4.6 Article

Morphological Characteristics of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies in Juvenile Patients

期刊

CELLS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells11010109

关键词

myositis; dermatomyositis; muscle pathology; overlap myositis; juvenile; anti-synthetase syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Morphological characteristics discriminate subtypes of juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, highlighting the differences in pathogenesis and the importance of individualized therapeutic strategies.
Background: In juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), morphological characteristic features of distinct subgroups are not well defined. New treatment strategies require a precise diagnosis of the subgroups in IIM, and, therefore, knowledge about the pathomorphology of juvenile IIMs is warranted. Methods: Muscle biopsies from 15 patients (median age 8 (range 3-17) years, 73% female) with IIM and seven controls were analyzed by standard methods, immunohistochemistry, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Detailed clinical and laboratory data were accessed retrospectively. Results: Proximal muscle weakness and skin symptoms were the main clinical symptoms. Dermatomyositis (DM) was diagnosed in 9/15, antisynthetase syndrome (ASyS) in 4/15, and overlap myositis (OM) in 2/15. Analysis of skeletal muscle tissues showed inflammatory cells and diffuse upregulation of MHC class I in all subtypes. Morphological key findings were COX-deficient fibers as a striking pathology in DM and perimysial alkaline phosphatase positivity in anti-Jo-1-ASyS. Vascular staining of the type 1 IFN-surrogate marker, MxA, correlated with endothelial tubuloreticular inclusions in both groups. None of these specific morphological findings were present in anti-PL7-ASyS or OM patients. Conclusions: Morphological characteristics discriminate IIM subtypes in juvenile patients, emphasizing differences in aetiopathogenesis and supporting the notion of individual and targeted therapeutic strategies.

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

4.6
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