The “First Treatable CMT Disease” is Neither CMT Nor a Disease

This article at CMT News isn’t strictly correct in calling SORD Deficiency a type of CMT. CMT is a disease that causes disabilities. SORD Deficiency is, well, a deficiency that causes a type of CMT or a diseased outcome resembling types of CMT that may lead to disability. It might be easier to say the hereditary SORD Deficiency causes a type of neuromuscular disease that’s clinically similar to the CMT family.

These ‘D’ words — “Deficiency” and “Disease” — are related but distinct and easily confused. Add “Disability” and it gets really messy, as Jackie Leech Scully reflects in “What is a Disease?” This is a great essay published in EMBO Reports in 2004; check it out for a patients’ perspective on these key medical terms.

Getting Definitions Right

The term “CMT” or “Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease” has worn out its welcome

A deficiency involves a lack or insufficient level of a key nutrients, hormones, enzymes, etc. A deficiency may do physical damage and even cause death. A deficiency can lead to a disease, and a disease is defined as an injurious chronic condition caused by some other agent or mechanism, such as a deficiency like SORD which causes (but in itself isn’t) a type of CMT.

So, it’s most accurate to say CMT is a hereditary (but not necessarily inherited) neuromuscular disease (HNMD) or a Distal Hereditary Motor Neuropathy (dHMN), or a Hereditary Motor/Sensory Neuropathy (HMSN). All of these terms are used today as umbrellas for diseases including all types of CMT.

Scrapping “CMT” and Its Obsolete “Types”

Some have argued the term “CMT” or “Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease” has worn out its welcome as a mashup of three 19th-century doctors’ names. It is not descriptive of anything useful for understanding the disease or spreading awareness about it. More significantly, the CMT classification into types and subtypes is passing into obsolescence. This classification is based on the often inaccurate and misleading distinctions between axonal, demyelinating, and intermediate (both axonal and demyelinating) nerve damage presenting clinical symptoms that have defined the disease.

Photo of racoon with labels: "featherless" and "biped" — "This is a man."

A 2018 proposal (Magy et al) to update the classification of inherited neuropathies garnered the support of a majority of the 107 international CMT specialists and is recognized in the current 2023 revision of GeneReviews’ Charcot-Marie-Tooth Hereditary Neuropathy Overview. (This is a publication that has been updated regularly since 1998 to kep pace with CMT research.) I believe Magy et al’s proposal will slowly prevail as “CMT” fades in usage by geneticists, neurologists, and clinicians dealing with the disease. The main resistance is likely to be charities and funding organizations like the CMTA that have wedded their brand and marketing to the “CMT” name — up until they decide to make the change. That would certainly help shift the field if they were to take the lead rather than be drawn along later. It’s hard to see the downside of having a bigger tent for patients, donors, reseachers, and other people who have more in common and more to gain from working and thinking together.

CMT Type classifications are based on misleading and often inaccurate distinctions between axonal, demyelinating, and intermediate (both axonal and demyelinating) nerve damage.

It’s important to think outside the CMT box. In the past and still today in places where CMT specialists are rare, anyone presenting CMT-like clinical symptoms is likely to be diagnosed with this vaguely defined disease in the absence of a differential diagnosis. Differential diagnoses for CMT are not commonly examined in my experience, although they do exist, and the recently formed MD Canada-funded NMD4C (Neuromuscular Disease Network for Canada) is doing a lot of good work in this regard.

The Post-CMT Future

The pre-human genome project classification of CMT types and subtypes was based on clinical assessments and then nerve conduction velocity testing. These limited assessments are now being augmented (and will likely be replaced) by primarily genetic testing, family history, and more precise tissue and chemical tests that are emerging.

Take, for example, the recently (2014) discovered CMT2S. CMT2S is only one neuromuscular disorder connected to mutations in the IGHMBP2 gene, like SMARD1. While the symptoms and impacts differ, they share a common genetic root. Research for cures and therapies — and simply how neuromuscular diseases are studied and taught — seem likely to benefit more from “lumping” them together based on genetic commonalities than splitting them apart for their clinical differences.

Or consider other recent discoveries in the field of CMT research. Mutations on the COQ7 gene can impair the production and create a deficiency of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). That deficiency leads to a likely treatable form of distal hereditary motor neuropathy — which previously would have been identified as a kind of CMT disease.

SORD Deficiency is similar. Mutations on the SORD gene can impair production of Sorbitol Dehydrogenase, an enyme that processes sorbitol. Without the enzyme, the sorbitol (a type of carbohydrate called a sugar alcohol, or polyol) builds up and damages nerves. That nerve damage is responsible for clinical outcomes that look like CMT and related neuromuscular diseases.

CoQ10 and Sorbitol Dehydrogenase deficiencies are not diseases or CMT. Their discovery is helpful not just for people who have them but for how they encourage careful definitions, rethinking, and reclassification in CMT research. That’s the effect these new discoveries have had on my thinking about CMT since I first wrote about SORD here, here, and for the Hereditary Neuropathy Foundation. (I was also tested for the SORD mutation since I have CMT2 symptoms but no genetic matches for known CMT mutations or any family members with similar symptoms.)

SORD (and COQ7) won’t be classified as new types of CMT but unique genetic sites of treatable deficiencies that can be prevented from causing distal hereditary motor neuropathy or neuromuscular disease. It will be an interesting twist if CMT-related research does away with “CMT disease” not just by finding cures and treatements but by changing how naming and classification works in neurological pathology! There won’t be anymore “CMT,” there will be dHMN and NMDs. Maybe like “Lou Gehrig’s Disease” and ALS people will understand both the scientific and the popularized names.

Update: Applied Therapeutics has a drug, AT-007, that’s being fast-tracked in clinical trials for treating SORD Deficiency and some other rare neurological diseases. It appears to cut sorbitol levels in half for people afected by SORD Deficiency. This article calls SORD Deficiency and another deficiency/disorder a “disease” rather than the potential causes of diseases, but it doesn’t mention CMT, and neither do any other sources I’ve seen about SORD Deficiency and possible treatments outside the CMT community.

6 responses to “The “First Treatable CMT Disease” is Neither CMT Nor a Disease”

  1. judyneal2006 Avatar
    judyneal2006

    As one with CMT 2K I found this article timely and informative.

    1. Dan Avatar

      Wow, I’ve read CMT2K is so rare, only three families have been reported with it.

      Thanks for reading, I’m glad you found this post helpful.

  2. Clarissa Lesky Avatar
    Clarissa Lesky

    Thank you for your perspective and this very well researched argument! I have CMT-SORD, and am doing anthropological research with others with CMT-SORD. The politics of classifying CMT and other diseases like it is tricky.

    The researchers and doctors I’ve spoken with in the field, when asked “How do we classify CMT?” or even the more simple question, “What counts as CMT?” do not know how to answer. Many turn to funding concerns- you must have a statistically significant amount of people to garner support for research. They agree that the umbrella term “CMT” encompasses too much and with arbitrary categories… but it ultimately comes down to money.

    As you allude, there is also a social aspect to labeling different neurological diseases as “CMT”. Having CMT means you are afforded access to a niche support group, and for those with ultra-rare diseases, that is vital. (There’s also, of course, the issue of marketing and branding.)

    I have a more pessimistic point of view… I do not think research in the near future will turn away from the label of CMT. As much as it would be helpful, I also think it could create harm. Especially for those who have created an emotionally meaningful tie to the classification. However, the questions you raise are crucial and should be reflected on. After all, what is the point of any research if we cannot critically think about the work we are doing?

    Apologies for the long comment, I am very excited that someone with CMT has thought of this same topic! In a community as small as ours, patient voices are valuable, and I appreciate your analytical perspective.

    1. Dan Knauss Avatar

      Thank you Clarissa — this is very interesting, and I’m curious what anthropological questions you’re asking about CMT-SORD. I actually was screened for it by Dr. Züchner’s lab with a negative result before getting a full panel done that raised more questions for my own situation. (I’ve written about that a little bit here in my post about using ChatGPT for differential diagnosis: https://cmt.blog/2023/04/23/differential-diagnosis-with-dr-chatgpt-4/#genetic-data-outweighs-other-diagnostic-paths. Unsurprisingly, the LLMs have the same difficulty doctors and researchers do when navigating the CMT/not-CMT taxonomies.)

      I wonder if the funding issues you describe are largely American ones that may change in the emerging post-American world order and in places where highly market-driven research agendas are not as strong or operate differently. I’ve seen an increasing volume of Chinese neurology research in the last decade. Also, there are other tracks to go down other than starting with specific neuropathies and looking for possible causes. The mechanisms for damage and repair to nerves in any context may apply to others. Autoimmune diseases and anything impacting mitochondrial transport might turn out to have relevance to any number of neuropathies.

      Your point about the value of support groups clustered around a well-branded disease is fair, but my experience leads me to question it. I think some groups, like Muscular Dystrophy organizations, do a great deal to support patients and their families with coping, assistive devices, occupational supports, and advocacy, but CMT groups have been very focused on fundraising for research for cures. That’s not support. I was also surprised some years ago to find the online support groups I explored fell into two rather unhealthy categories: 1) self-organized patient groups where the quality of coping was low and the overall attitude was defeatist and despairing; 2) more and less “officially” organized groups under the auspices of an organization or well-known individual which had cultic qualities.

      I actually experienced a good deal of hostility, harassment, and abuse in the second type of group. It puzzled me at the time, but in retrospect I think it was because informed critical questions in an echo chamber can be taken as threats or a competitive signal to people whose egos have been tied to a “CMT” and/or organizational identity. Breaking that “emotionally meaningful tie to the classification” as you say would be a good thing in my opinion or else the patient/advocate who thinks this way is obstructing the science they claim to support.

      (In terms of group psychology, this is a typical feature — groups always try to prevent putting themselves out of business, even if that means suppressing the healing of individuals or solutions to collective problems. Most modern institutions are mired in doing the opposite of their stated goals to some extent. Iatrogenesis is a medical reality — hospitals that make people sick — and also an analogy for situations you can find in almost any other field.)

      I’m sure the CMT brand will carry on for a long time on the research funding side, but in context of actual research and publication, the synonyms will continue to increasing in their usage. As other diseases in the larger family of NMDs are better understood, better classification will have to happen for them all. I don’t see how the CMT name came stand in the way as research clarifies the actual causal mechanisms. If genetic panels, skin and muscle biopsies, and other more precise tests become the standard diagnostics, the old NCV approach will fall away, and that should mean the end of the old CMT Axonal/Demyelinating based types. I think that’s already happening. “Axonal” or “Intermediate/Mixed” really means “Idiopathic/”We don’t know” in many cases, whereas CMT1A is PMP22 duplication and HNPP is PMP22 deletion. If genetic therapies become possible, the cure for both of those NMDs probably lies in focusing on their common genome, not the clinical outcome of its duplication or deletion, right? You know the research context better than I do; this is my conjecture based on reading and interactions with research neurologists. It seems logical and consistent with the answers that come up in “AI”-based search now.

      No apologies needed for long comments; this is an even longer comment! I am also excited my thoughts are not original. 🙂 That’s a good sign.

      I am not sure if this is me being more pessimistic or optimistic than you, but I do think the current breakdowns for public funding of medical research and much else in the United States may drive creative alternative reactions there in the future and in other countries in the near-term. The possibilities for significant change seem strong with the current geopolitical tectonics, especially if the rest of the world stops thinking in terms of following a US-led western-centric “order.”

      My oldest daughter works in neuroscience and has become a bit of a pessimist about the academic world and prospects for change that align the teaching and practice of medicine with the best current research, but I feel this is a good thing. Maturation in any professional field or institution requires moving past the naive trust and ideals that got us interested in it in the first place. Even in the best of times, every generation gets disillusioned by the shaky systems they inherit when they have to pick them up and carry them on their own shoulders.

      1. Clarissa Lesky Avatar
        Clarissa Lesky

        Thank you for your wonderful reply! Even though I am an anthropologist, I did not even think about the breakdown of American-centric research. You have a very good point!

        I do agree that things will change (especially during this presidential administration…which I abhor) and we will find alternative- and potentially more creative- ways of doing research which will lead to more accurate classifications. The funding issues I mentioned in my previous comment are uniquely American problems.

        I am also disheartened to hear about your negative interactions with CMT support groups. There should be space for critical questions and attitudes beyond “despair” and cultish organizational allegiance. This is a problem I have also noticed, especially among the older generation (but not exclusively). I think this speaks to the broader culture around disability, but I am hopeful that the younger generation can unlearn some of these negative sentiments. Furthermore, I think the hostility you experienced is, unfortunately, quite common. At least in the United States, outward hostility towards opinions (or even FACTS) we find unappealing are met with malice. This does no one any favors, and it has become a very, very big issue. I firmly believe that people can have different opinions and still be cordial, kind, and curious.

        My current anthropological project is almost finished. It can be accessed at this link if you are curious! It has been adapted for a general audience:

        https://vanessawong.my.canva.site/lemelson-multi-media-project

        (Please ignore the incorrect name “Vanessa Wong”. It is just how the website randomly generated the link.)

        I still have a long way to go in my academic journey. Conversations like ours challenge me and give me hope for the future! I will also take a look at your article about Differential Diagnoses- I am curious to read more of your work.

      2. Dan Knauss Avatar

        I finally got some time to take this all in Clarissa, and I like it very much. When will you thesis be available? I am curious how the stories end (or continue) for your two participants. And you — SORD is treatable, so have you all been able to reverse its harms, at least partly?

Leave a Reply

Discover more from CMT Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading