Sporadic inclusion body myositis and hereditary inclusion body myopathy

Clinical and Electrophysiological Findings in Hereditary Inclusion Body Myopathy Compared With Sporadic Inclusion Body Myositis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and electrophysiological findings in hereditary inclusion body myopathy (hIBM) and sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 8 genetically proven hIBM patients and 1 DNAJB6 myopathy with pathological features of hIBM, and compared their clinical, electromyographic, and serological data with a group of 51 pathologically proven sIBM patients.

RESULTS

hIBM patients had a younger mean age of onset (36 vs. 60 years, P = 0.0001). Diagnostic delay was shorter in sIBM (6 vs. 15 years, P = 0.0003). Wrist flexors (P = 0.02), digit flexors (P = 0.01), digit extensors (P = 0.02), and quadriceps (P = 0.008) muscles were more frequently affected in sIBM. Fibrillation potentials were more common in sIBM patients (P = 0.03). Electrical myotonia was found in 4 hIBM patients, not significantly different from sIBM patients (P = 0.45). Creatinine kinase was higher in sIBM patients (799 vs 232, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

sIBM and hIBM seem to have similar electromyographic changes. The combination of clinical, serological, and histopathological findings can guide genetic testing to the final diagnosis.

Hereditary inclusion body myopathy: A myopathy with unique topography of weakness, yet frequently misdiagnosed: Case series and review of literature

Background:

Hereditary inclusion body myopathy (HIBM) continues to be underrecognized clinically despite a characteristic topography of weakness with total sparing of quadriceps muscles and patient being wheelchair bound. We report seven patients of HIBM from four families in North India.

Methods and Results:

Seven patients from four different families were diagnosed to have HIBM. There was no consanguinity in any of the families. While one patient had two affected siblings, another had one affected siblings and the family history was noncontributory in two patients. Two of the siblings were available for examination and confirmed clinically to be suffering from HIBM. Among the seven patients, only one was still ambulatory at the time of diagnosis.

Discussion:

This is the first case report of occurrence of HIBM in North Indian population. Despite its unique clinical presentation, HIBM is frequently misdiagnosed resulting in unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. A high index of suspicion of this rare myopathy along with proper clinical examination may go a long way in accurate prognostication and management of these patients.

Demographic and clinical features of inclusion body myositis in North America

INTRODUCTION

Few studies of the demographics, natural history, and clinical management of inclusion body myositis (IBM) have been performed in a large patient population. To more accurately define these characteristics, we developed and distributed a questionnaire to patients with IBM.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, self-reporting survey was conducted.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 916 participants was 70.4 years, the male-to-female ratio was 2:1, and the majority reported difficulty with ambulation and activities of daily living. The earliest symptoms included impaired use and weakness of arms and legs. The mean time from first symptoms to diagnosis was 4.7 years. Half reported that IBM was their initial diagnosis. A composite functional index negatively associated with age and disease duration, and positively associated with participation in exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

These data are valuable for informing patients how IBM manifestations are expected to impair daily living and indicate that self-reporting could be used to establish outcome measures in clinical trials.

A case of hereditary inclusion body myopathy: 1 patient, 2 novel mutations

Hereditary inclusion body myopathy is an autosomal recessive disorder that presents in early adulthood with slowly progressive weakness sparing the quadriceps. Muscle histopathology reveals rimmed vacuoles without inflammation. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the gene for UDP-N-acetylglucosamine 2-epimerase-N-acetylmannosamine kinase (GNE), a bifunctional enzyme involved in protein glycosylation. Over 40 mutations have been described to date. We present a case of a young woman with progressive lower extremity weakness. Clinical presentation, laboratory evaluation, electrodiagnostic testing, muscle pathology, and genetic sequencing are described. The patient was found to have heterozygous mutations in the GNE gene, confirming the diagnosis of hereditary inclusion body myopathy. The mutations she carried have not been described previously. We briefly review the clinical, histopathologic, and molecular genetic findings of this disorder.

Advances in diagnosis and management of inflammatory myopathies

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies are rare causes of muscle weakness and may be difficult to diagnose and manage. The traditional classification of polymyositis (PM) and dermatomyositis (DM) has been expanded to include inclusion body myositis (IBM) and several other types as our knowledge of underlying immunopathologic mechanisms, specific antibodies, and clinical features has advanced. This has led to several modified and new classification systems and also to controversies over specific criteria required to make diagnoses of the several forms of inflammatory myopathies. The clinical response to treatment of PM and DM has been largely empiric, and IBM has proven to be refractory. There are efforts to formalize objective measures of treatment response to aid future randomized, controlled trials. This article reviews new information in the field of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies from the neurologic clinical perspective.

Inflammatory myopathies: clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects

The three major forms of immune-mediated inflammatory myopathy are dermatomyositis (DM), polymyositis (PM), and inclusion-body myositis (IBM). They each have distinctive clinical and histopathologic features that allow the clinician to reach a specific diagnosis in most cases. Magnetic resonance imaging is sometimes helpful, particularly if the diagnosis of IBM is suspected but has not been formally evaluated. Myositis-specific antibodies are not helpful diagnostically but may be of prognostic value; most antibodies have low sensitivity. Muscle biopsy is mandatory to confirm the diagnosis of an inflammatory myopathy and to allow unusual varieties such as eosinophilic, granulomatous, and parasitic myositis, and macrophagic myofasciitis, to be recognized. The treatment of the inflammatory myopathies remains largely empirical and relies upon the use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents, and intravenous immunoglobulin, all of which have nonselective effects on the immune system. Further controlled clinical trials are required to evaluate the relative efficacy of the available therapeutic modalities particularly in combinations, and of newer immunosuppressive agents (mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus) and cytokine-based therapies for the treatment of resistant cases of DM, PM, and IBM. Improved understanding of the molecular mechanisms of muscle injury in the inflammatory myopathies should lead to the development of more specific forms of immunotherapy for these conditions.