RESUMO Avanços na compreensão e no manejo da distrofia muscular de Duchenne (DMD) ocorreram desde a publicação de diretrizes internacionais em 2010. Nosso objetivo foi elaborar um consenso nacional baseado em evidências de cuidado multidisciplinar dos pacientes com DMD no Brasil. Utilizamos a técnica de Delphi combinada com revisão sistemática da literatura de 2010 a 2016 classificando níveis de evidência e graus de recomendação. Nossas recomendações foram divididas em duas partes. Apresentamos aqui a parte 1, descrevendo a metodologia utilizada e conceitos gerais da doença, e fornecemos recomendações sobre diagnóstico, tratamento com corticosteroides e novas perspectivas de tratamentos medicamentosos. As principais recomendações: 1) testes genéticos deveriam ser a primeira linha para confirmação de casos suspeitos; 2) pacientes com diagnóstico de DMD devem receber corticosteroides; 3) por enquanto, a falta de publicações de resultados dos ensaios clínicos de fase 3, dificulta recomendações de uso medicamentos que “saltam exons” ou “passam” por código de parada prematura.

ABSTRACT Significant advances in the understanding and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) took place since international guidelines were published in 2010. Our objective was to provide an evidence-based national consensus statement for multidisciplinary care of DMD in Brazil. A combination of the Delphi technique with a systematic review of studies from 2010 to 2016 was employed to classify evidence levels and grade of recommendations. Our recommendations were divided in two parts. We present Part 1 here, where we describe the guideline methodology and overall disease concepts, and also provide recommendations on diagnosis, steroid therapy and new drug treatment perspectives for DMD. The main recommendations: 1) genetic testing in diagnostic suspicious cases should be the first line for diagnostic confirmation; 2) patients diagnosed with DMD should have steroids prescribed; 3) lack of published results for phase 3 clinical trials hinders, for now, the recommendation to use exon skipping or read-through agents.

INTRODUCTION: Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy presents with heterogeneous clinical and molecular features. The primary characteristic of this disorder is proximal muscular weakness with variable age of onset, speed of progression, and intensity of symptoms. Sarcoglycanopathies, which are a subgroup of the limb-girdle muscular dystrophies, are caused by mutations in sarcoglycan genes. Mutations in these genes cause secondary deficiencies in other proteins, due to the instability of the dystrophin-glycoprotein complex. Therefore, determining the etiology of a given sarcoglycanopathy requires costly and occasionally inaccessible molecular methods. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify phenotypic differences among limb-girdle muscular dystrophy patients who were grouped according to the immunohistochemical phenotypes for the four sarcoglycans. METHODS: To identify phenotypic differences among patients with different types of sarcoglycanopathies, a questionnaire was used and the muscle strength and range of motion of nine joints in 45 patients recruited from the Department of Neurology - HC-FMUSP (Clinics Hospital of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo) were evaluated. The findings obtained from these analyses were compared with the results of the immunohistochemical findings. RESULTS: The patients were divided into the following groups based on the immunohistochemical findings: a-sarcoglycanopathies (16 patients), b-sarcoglycanopathies (1 patient), y-sarcoglycanopathies (5 patients), and nonsarcoglycanopathies (23 patients). The muscle strength analysis revealed significant differences for both upper and lower limb muscles, particularly the shoulder and hip muscles, as expected. No pattern of joint contractures was found among the four groups analyzed, even within the same family. However, a high frequency of tiptoe gait was observed in patients with a-sarcoglycanopathies, while calf pseudo-hypertrophy was most common in patients with non-sarcoglycanopathies. The a-sarcoglycanopathy patients presented with more severe muscle weakness than did y-sarcoglycanopathy patients. CONCLUSION: The clinical differences observed in this study, which were associated with the immunohistochemical findings, may help to prioritize the mutational investigation of sarcoglycan genes.