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who had not previously been treated with corticosteroids; enrollment occurred between January 30, 2013, and September 17, 2016, at 32 clinic sites in 5 countries. The boys were assessed for 3 years (last participant visit on October 16, 2019). Interventions: Participants were randomized to daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg) (n = 65), daily deflazacort (0.90 mg/kg) (n = 65), or intermittent prednisone (0.75 mg/kg for 10 days on and then 10 days off) (n = 66). Main Outcomes and Measures: The global primary outcome comprised 3 end points: rise from the floor velocity (in rise/seconds), forced vital capacity (in liters), and participant or parent global satisfaction with treatment measured by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM; score range, 0 to 100), each averaged across all study visits after baseline. Pairwise group comparisons used a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .017. Results: Among the 196 boys randomized (mean age, 5.8 years [SD, 1.0 years]), 164 (84%) completed the trial. Both daily prednisone and daily deflazacort were more effective than intermittent prednisone for the primary outcome (P < .001 for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone using a global test; P = .017 for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone using a global test) and the daily regimens did not differ significantly (P = .38 for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort using a global test). The between-group differences were principally attributable to rise from the floor velocity (0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.08 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone [P = .003]; 0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.09 rise/s] for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone [P = .017]; and -0.004 rise/s [98.3% CI, -0.03 to 0.02 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort [P = .75]). The pairwise comparisons for forced vital capacity and TSQM global satisfaction subscale score were not statistically significant. The most common adverse events were abnormal behavior (22 [34%] in the daily prednisone group, 25 [38%] in the daily deflazacort group, and 24 [36%] in the intermittent prednisone group), upper respiratory tract infection (24 [37%], 19 [29%], and 24 [36%], respectively), and vomiting (19 [29%], 17 [26%], and 15 [23%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, treatment with daily prednisone or daily deflazacort, compared with intermittent prednisone alternating 10 days on and 10 days off, resulted in significant improvement over 3 years in a composite outcome comprising measures of motor function, pulmonary function, and satisfaction with treatment; there was no significant difference between the 2 daily corticosteroid regimens. The findings support the use of a daily corticosteroid regimen over the intermittent prednisone regimen tested in this study as initial treatment for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01603407.

Aim: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has abruptly changed the life of millions as travel and social contacts have been severely restricted. We assessed the psychological impact of COVID-19 on adults and children, with special attention to health care workers (HCWs). Methods: A self-rated online survey, including the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) for adults and the Children Revised Impact of Event Scale-Revised-13 items (CRIES-13) for their 8–18-year-old offspring, was conducted in Italy on March 20–26, 2020. Linear mixed-effects models were applied to the data, accounting for age, sex, education, and other demographic characteristics. Results: Data were available from 2,419 adults (78.4% females, mean age 38.1 ± SD 13.1 years; 15.7% HCW) and 786 children (50.1% male, mean age 12.3 ± 3.2 years). Median (IQR) IES-R score was 30.0 (21.0–40.0), corresponding to mild psychological impact, with 33.2% reporting severe psychological impact. IES-R was lower in HCWs (29.0) than non-HCWs (31.0), but HCWs directly involved in COVID-19 care had higher scores [33.0 (26.0–43.2)] than uninvolved HCWs [28.0 (19.0–36.0)]. Median CRIES-13 score was [21.0 (11.0–32.0)], with 30.9% of the children at high risk for post-traumatic stress disorder. Parent and child scores were correlated. Conclusions: Up to 30% of adult and children in the pandemic area are at high risk for post-traumatic stress disturbances. The risk is greater for HCWs directly involved in COVID-19 care and for their children.

The aim of the study was to establish 24 month changes in upper limb function using a revised version of the performance of upper limb test (PUL 2.0) in a large cohort of ambulant and non-ambulant boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and to identify possible trajectories of progression. Of the 187 patients studied, 87 were ambulant (age range: 7-15.8 years), and 90 non-ambulant (age range: 9.08-24.78). The total scores changed significantly over time (p<0.001). Non-ambulant patients had lower total scores at baseline (mean 19.7) when compared to the ambulant ones (mean 38.4). They also had also a bigger decrease in total scores over 24 months compared to the ambulant boys (4.36 vs 2.07 points). Multivariate model analysis showed that the Performance of Upper Limb changes reflected the entry level and ambulation status, that were independently associated to the slope of Performance of Upper Limb changes. This information will be of help both in clinical practice and at the time of designing clinical trials.