4.7 Article

Oculoleptomeningeal Amyloidosis associated with transthyretin Leu12Pro in an African patient

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 262, 期 1, 页码 228-234

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-014-7594-2

关键词

Genetics; Amyloid; Transthyretin; Leu12Pro

资金

  1. MRC [MR/K000608/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/K000608/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/K000608/1] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [U54 NS065712] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oculoleptomeningeal amyloidosis is a rare manifestation of hereditary transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis. Here, we present the first case of leptomeningeal amyloidosis associated with the TTR variant Leu12Pro mutation in an African patient. A 43-year-old right-handed Nigerian man was referred to our centre with rapidly progressive neurological decline. He presented initially with weight loss, confusion, fatigue, and urinary and erectile dysfunction. He then suffered recurrent episodes of slurred speech with right-sided weakness. He went on to develop hearing difficulties and painless paraesthesia. Neurological examination revealed horizontal gaze-evoked nystagmus, brisk jaw jerk, increased tone, brisk reflexes throughout and bilateral heel-shin ataxia. Magnetic resonance imaging showed extensive leptomeningeal enhancement. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis showed a raised protein of 6.4 g/dl. Nerve conduction studies showed an axonal neuropathy. Echocardiography was characteristic of cardiac amyloid. TTR gene sequencing showed that he was heterozygous for the leucine 12 proline mutation. Meningeal and brain biopsy confirmed widespread amyloid angiopathy. TTR amyloidosis is a rare cause of leptomeningeal enhancement, but should be considered if there is evidence of peripheral or autonomic neuropathy with cardiac or ocular involvement. The relationship between different TTR mutations and clinical phenotype, disease course, and response to treatment remains unclear.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据