Qiang Zekai, Barnett Laura, Bingham Georgia, Han Oscar, Walsh Annabel, Conwill Martin, McDonough Harry E, McDermott Christopher J, Shaw Pamela J, Alix James J P
Sheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
J Neurol. 2024 Dec 12;272(1):35. doi: 10.1007/s00415-024-12737-y.
Myopathies are heterogenous and can provide a diagnostic puzzle. Many patients investigated for myopathy will go on to other diagnoses. An overall understanding of how patients are investigated for suspected myopathy is lacking. Our aim was to understand how patients were investigated for myopathy in our tertiary centre and the timeline of their diagnostic journey. Through local database searches over a 5-year period (2015-2019), we identified a final total of 770 patients investigated for myopathy. Of these, 29.7% went on to a diagnosis of myopathy. The top non-myopathy diagnoses were neuropathy, spinal pathology and ataxia. Both the myopathy and non-myopathy groups had symptoms for an extended period before reaching specialist services (both groups 104 weeks). Following a first hospital visit, median time to diagnosis was not significantly different (myopathy 46.9 weeks, non-myopathy 40.7 weeks, p > 0.05). Data on the diagnostic journey for specific myopathies was also collected, with inflammatory myopathies diagnosed most quickly and muscular dystrophies most slowly. Muscle MRI and biopsy had the best positive predictive values (82.7% and 83.1%, respectively), while EMG had the best negative predictive value (89.3%). A combination of CK, EMG and neuroaxis MRI (brain and spinal cord) yielded at least one correct test result with respect to final diagnosis in 98.9% of cases. In conclusion, patients in whom a muscle disease is considered experience significant diagnostic delay. The first step in the diagnostic journey should be able to identify both myopathy and non-myopathy cases.
肌病具有异质性,可能会带来诊断难题。许多接受肌病检查的患者最终会被诊断为其他疾病。目前缺乏对疑似肌病患者检查方式的全面了解。我们的目的是了解在我们的三级医疗中心,患者是如何接受肌病检查的以及他们诊断过程的时间线。通过对5年期间(2015 - 2019年)本地数据库的检索,我们最终确定了770名接受肌病检查的患者。其中,29.7%的患者最终被诊断为肌病。最常见的非肌病诊断为神经病变、脊柱病变和共济失调。肌病组和非肌病组在获得专科服务之前都有较长时间的症状(两组均为104周)。首次就诊后,诊断的中位时间没有显著差异(肌病组为46.9周,非肌病组为40.7周,p>0.05)。我们还收集了特定肌病诊断过程的数据,炎症性肌病诊断最快,肌肉萎缩症诊断最慢。肌肉磁共振成像(MRI)和活检的阳性预测值最高(分别为82.7%和83.1%),而肌电图(EMG)的阴性预测值最高(89.3%)。肌酸激酶(CK)、肌电图和神经轴MRI(脑和脊髓)相结合,在98.9%的病例中至少产生了一项与最终诊断相关的正确检查结果。总之,被怀疑患有肌肉疾病的患者经历了显著诊断延迟。诊断过程的第一步应该能够识别肌病和非肌病病例。