CTNNB1, L-DOPA
Conditions
Brief summary
Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) encompass conditions that impair cognitive and/or emotional development in children, significantly impacting school, social, and family life. They are often linked to genetic causes and, in most cases, lack curative treatment. Among these disorders, monoallelic variations in the CTNNB1 gene cause a rare syndrome known as NEDSDV (Neurodevelopmental disorder with spastic diplegia and visual defects, OMIM: 615075). About twenty patients are reported in France. This syndrome is characterized by global developmental delay, intellectual disability, axial hypotonia, autistic traits, microcephaly, and sometimes ocular anomalies. The clinical profile resembles that of cerebral palsy, and CTNNB1 syndrome is considered a genetic form of this condition, accounting for roughly 4% of cases where a gene has been identified. Motor impairment is a core feature, with a wide range of movement disorders. Research remains limited, except for a recent publication. Dystonic hypertonia of the lower limbs is frequently described, more pronounced distally than proximally, without pyramidal signs. Spasticity is less common. Gait has been poorly studied: it may be absent or, when acquired, unstable, often tiptoe, and sometimes broad-based, resembling ataxia despite the absence of cerebellar signs. These motor features are difficult to detect before one year of age. To date, no longitudinal studies exist on motor or cognitive progression in CTNNB1 patients; available data are cross-sectional and do not suggest cognitive decline. From a pathophysiological perspective, the CTNNB1 gene encodes β-catenin, a key protein in cell adhesion and Wnt signaling, involved in cell differentiation and tissue homeostasis. It plays an essential role in embryonic brain development, particularly neuritogenesis and synaptic organization, with a specific impact on dopaminergic structures in the midbrain. Knock-out animal models show severe reduction in dopaminergic neurogenesis. These findings suggest that CTNNB1 anomalies lead to secondary dopaminergic deficits, contributing to clinical signs. The hypothesis is that this deficit could be partially corrected by dopamine supplementation. Regarding treatment, L-dopa (levodopa), used in dopaminergic disorders, has shown beneficial effects in a CTNNB1 patient. In our neuropediatrics department, two patients treated with L-dopa exhibited notable improvements in alertness, language, and motor skills within two months. These observations support the hypothesis that L-dopa may improve certain motor and non-motor symptoms in these patients. In summary, CTNNB1 syndrome is a rare form of NDD, clinically similar to cerebral palsy, with complex motor disorders and a probable dopaminergic deficit. Current evidence calls for further research, including longitudinal studies and therapeutic trials targeting the dopaminergic pathway.
Interventions
Treatment with L-dopa combined with a peripheral decarboxylase inhibitor (carbidopa) will be introduced gradually over a period of one year from the start of treatment. Motor, cognitive, quality of life and tolerance assessments will be carried out before treatment and at 6 and 12 months.
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Aged between 1 and 15 years inclusive, * Carrier of a pathogenic variant of CTNNB1, * Patient with dystonia, * Patient willing to comply with the contraception requirements detailed in the protocol.
Exclusion criteria
* Contraindication to treatment with L-dopa and carbidopa or any of its excipients, * Current treatment with L-dopa, dopamine agonist, or dopamine blocker, * Patients with peptic ulcer disease, * Patients with open-angle glaucoma, * Patients with orthostatic hypotension, * Failure to obtain informed consent signed by both parents or legal guardians and the child's assent, if possible, * Patients not affiliated with or not covered by a social security scheme, * Individuals participating in another study with an exclusion period still in progress, * Individuals who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant within 12 months of inclusion.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment of motor skills | Baseline and 6 month follow-up visit | Change in overall motor score using the GMFM-88 scale before treatment (D1) and at 6 months. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment of motor skills | 6 month follow-up visit and end-of-study visit at 12 months | Change in motor skills score using the GMFM-88 scale before treatment (D1) and at 12 months, as well as between 6 months and 12 months |
| Cognitive assessment | Baseline and end-of-study visit at 12 months | Change in developmental scores (Bayley III) from baseline to 12 months after treatment |
| Cognitve assessment | Baseline and end-of-study visit at 12 months | Change in adaptive behavior scores (Vineland) from baseline to 12 months after treatment |
| Quality of life assessment | Baseline, 6 month follow-up visit and end-of-study visit at 12 months | Change from baseline to Month 6 and Month 12 in quality of life scores (CP-CHILD) |
| Assessment of tolerance | From baseline to the end-of-study visit at 12 months (continuous assessment throughout the study period) | Number and severity of adverse events from baseline to Month 12 |
Countries
France