Laughlin, Ruple S.

AbstractIntroduction/AimsRhabdomyolysis is an etiologically heterogeneous, acute necrosis of myofibers characterized by transient marked creatine kinase (CK) elevation associated with myalgia, muscle edema, and/or weakness. The study aimed to determine the role of electrodiagnostic (EDX) testing relative to genetic testing and muscle biopsy in patients with unprovoked rhabdomyolysis in identifying an underlying myopathy.MethodsEDX database was reviewed to identify unprovoked rhabdomyolysis patients who underwent EDX testing between January 2012 and January 2022. Each patient's clinical profile, EDX findings, muscle pathology, laboratory, and genetic testing results were analyzed.ResultsOf 66 patients identified, 32 had myopathic electromyography (EMG). Muscle biopsy and genetic testing were performed in 41 and 37 patients, respectively. A definitive diagnosis was achieved in 15 patients (11 myopathic EMG and 4 nonmyopathic EMG; p = .04) based on abnormal muscle biopsy (4/11 patients) or genetic testing (12/12 patients, encompassing 5 patients with normal muscle biopsy and 3 patients with nonmyopathic EMG). These included seven metabolic and eight nonmetabolic myopathies (five muscular dystrophies and three ryanodine receptor 1 [RYR1]‐myopathies). Patients were more likely to have baseline weakness (p < .01), elevated baseline CK (p < .01), and nonmetabolic myopathies (p = .03) when myopathic EMG was identified.DiscussionMyopathic EMG occurred in approximately half of patients with unprovoked rhabdomyolysis, more likely in patients with weakness and elevated CK at baseline. Although patients with myopathic EMG were more likely to have nonmetabolic myopathies, nonmyopathic EMG did not exclude myopathy, and genetic testing was primarily helpful to identify an underlying myopathy. Genetic testing should likely be first‐tier diagnostic testing following unprovoked rhabdomyolysis.

AbstractIntroduction/AimsGlucocorticoids (GC) are first‐line therapy for many neuromuscular diseases. There is a lack of guidelines regarding the prevention and management of GC complications in the context of neuromuscular disease, introducing the potential for practice variation, that may compromise quality of care. Our aim was to evaluate the practice patterns among Canadian adult neuromuscular neurologists on the screening, management, and treatment of GC‐related complications and to identify variances in practice.MethodsA web‐based anonymous questionnaire was disseminated to 99 Canadian adult neuromuscular neurologists. Questions addressed patterns of screening, prevention, monitoring, and treatment of GC‐induced adverse events, including infection prophylaxis, vaccination, bone health, hyperglycemia, and other complications.ResultsSeventy‐one percent completed the survey. Of those, 52% perform screening blood work prior to initiating GC, 56% screen for infections, and 18% for osteoporosis. The majority monitor glycemic control and blood pressure (>85%). Thirty‐two (46%) reported that they do not primarily monitor GC complications, but rather provide recommendations to the primary care physician. Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis was never used by 29%, and 29% recommend vaccinations prior to GC initiation. Calcium supplementation was recommended by 80% to prevent osteoporosis. Only 36% were aware of any existing guidelines for preventing GC complications, and 91% endorsed a need for neurology‐specific guidelines.DiscussionThere is substantial variability in the management of GC adverse effects among neuromuscular neurologists, often not corresponding to limited published literature. Our results support the need for improved education and neurology‐specific guidelines to help standardize practice and improve and prevent complications.