Introduction
In 1965, Andreas Rett, a neuropediatrician in Vienna, published the first report of a neurodevelopment disorder involving females with early onset of developmental delay followed by frank regression, loss of communication and fine motor skills, and the appearance of stereotypic hand movements and periodic breathing during wakefulness [
1]. Dr. Rett attempted to ascertain and promote recognition of similar features by other physicians throughout central Europe with little success. Around the same time, Bengt Hagberg, a child neurologist in Uppsala, was recognizing the same constellation of clinical characteristics in females from throughout Sweden, although these two clinicians did not meet directly for another 15–20 years. In a series of laboratory studies looking for a metabolic marker for this disorder, Rett had reported elevated blood ammonia levels and published these results in 1977 in the
Handbook of Clinical Neurology related to hyperammonemias [
2]. During this intervening period, Hagberg was discussing this disorder with other child neurologists throughout Europe, recognizing the clinical similarities, but also failing to note the same blood ammonia findings as described by Rett. At that point and with the enthusiastic participation of Jean Aicardi, Karin Dias, and Ovidio Ramos, Hagberg began to prepare a paper on 35 females with this disorder from Sweden, France, and Portugal. However, when he became aware that blood ammonia results identified in Vienna were spurious, and following a chance meeting with Rett in Toronto in 1981, Hagberg decided to call this disorder “Rett syndrome”. The paper appeared in the
Annals of Neurology in 1983, and suddenly child neurologists, neuropediatricians, and geneticists around the world were alerted to the existence of this new and unique neurodevelopmental disorder [
3]. Hagberg continued to reveal additional findings, including developing a staging system for RTT [
4], identifying variant forms of RTT [
5], and leading the way first with initial criteria development in 1984 [
6] and then with their revision in 2002, following the identification of mutations in
MECP2 [
7].
In the United States, scarcely anyone knew about this disorder prior to the Hagberg et al. paper [
3]. Mary Coleman, a child neurologist in Washington DC, had attended a meeting in Paris and learned of Rett syndrome (RTT). Vanja Holm, a neuropediatrician from Seattle, learned of this disorder on a visit to Sweden. For myself, a pediatrician in Houston, who suspected the disorder based on the
Annals of Neurology paper, referred a girl to the child development clinic at Texas Children’s Hospital where I was the child neurologist. The diagnosis of RTT was confirmed on examination of this young female and, following a meeting with other child neurologists at Baylor, five additional girls with RTT were identified within the next few months. As the result of questions raised by the parents of the first girl, contact was made with both Bengt Hagberg and Andreas Rett, and an invitation was received to attend the RTT meeting in Vienna in 1984. Dr. Holm and Dr. Hugo Moser from the Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI) also attended. This international meeting provided remarkable stimulus for the expansion of studies on RTT throughout the world. Subsequent meetings in 1986 and 1988 served to expand clinical, laboratory, and pathological studies attempting to elucidate metabolic and genetic signals characteristic of RTT. Importantly, the 1984 meeting provided the opportunity for development of diagnostic criteria (see above) that were critical to the field going forward.
Initial developments in the US
In 1984, a RTT clinic was formed at Baylor together with Daniel Glaze, Huda Zoghbi, and Dawn Armstrong, and other clinics emerged at the KKI in Baltimore, in San Diego, and in Portland (Oregon). At the same time, the International Rett Syndrome Association (IRSA), a vital patient advocacy group, was created by Kathy Hunter, Gail Smith, and Jane Brubaker. This proved critical from several perspectives. First, IRSA resulted in a focal point for parents, other caregivers, and interested physicians to meet. Second, Andreas Rett was invited to visit the US on several occasions to provide consultation with physicians and to examine and confirm diagnoses in affected individuals. Third, Congressman Steny Hoyer from Maryland was sufficiently moved by the situation to promote legislation providing for research funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). With that, program projects were awarded to Baylor and to KKI, markedly increasing research activities.
Among the initial reports that emerged were the recognition of abnormalities in biogenic amine metabolites in cerebrospinal fluid [
8], neurophysiologic abnormalities related to seizures [
9] and periodic breathing [
10], and pathological investigations led by Dr. Armstrong that revealed the brain to be smaller than normal, to have reduced melanin pigmentation in substantia nigra and other pigmented regions, and, at the microscopic level, a reduction in neuronal size and synaptic complexity with specific alterations in dendrites [
11‐
18]. What was not found was evidence of a progressive neurodegenerative process. This last feature suggested that RTT was a neurodevelopmental abnormality that could be potentially reversible with the proper strategies.
The etiology of RTT was considered by many to be genetic, based on the exclusive occurrence, at least at that time, of RTT in females, suggesting an X‑linked, dominant disorder. However, the efforts to identify a biochemical or metabolic fingerprint greatly hampered further understanding. At Baylor, Dr. Zoghbi was then engaged in training in molecular genetics and was encouraged to pursue studies into a molecular etiology for RTT. Interestingly, the presence of an autosome–X chromosome translocation in one of the first children evaluated allowed a large portion of the X‑chromosome to be excluded [
19]. Gradually, the area of interest was narrowed to Xq28 by a series of studies from the rare instances of familial involvement [
20,
21]. In this regard, the general failure of recurrence in families and the X‑linked dominant nature suggested that a mutation, if one could be identified, would result from a germline de novo mutation in the father [
22]. Although this idea was questioned by some [
23], the molecular search continued and in 1999 a mutation in the methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 (
MECP2) gene, located at Xq28, was identified by Ruthie Amir [
24] working in the Zoghbi laboratory. Subsequently, these findings were confirmed in multiple laboratories throughout the world [
25‐
28]. Recognition of males with RTT and both females and males with
MECP2 mutations were now confirmed [
29,
30]. Males with RTT were the result of the co-occurrence of Klinefelter syndrome (47XXY) [
31‐
34] or somatic mosaicism [
35]. Familial occurrences were associated with maternal mutations in which the transmitting female was either normal or had mild learning difficulties or cognitive impairment [
36‐
39]. Further on, with this new information a number of laboratories began to examine the role of
MECP2 in brain development and function. Interestingly,
MECP2 had been well-described in tumor biology for more than 10 years prior to this linkage with RTT, due to its possible relationship to methyl-binding domains in DNA [
40‐
50]. Laboratory studies have persisted and expanded over the years to include potential disease-altering therapies and possible genetic intervention to provide a more fundamental curative avenue. In this regard, the studies of Guy et al. in a mutant mouse indeed showed that if a normal gene were in place, near-normal recovery of function was possible [
51].
At the same time, efforts in support of research into the clinical and laboratory bases for rare diseases had been enabled at the NIH through congressional mandate. As a result, the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network was formed and initial funding became available in the early 2000s. This resulted in the funding of a natural history study (NHS) regarding RTT that has been refunded twice and now, in its third iteration, is addressing RTT,
MECP2 duplication disorders, and other RTT-related disorders including
CDKL5,
FOXGL, and individuals with
MECP2 mutations, both females and males, who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for RTT. To date, data from more than 1200 participants evaluated in the first 11 years of the NHS have been published and several additional topics are being analyzed for submission. The current NHS study is continuing to gather information on the natural history of the above mentioned disorders, collecting biologic samples for possible detection of a biomarker, and investigating the event-related potentials of hearing and vision (auditory brainstem and visual evoked potentials). One of the initial outcomes of the NHS was validation of the revised consensus criteria of 2010 following the convening of an international panel of clinicians [
52,
53]. These modifications simplified the criteria and provided a distinction for their application in classic and variant or atypical RTT (Table
1).
Table 1
Consensus criteria for classic and variant Rett syndrome (RTT) [
52]
Requirement for classic or typical RTT
| A period of regression followed by stabilization and recovery: 1. All main and all exclusion criteria 2. Supportive criteria not required although may be present |
Requirement for variant or atypical RTT
| 1. A period of regression followed by stabilization and recovery 2. At least 2 of 4 main criteria and 5 of 11 supportive criteria |
Main criteria
| 1. Partial or complete loss of acquired purposeful hand skills 2. Partial or complete loss of spoken language 3. Dyspraxic gait or inability to ambulate 4. Stereotypic hand movements: hand mouthing, hand wringing/clasping, hand clapping, or finger rubbing |
Exclusion criteria
| 1. Brain injury: peri- or postnatal trauma, neurometabolic disease, or severe infection involving neurological function 2. Grossly abnormal psychomotor development in first 6 months after birth |
Supportive criteria for variant RTT
| 1. Periodic breathing during wakefulness 2. Bruxism while awake 3. Altered sleep pattern 4. Abnormal muscle tone 5. Peripheral vasomotor disturbance 6. Scoliosis/kyphosis 7. Growth failure 8. Small cool/cold hands and/or feet 9. Inappropriate laughing or screaming spells 10. Delayed or diminished response to pain 11. Intense eye communication or “eye pointing” |
A multisystem problem
Despite the primary involvement of the central nervous system (CNS), RTT is a multisystem problem. In addition to brain growth, stereotypies, epilepsy, periodic breathing, sleep, and other problems directly related to the CNS, multiple other systems are affected, including growth and nutrition, the gastrointestinal tract, and pubertal development. Overall, longevity is reduced by about one third compared to typically developing females. These aspects are discussed individually below, along with other important clinical features.
Genotype–phenotype correlation
Definite genotype–phenotype correlations are noted with important caveats [
63‐
65]. For both classic and atypical RTT, R133C, R294X, R306C, and 3’-truncations result in less severity than other common mutations (R106W, R168X, R255X, R270X, deletions/insertions, and splice site mutations). Overall, clinical severity tends to increase slowly with age as the result of scoliosis, dystonia, and rigidity. Those who ambulate, maintain some hand function, and have a later age at onset also tend to be less severely impacted.
However, markedly different clinical patterns or outcomes can be seen in two females with exactly the same genotype. These are most likely related to differences in X‑chromosome inactivation (XCI), differing genetic backgrounds, environmental factors, and the clonal distribution of normal and abnormal X‑chromosomes throughout the brain. From a relatively small study in blood involving 183 participants in the NHS (Friez et al., unpublished work), significant skewing of XCI was noted, including 11 % that were highly skewed and 26 % were moderately skewed. Overall, 51 % were random and 12 % were uninformative. Of the 11 % who were highly skewed, this was evenly divided between the normal and the abnormal X‑chromosome and, thus, conferred an exclusive advantage in neither direction.
QOL for affected and caregivers
Quality of life (QOL) is an important component of care for individuals with chronic disease and has proven equally critical in RTT. Examining both cross-sectional and longitudinal results from individuals with RTT and their primary caregiver, typically the mother, revealed that poor motor function is associated with greater clinical severity [
79]. However, poor motor function resulted in fewer behavioral problems and conversely, better motor function resulted in more behavioral issues. For example, those who were ambulatory could climb on furniture, open doors and leave the home, or injure themselves near a stove. This raises the potential concern that modest improvement in motor function could result in greater behavioral issues [
79].
From the caregiver’s perspective, as the parents age and may develop problems of their own, their physical QOL declines, whereas mental QOL tends to improve [
80]. This is related to achieving an accommodation with the issues associated with RTT and to the decline in some interfering or concerning patterns such as bruxism, periodic breathing, and general difficulties in management. However, it is noted that once these individuals age out of school, the availability of adult programs may be significantly limited and will impact the overall caregiving.
Clinical trials
A number of clinical trials have been conducted, beginning already in the era before the identification of mutations in
MECP2. The opiate antagonist naltrexone was assessed as a treatment for periodic breathing. No benefit was noted, but the design of the trial did not account for differing clinical severity between the treatment and placebo groups, and could have confounded the results [
84]. However, it was shown in a parallel study that the intravenous antagonist, naloxone, resulted in EEG slowing. Any beneficial effects could have resulted merely from sedation. With the identification of mutations in
MECP2 and the potential role of DNA methylation, a trial of folate-betaine was conducted in the early 2000s. Despite parent reports of improvement, no positive objective evidence was noted [
85].
More recently, clinical trials have been conducted with IGF-1 at Boston Children’s Hospital and with NNZ-2566 (trofinetide), the terminal tripeptide of IGF-1, at Baylor College of Medicine, UAB, and Gillette Children’s Hospital. Both agents proved to have no significant safety or tolerability issues. The IGF-1 trial, based on a translational research study [
86], produced evidence of safety [
87] and is continuing at multiple sites. The NNZ-2566 trial in older girls and women provided preliminary evidence of efficacy and a second phase 2 trial is being conducted in children aged 5–15 [
88].
Other trials are in early stages of development or enrollment. In a multisite trial, sarizotan, a serotonin and dopamine receptor agonist, will be tested in girls and women aged 13–50, and a trial with ketamine is now starting at the Cleveland Clinic [
89]. Both agents are targeting the improvement of periodic breathing.
Future perspectives
In the more than 30 years that I have been involved with Rett syndrome (RTT), remarkable progress has been accomplished both clinically and in the laboratory. Improved management of individuals with RTT and effective guidance not only in terms of medical problems, but also with regard to proper nutrition, therapeutic interventions, and the new and emerging field of augmentative communication using computer-assisted strategies, have been beneficial. Taking the broader perspective for progress in RTT, the energies of the international community at all levels of research, from basic through translational to clinical studies, are required. Many disease-modifying strategies are advancing through translational research and reaching the level of clinical trials. At the same time, strategies to reverse the underlying genetic defect are continuing, whether to replace the defective gene or reverse X‑chromosome inactivation. These approaches do offer fundamental challenges that must be overcome. The expansion of clinical trials will require efforts of all, including the commitment of funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, patient advocacy groups, and families at the very least. Throughout the world, new and more investigators must be recruited. Parent advocacy groups must continue to press for continued progress. Clinical trials are essential, but are also labor intensive, demand careful conduct, and require direct participation of families and other caregivers. They require patience and courage, focus and understanding. Above all, human involvement is a prerequisite. Without the involvement of everyone, the desired goals of effective treatment and, ultimately, a cure, are an unachievable illusion.