Display options
Cite
Ausems MG, ten Berg K, Kroos MA, et al. Glycogen storage disease type II: birth prevalence agrees with predicted genotype frequency. Community Genet. 1999;2(2):91-6doi: 10.1159/000016192.
Ausems, M. G., ten Berg, K., Kroos, M. A., van Diggelen, O. P., Wevers, R. A., Poorthuis, B. J., Niezen-Koning, K. E., van der Ploeg, A. T., Beemer, F. A., Reuser, A. J., Sandkuijl, L. A., & Wokke, J. H. (1999). Glycogen storage disease type II: birth prevalence agrees with predicted genotype frequency. Community genetics, 2(2), 91-6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000016192
Ausems, M G, et al. "Glycogen storage disease type II: birth prevalence agrees with predicted genotype frequency." Community genetics vol. 2,2 (1999): 91-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000016192
Ausems MG, ten Berg K, Kroos MA, van Diggelen OP, Wevers RA, Poorthuis BJ, Niezen-Koning KE, van der Ploeg AT, Beemer FA, Reuser AJ, Sandkuijl LA, Wokke JH. Glycogen storage disease type II: birth prevalence agrees with predicted genotype frequency. Community Genet. 1999;2(2):91-6. doi: 10.1159/000016192. PMID: 15181339.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Community Genet. 1999;2(2):91-6. doi: 10.1159/000016192.

Glycogen storage disease type II: birth prevalence agrees with predicted genotype frequency.

Community genetics

M G Ausems, K ten Berg, M A Kroos, O P van Diggelen, R A Wevers, B J Poorthuis, K E Niezen-Koning, A T van der Ploeg, F A Beemer, A J Reuser, L A Sandkuijl, J H Wokke

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. [email protected]

PMID: 15181339 DOI: 10.1159/000016192

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the overall birth prevalence of diagnosed glycogen storage disease type II (GSD II) with the predicted frequency based on mutation screening, in order to determine whether GSD II is an underdiagnosed condition, and to analyze which medical disciplines recognize GSD II.

METHODS: Retrospective data on all enzymatic diagnoses of GSD II were collected from diagnostic labs throughout the Netherlands, covering the period from January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1996. Age-specific diagnostic incidence rates were calculated for the entire study period. By adding together the diagnostic incidences for all age groups, we calculated the birth prevalence of diagnosed GSD II and compared these figures with the predicted frequency based on mutation screening in a random sample from the general population. The medical specialization of the referring clinicians was also recorded.

RESULTS: GSD II was diagnosed in 154 individuals, including 11 prenatal diagnoses. The birth prevalences of the various phenotypes were 1/101,000 (infantile form), 1/720,000 (juvenile form) and 1/53,000 (adult form). The birth prevalence of the adult and infantile phenotype together was 1/35,000. Eighty-two percent of the patients were diagnosed in university hospitals. Of the patients with infantile GSD II, 71% were diagnosed by a pediatrician, whereas most patients with adult GSD II were diagnosed by a neurologist (80%).

CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for the underdiagnosis of GSD II in the Netherlands, as the calculated birth prevalences of the disease are consistent with previous predictions based on mutation screening in a random sample of newborns. The worldwide birth prevalence of the disease may well be higher than 1 in 100,000. GSD II is mainly diagnosed in university hospitals.

Copyright 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel

Publication Types