Lundberg Ingrid E, Dastmalchi Maryam
Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2002 Nov;28(4):799-822. doi: 10.1016/s0889-857x(02)00025-x.
The limitations associated with the different approaches into the pathogenesis of the IIM have resulted in incomplete knowledge of disease mechanisms in myositis. In most research, in which muscle tissue was used to study the different aspects of disease, biopsies with inflammatory infiltrates have been selected. Although inflammatory cell infiltrates are a characteristic feature of myositis, selecting patients with inflammatory cell infiltrates for investigations naturally introduces a selection bias. Only a few studies have been published on patients without inflammatory infiltrates but with muscle weakness, and few studies have included follow-up biopsies after different therapies. The heterogeneity of the population of patients with myositis is another limitation of the studies of pathogenic mechanisms. Although most studies classify patients according to the Bohan and Peter criteria [118, 119], some studies used histopathologic criteria [6], and only a few studies included characterization with myositis-specific autoantibodies. Because myositis-specific autoantibodies are often associated with certain clinical profiles, classification according to autoantibody profiles could be important to define differences in the pathogenesis of different phenotypes [3]. From available data on pathogenic mechanisms it is evident that cellular and humoral immune responses are involved in disease mechanisms of myositis, but whether there is a muscle-specific immune response cannot be answered by current studies. It is likely that other mechanisms are important for development of muscle weakness, including metabolic disturbances, and muscle weakness could be caused by different mechanisms in different IIM subsets or in patients in different phases of the disease. There could be early changes, which reversibly affect the metabolism, and later, irreversible changes, that could be dependent on muscle fiber damage and replacement of muscle tissue by connective tissue and fat. Current findings suggest that cytokines, which are produced in muscle tissue from different cell sources including inflammatory cells, endothelial cells, and muscle fibers, could affect muscle function. Careful follow-up studies, including the effect of therapies targeting different molecules on molecular expression in muscle tissue, are likely to increase our knowledge on disease mechanisms. A better understanding of which molecules and mechanisms affect muscle function is likely to lead to improved, less toxic therapies in patients with myositis. Many possible target molecules for blocking therapies, especially the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1 and TNF-alpha, have been identified and should be studied in appropriate clinical settings given the currently poor outcomes of many patients with IIM.
与研究炎性肌病发病机制的不同方法相关的局限性,导致了对肌炎疾病机制的认识不完整。在大多数使用肌肉组织研究疾病不同方面的研究中,选取的活检样本均有炎性浸润。虽然炎性细胞浸润是肌炎的一个特征性表现,但选择有炎性细胞浸润的患者进行研究自然会引入选择偏倚。仅有少数研究报道了无炎性浸润但有肌肉无力的患者,且很少有研究纳入不同治疗后的随访活检。炎性肌病患者群体的异质性是发病机制研究的另一个局限性。尽管大多数研究根据博汉和彼得标准对患者进行分类[118, (此处原文可能有误,推测应为119)119],但一些研究使用组织病理学标准[6],只有少数研究纳入了肌炎特异性自身抗体特征分析。由于肌炎特异性自身抗体通常与特定临床特征相关,根据自身抗体谱进行分类对于明确不同表型发病机制的差异可能很重要[3]。从关于发病机制的现有数据来看,细胞免疫和体液免疫反应显然参与了肌炎的疾病机制,但目前的研究无法回答是否存在肌肉特异性免疫反应。其他机制可能对肌肉无力的发展也很重要,包括代谢紊乱,并且在不同的炎性肌病亚组或疾病不同阶段的患者中,肌肉无力可能由不同机制引起。可能存在早期变化,可逆地影响代谢,而后期则是不可逆变化,这可能取决于肌纤维损伤以及结缔组织和脂肪对肌肉组织的替代。目前的研究结果表明,由包括炎性细胞、内皮细胞和肌纤维在内的不同细胞来源在肌肉组织中产生的细胞因子可能影响肌肉功能。仔细的随访研究,包括针对不同分子的治疗对肌肉组织分子表达的影响,可能会增加我们对疾病机制的认识。更好地了解哪些分子和机制影响肌肉功能,可能会为炎性肌病患者带来改进的、毒性更小的治疗方法。许多可能用于阻断治疗的靶分子,特别是促炎细胞因子白细胞介素 -1和肿瘤坏死因子 -α,已经被确定,鉴于目前许多炎性肌病患者的预后较差,应在适当的临床环境中对其进行研究。