Purpose The purpose of this statement is to review the literature regarding mitochondrial disease and to provide recommendations for optimal diagnosis and treatment. This statement is intended for physicians who are engaged in diagnosing and treating these patients. Methods The Writing Group members were appointed by the Mitochondrial Medicine Society. The panel included members with expertise in several different areas. The panel members utilized a comprehensive review of the literature, surveys, and the Delphi method to reach consensus. We anticipate that this statement will need to be updated as the field continues to evolve. Results Consensus-based recommendations are provided for the diagnosis and treatment of mitochondrial disease. Conclusion The Delphi process enabled the formation of consensus-based recommendations. We hope that these recommendations will help standardize the evaluation, diagnosis, and care of patients with suspected or demonstrated mitochondrial disease.

Mitochondrial disease confirmation and establishment of a specific molecular diagnosis requires extensive clinical and laboratory evaluation. Dual genome origins of mitochondrial disease, multiorgan system manifestations, and an ever increasing spectrum of recognized phenotypes represent the main diagnostic challenges. To overcome these obstacles, compiling information from a variety of diagnostic laboratory modalities can often provide sufficient evidence to establish an etiology. These include blood and tissue histochemical and analyte measurements, neuroimaging, provocative testing, enzymatic assays of tissue samples and cultured cells, as well as DNA analysis. As interpretation of results from these multifaceted investigations can become quite complex, the Diagnostic Committee of the Mitochondrial Medicine Society developed this review to provide an overview of currently available and emerging methodologies for the diagnosis of primary mitochondrial disease, primarily focusing on disorders characterized by impairment of oxidative phosphorylation. The aim of this work is to facilitate the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease by geneticists, neurologists, and other metabolic specialists who face the challenge of evaluating patients of all ages with suspected mitochondrial disease.

Opinion statement The treatment of mitochondrial disease varies considerably. Most experts use a combination of vitamins, optimize patients' nutrition and general health, and prevent worsening of symptoms during times of illness and physiologic stress. We agree with this approach, and we agree that therapies using vitamins and cofactors have value, though there is debate about the choice of these agents and the doses prescribed. Despite the paucity of high-quality scientific evidence, these therapies are relatively harmless, may alleviate select clinical symptoms, and theoretically may offer a means of staving off disease progression. Like many other mitochondrial medicine physicians, we have observed significant (and at times life-altering) clinical responses to such pharmacologic interventions. However, it is not yet proven that these therapies truly alter the course of the disease, and some experts may choose not to use these medications at all. At present, the evidence of their effectiveness does not rise to the level required for universal use. Based on our clinical experience and judgment, however, we agree that a therapeutic trial of coenzyme Q10, along with other antioxidants, should be attempted. Although individual specialists differ as to the exact drug cocktail, a common approach involves combinations of antioxidants that may have a synergistic effect. Because almost all relevant therapies are classified as medical foods or over-the-counter supplements, most physicians also attempt to balance the apparent clinical benefit of mitochondrial cocktails with the cost burden that these supplements pose for the family.