Nicolau, Stefan

AbstractIntroduction/AimsImmune‐mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is an immune‐mediated myopathy typically presenting with progressive subacute weakness and characteristic, but nonspecific, myopathological findings. Atypical cases however can mimic other inherited or acquired myopathies, depriving patients of treatment. We describe a cohort of such patients.MethodsWe retrospectively identified IMNM patients who either previously carried a diagnosis of an inherited myopathy established on clinicopathological grounds or whose muscle biopsies displayed atypical features suggestive of a different myopathy.ResultsAmong 131 IMNM patients, seven previously unreported patients (5%) met one of the above criteria. Three patients were diagnosed with limb‐girdle muscular dystrophy on the basis of a chronic progressive course of weakness and family history of myopathy or cardiomyopathy. The other four patients displayed atypical histological features (two prominent mitochondrial abnormalities, one myofibrillar pathology, and one granulomatous inflammation). Immunostaining of biopsies from 12 additional IMNM patients did not identify myofibrillar pathology. The patient with granulomatous inflammation was known to have pulmonary sarcoidosis. Genetic testing for inherited myopathies was unrevealing. Antibodies against 3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐CoA reductase or signal recognition particle were identified in 5 and 1 patients, respectively. Four patients presented with slowly progressive weakness over 3–13 y, while weakness was subacute over ≤6 mo in three patients. All patients responded to immunomodulatory therapy.DiscussionAtypical clinical and histological features can occur in IMNM patients, causing delays in diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians should, therefore, consider IMNM in the differential diagnosis of unexplained proximal myopathies in spite of atypical clinical and myopathological findings.

Abstract Despite recent advances in the understanding of inherited muscle and neuromuscular junction diseases, as well as the advent of a wide range of genetic tests, patients continue to face delays in diagnosis of sometimes treatable disorders. These guidelines outline an approach to genetic testing in such disorders. Initially, a patient's phenotype is evaluated to identify myopathies requiring directed testing, including myotonic dystrophies, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy, mitochondrial myopathies, dystrophinopathies, and oculopharyngodistal myopathy. Initial investigation in the remaining patients is generally a comprehensive gene panel by next‐generation sequencing. Broad panels have a higher diagnostic yield and can be cost‐effective. Due to extensive phenotypic overlap and treatment implications, genes responsible for congenital myasthenic syndromes should be included when evaluating myopathy patients. For patients whose initial genetic testing is negative or inconclusive, phenotypic re‐evaluation is warranted, along with consideration of genes and variants not included initially, as well as their acquired mimickers.