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.

AbstractMuscle disorders are characterized by differential involvement of various muscle groups. Among these, weakness predominantly affecting finger flexors is an uncommon pattern, most frequently found in sporadic inclusion‐body myositis. This finding is particularly significant when the full range of histopathological findings of inclusion‐body myositis is not found on muscle biopsy. Prominent finger flexor weakness, however, is also observed in other myopathies. It occurs commonly in myotonic dystrophy types 1 and 2. In addition, individual reports and small case series have documented finger flexor weakness in sarcoid and amyloid myopathy, and in inherited myopathies caused by ACTA1, CRYAB, DMD, DYSF, FLNC, GAA, GNE, HNRNPDL, LAMA2, MYH7, and VCP mutations. Therefore, the finding of finger flexor weakness requires consideration of clinical, myopathological, genetic, electrodiagnostic, and sometimes muscle imaging findings to establish a diagnosis.

AbstractMutations in glycogenin‐1 (GYG1) cause an adult‐onset polyglucosan body myopathy. We report here a patient presenting with late‐onset distal myopathy. We wish to highlight this rare clinical phenotype of GYG1‐related myopathy and the histological clues leading to its diagnosis.

See article on pages 739–744 in this issue.

AbstractAlthough myopathies and neuromuscular junction disorders are typically distinct, their coexistence has been reported in several inherited and acquired conditions. Affected individuals have variable clinical phenotypes but typically display both a decrement on repetitive nerve stimulation and myopathic findings on muscle biopsy. Inherited causes include myopathies related to mutations in BIN1, DES, DNM2, GMPPB, MTM1, or PLEC and congenital myasthenic syndromes due to mutations in ALG2, ALG14, COL13A1, DOK7, DPAGT1, or GFPT1. Additionally, a decrement due to muscle fiber inexcitability is observed in certain myotonic disorders. The identification of a defect of neuromuscular transmission in an inherited myopathy may assist in establishing a molecular diagnosis and in selecting patients who would benefit from pharmacological correction of this defect. Acquired cases meanwhile stem from the co‐occurrence of myasthenia gravis or Lambert‐Eaton myasthenic syndrome with an immune‐mediated myopathy, which may be due to paraneoplastic disorders or exposure to immune checkpoint inhibitors.