4.7 Article

Increasing incidence of immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy: single-centre experience

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 54, 期 11, 页码 2010-2014

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kev229

关键词

myositis; necrotizing myopathy; muscle biopsy; anti-3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase autoantibodies

资金

  1. MRC [MC_PC_14106] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_14106] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_14106] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is characterized by the predominant presence of necrotic muscle fibres in muscle biopsy and variable response to immunosuppressive treatment. The aims of this study were to analyse the temporal trend of IMNM incidence in our centre over the past 10 years and to explore the role of statins as possible causative agents. Methods. A retrospective evaluation of muscle biopsy results, clinical and laboratory data, including antibody associations of all patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy newly diagnosed between 2004 and June 2014, was performed. Available sera were tested for the presence of anti-3-hydroxy-3methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase (anti-HMGCR) autoantibodies. Results. Of 357 biopsied patients, 233 fulfilled criteria for inflammatory/immune-mediated myopathy, including 27 (11.6%) classified as IMNM. There were no patients with IMNM diagnosed between 2004 and 2007; subsequently, two to three cases of IMNM per year were seen during the period 2008-11, with a substantial increase to 18 cases (66.6% of all IMNM biopsies) in 2012-14. Thirteen of 27 patients (48%) had a history of statin use, 11 (85%) of whom had positive anti-HMGCR antibodies. There was no IMNM patient without a history of statin use who was anti-HMGCR antibody positive. Conclusion. Our data show an increasing incidence of IMNM, which is mainly accounted for by anti-HMGCR-positive IMNM associated with the use of statins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据