Objectives: To characterise clinical amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM) from a clinical, histological, and prognostic perspective. Methods: We retrospectively recorded data from our DM cohort. Patients were categorised into three groups: classic DM, hypomyopathic DM (HDM), characterised by normal muscle strength and evidence of muscle involvement in laboratory tests and/or instrumental examinations and CADM, featured by normal muscle strength and unremarkable findings in both laboratory tests and instrumental examinations. Available muscle biopsies from each group were also compared. Results: Our cohort included 63 DM (69.2%), 12 HDM (13.2%) and 16 CADM (17.6%) patients. Compared to DM, CADM patients were younger at onset and diagnosis (45.5±17 vs. 57±18, and 46±17 vs. 58±18 years, respectively; p<0.05). They were more likely to test positive for anti-MDA5 (37.5% vs. 4.8%) and anti- TIF1-γ (31.3% vs. 6.3%), had a higher incidence of arthritis (37.5% vs. 12.6%) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) (43.8% vs. 15.9%) (all comparisons with p<0.05). Muscle biopsies were available for 44 DM, 7 CADM, and 11 HDM patients, revealing similar sarcolemma MHC-I expression rates. Five-year survival rates were comparable across groups (DM: 74.6%, CADM: 75%, HDM: 83.3%). Cox analysis indicated the main mortality predictors in overall cohort were ILD (HR: 3.57, CI: 1.11-11.5) and cancer (HR: 3.67, CI: 1.17-11.5), not CADM (HR: 1.46, CI: 0.33-6.68). Conclusions: CADM patients differ in disease onset, autoantibody profiles, joint and lung involvement. While laboratory and instrumental tests have not shown muscle involvement in CADM, many muscle biopsies have shown MHC-I overexpression.
Clinical, histologic and prognostic features of clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis
Fornaro, Marco
;Girolamo, Francesco;Giannini, Margherita;Coladonato, Laura;Capuano, Adriana;Capodiferro, Marco;D'Abbicco, Dario;Ruggieri, Maddalena;Mastrapasqua, Mariangela;Iannone, Florenzo
2024-01-01
Abstract
Objectives: To characterise clinical amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM) from a clinical, histological, and prognostic perspective. Methods: We retrospectively recorded data from our DM cohort. Patients were categorised into three groups: classic DM, hypomyopathic DM (HDM), characterised by normal muscle strength and evidence of muscle involvement in laboratory tests and/or instrumental examinations and CADM, featured by normal muscle strength and unremarkable findings in both laboratory tests and instrumental examinations. Available muscle biopsies from each group were also compared. Results: Our cohort included 63 DM (69.2%), 12 HDM (13.2%) and 16 CADM (17.6%) patients. Compared to DM, CADM patients were younger at onset and diagnosis (45.5±17 vs. 57±18, and 46±17 vs. 58±18 years, respectively; p<0.05). They were more likely to test positive for anti-MDA5 (37.5% vs. 4.8%) and anti- TIF1-γ (31.3% vs. 6.3%), had a higher incidence of arthritis (37.5% vs. 12.6%) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) (43.8% vs. 15.9%) (all comparisons with p<0.05). Muscle biopsies were available for 44 DM, 7 CADM, and 11 HDM patients, revealing similar sarcolemma MHC-I expression rates. Five-year survival rates were comparable across groups (DM: 74.6%, CADM: 75%, HDM: 83.3%). Cox analysis indicated the main mortality predictors in overall cohort were ILD (HR: 3.57, CI: 1.11-11.5) and cancer (HR: 3.67, CI: 1.17-11.5), not CADM (HR: 1.46, CI: 0.33-6.68). Conclusions: CADM patients differ in disease onset, autoantibody profiles, joint and lung involvement. While laboratory and instrumental tests have not shown muscle involvement in CADM, many muscle biopsies have shown MHC-I overexpression.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
