4.7 Article

Quantitative nailfold video capillaroscopy in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 9, Pages 1699-1705

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq051

Keywords

Polymyositis; Dermatomyositis; Nailfold video capillaroscopy

Categories

Funding

  1. Raynaud's and Scleroderma Association
  2. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2006-06-010] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Versus Arthritis [18474] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods. Nailfold video microscopy (x300 magnification) was performed on 24 patients with IIM and 35 healthy controls. Capillary density and dimensions (total width and apical width) were quantified. Patients were clinically assessed and disease activity recorded using the Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Tool. Disease severity and physical function were assessed using the myositis damage index and Stanford HAQ, respectively. Findings were analysed using linear and logistic regression, adjusted for age and sex. In a subgroup of 16 patients with IIM and 27 controls, the process was repeated 6-12 months later and the results were analysed using Student's t-test. Results. Capillary density was lower and dimensions were higher in patients with IIM compared with healthy controls (P < 0.001 for all). Anti-Jo-1 antibody was associated with reduced capillary density. In the longitudinal cohort, the mean change in capillary density was -1.4 in patients vs -0.4 in controls (P = 0.07). Mean change in capillary dimensions did not differ between patients and controls, but some patients demonstrated pronounced changes in capillary morphology over time. Conclusions. Reduced capillary density and increased dimensions in patients with IIM can be quantified using nailfold capillaroscopy, suggesting that nailfold capillaroscopy may be useful as an outcome measure of microvascular disease in studies of IIM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available