Paul, Pritikanta

AbstractIntroduction/AimsImmune‐mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is considered a rare subtype of the immune‐mediated myopathies, but its incidence and prevalence are unknown. In this study we aimed to determine the incidence and prevalence of IMNM among adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota.MethodsWe identified adult patients with IMNM, as defined by the 2016 European Neuromuscular Centre diagnostic criteria, among residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota over a 20‐year period.ResultsSeven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six patients were tested for IMNM antibodies: four were anti–3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐coenzyme A reductase (HMGCR) positive, one was anti–signal recognition particle positive, and one was seronegative. The incidence of IMNM during 2010‐2019 was 8.3 per million person‐years. The prevalence of IMNM in 2010 was 1.85 per 100 000 people at least 50 years of age. Median age at symptom onset was 64 (range, 52‐86) years and median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 3 (range, <1 to 156) months. Statin use among anti‐HMGCR IMNM patients, but not the entire IMNM cohort, was higher than in controls (P = .024). Two IMNM patients developed cancers. The incidence of malignancy in IMNM was not higher than that of the general population. Treatment outcome was favorable in all patients except for one patient with delayed treatment and another with insufficient therapy. Among three deceased patients, one died of cancer and another died of IMNM‐related cardiorespiratory complications.DiscussionIMNM is a rare disease. Its prevalence is one tenth that of inclusion‐body myositis in Olmsted County, Minnesota. IMNM patients in our cohort were not at higher risk for developing cancer.

AbstractBackgroundAnti‐cytosolic 5′‐nucleotidase 1A (cN1A) antibodies are commonly detected in patients with sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM). However, their pathogenic role has not been established. Moreover, efforts toward identifying sIBM distinct clinicopathologic characteristics associated with these antibodies have yielded conflicting results.MethodsWe first searched for patients, seen in our clinics, tested for anti‐cN1A antibodies between December 2015 and December 2019. We identified 92 patients who were diagnosed with sIBM, according to the 2011 ENMC or Griggs et al criteria. Thereafter, we reviewed and compared the clinical and investigational findings of these patients in relation to their antibody status.ResultsAnti‐cN1A antibodies were present in 47/92 (51%) patients with sIBM. Comparison of seropositive and seronegative cohorts yielded no significant difference in clinical features, including facial weakness, oropharyngeal and respiratory involvement, or disease severity. The antibody titer did not correlate with the clinical phenotype, CK value, or presence of myotonic discharges on EMG. Anti‐cN1A antibody positive patients appeared to have more frequent auto‐aggressive inflammation on muscle biopsy but not as an isolated myopathological feature.ConclusionsOur study showed that anti‐cN1A antibody positive and negative sIBM patients have similar clinical features and disease severity. Anti‐cN1A antibodies in our sIBM cohort did not correlate with any studied clinical or laboratory parameter and, therefore, were of limited value in the patient's assessment.