Service de physiologie et d'explorations fonctionnelles, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France; Service de rhumatologie, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France; Centre de référence des maladies auto-immunes rares, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France; Fédération de médecine translationnelle de Strasbourg, université de Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Fédération de médecine translationnelle de Strasbourg, université de Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France; Département de pathologie, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Joint Bone Spine. 2018 Jan;85(1):23-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2017.03.005. Epub 2017 Mar 22.
Greater accuracy in clinical descriptions combined with advances in muscle histology and immunology have established that inflammatory myopathies (IMs), similarly to inflammatory rheumatic diseases, constitute a highly heterogeneous group of conditions. The topographic distribution, severity, and tempo of onset of the myopathy vary widely, and the histological findings distinguish at least five different profiles, which may reflect different pathophysiological processes. Most IMs are connective tissue diseases that can affect multiple organs, among which the most common targets are the skin, joints, and lungs. The extramuscular manifestations may antedate the muscular involvement and should therefore suggest a diagnosis of IM even in the absence of obvious muscle disease. About 20 different autoantibodies have been identified in patients with IM. Some are mutually exclusive and associated with specific combinations of clinical manifestations. Following the model of antisynthetase syndrome, about 10 syndromes associated with autoantibodies specific of IM have been identified. Thus, polymyositis is now emerging as a rare entity that is often mistaken for more recently described patterns of IM. No consensus exists to date about the classification of IMs. Nevertheless, the clinical manifestations, autoantibody profile, and muscle histology can be used to distinguish patient subgroups with fairly homogeneous patterns of complications, treatment responses, and outcomes. These subgroups are also characterized by specific genetic and environmental factors. The advances made in the nosology of IMs have benefited the diagnosis, personalization of treatment strategies, and understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms. They can be expected to assist in the development of specific treatments.
临床描述的准确性提高,加上肌肉组织学和免疫学的进步,已经证实炎性肌病(IMs)与炎症性风湿性疾病类似,是一组高度异质性的疾病。肌病的发病部位、严重程度和发病速度差异很大,组织学发现至少有五种不同的特征,这可能反映了不同的病理生理过程。大多数 IM 是结缔组织疾病,可以影响多个器官,其中最常见的靶器官是皮肤、关节和肺部。肌肉外表现可能先于肌肉受累,因此,即使没有明显的肌肉疾病,也应该提示 IM 的诊断。大约 20 种不同的自身抗体已在 IM 患者中被识别。其中一些是相互排斥的,与特定的临床表现组合相关。继抗合成酶综合征模式之后,已确定了大约 10 种与 IM 特异性自身抗体相关的综合征。因此,肌炎现在作为一种罕见的实体疾病出现,常被误诊为最近描述的肌炎模式。迄今为止,对于 IMs 的分类尚无共识。然而,临床表现、自身抗体谱和肌肉组织学可用于区分具有相当同质并发症、治疗反应和结局的患者亚组。这些亚组还具有特定的遗传和环境因素。IMs 分类学的进展有助于诊断、治疗策略的个体化和病理生理机制的理解。可以预期它们将有助于特定治疗方法的开发。