Neurol India Home 
 

NI FEATURE: PATHOLOGY PANORAMA - ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 66  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 767--771

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies in adults: A comparative study of Bohan and Peter and European Neuromuscular Center 2004 criteria

Sundaram Challa1, Saumya Jakati1, Megha S Uppin1, Meena A Kannan2, Rajasekhar Liza3, MK Murthy Jagarlapudi4,  
1 Department of Pathology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Neurology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
3 Department of Rheumatology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
4 Department of Neurology, Institute of Neurological Sciences, Care Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sundaram Challa
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Basavatharakam Indo.American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034, Telangana
India

Abstract

Background: Bohan and Peter criteria are widely used for the diagnosis of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs). Recently, European Neuromuscular Center (ENMC) formulated criteria to identify subgroups of IIMs. Aim: To compare the two diagnostic criteria in adult IIMs. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective review of case records of histologically confirmed IIMs in adults between January 2014 and May 2015. Both the Bohan and Peter, and ENMC 2004 criteria were applied in the same group of patients to subgroup the IIMs. Muscle biopsy was evaluated in all the four domains: muscle fiber, inflammatory, connective tissue, and vascular, with the basic panel of histological stains. Sporadic inclusion body myositis (s-IBM) was diagnosed using ENMC IBM diagnostic research criteria 2011. Results: During the study period, 69 patients fulfilled the ENMC criteria for IIMs including 16 patients with s-IBM. The subgrouping as per the ENMC criteria (53) was: dermatomyositis (DM) in 30; polymyositis (PM) in 2; immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) in 9; and nonspecific myositis (NM) in 12 patients, whereas subgrouping by the Bohan and Peter criteria was DM in 9 and PM with and without connective tissue disease (CTD) in 26 patients only. There was underdiagnosis of DM, as perifascicular atrophy is not recognized as a diagnostic histological feature, and overdiagnosis of PM with and without CTD due to poor characterization of histological features in PM by the Bohan and Peter criteria. Conclusions: Systematic evaluation of muscle biopsy according to the ENMC criteria with basic panel of histochemical stains improved the diagnostic yield of IIM significantly when compared to the Bohan and Peter criteria.



How to cite this article:
Challa S, Jakati S, Uppin MS, Kannan MA, Liza R, Murthy Jagarlapudi M K. Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies in adults: A comparative study of Bohan and Peter and European Neuromuscular Center 2004 criteria.Neurol India 2018;66:767-771


How to cite this URL:
Challa S, Jakati S, Uppin MS, Kannan MA, Liza R, Murthy Jagarlapudi M K. Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies in adults: A comparative study of Bohan and Peter and European Neuromuscular Center 2004 criteria. Neurol India [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Oct 30 ];66:767-771
Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2018/66/3/767/232296


Full Text



The idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) are a heterogeneous group of acquired myopathies affecting skeletal muscle with variable involvement of other organs. They are characterized by muscle weakness and chronic inflammatory infiltrate in muscles. The most commonly used criteria were those proposed by Bohan and Peter in 1975 and include polymyositis (PM) and dermatomyositis (DM) either in isolation or in association with connective tissue disease (CTD) or malignancy.[1] However, there are significant advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of IIM, and new diagnostic tools have been developed since then. These diseases are autoimmune in nature and potentially treatable. The classification of IIMs remains challenging. The European Neuromuscular Center (ENMC) in its 119th International Workshop formulated clinical, laboratory, and pathological criteria for the diagnosis of different IIMs in adults [excluding sporadic inclusion body myositis (s-IBM)] with detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify homogenous subgroups for possible use in clinical trials.[2] The diagnostic criteria for s-IBM were those proposed by Griggs et al., (1995)[3] and later revised in the 188th ENMC workshop.[4] Muscle biopsy is mandatory for the diagnosis of IIMs. Muscle biopsy evaluation was addressed in the 193rd and 205th ENMC workshops and the recommendations include a panel of histochemical stains (basic, additional, and optional) and the evaluation of muscle in the four domains: muscle fiber, inflammation, connective tissue, and vascular.[5],[6] Presently, the major subgroups of IIMs include: (i) DM, (ii) PM, (iii) s-IBM, (iv) immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), and (v) nonspecific myositis (NM).[2],[5],[6] Subtyping of IIMs is based on the pathologic features on muscle biopsy and these features also help to differentiate IIMs from other disease mimics. Subtyping may help in assessing the treatment options and prognosis.[6],[7],[8]

There are few institutes with facilities for muscle biopsy evaluation in India. The focus of majority of studies from India was to diagnose and differentiate IIMs from muscular dystrophies and none except one have used the ENMC criteria to subgroup the IIMs.[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] The Bohan and Peter criteria are still being widely used in clinical practice for the diagnosis of IIMs. In the present study, we aimed to subtype IIMs according to the ENMC criteria and the revised criteria for s-IBM using the basic panel of histochemical stains and attempted comparison of the subgroup identification by the ENMC criteria with those according to the Bohan and Peter criteria.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]

The study aims to highlight the detailed muscle biopsy evaluation in subgroup identification by the ENMC criteria for therapeutic and prognostic purposes. Subgroup analysis and comparison the between the ENMC and the Bohan and Peter criteria were attempted to bring out the limitations of the widely used Bohan and Peter criteria.

 Materials and Methods



This was a retrospective review of case records of histologically confirmed IIM diagnosed on muscle biopsies in adult (>18 years) patients using the criteria proposed by the ENMC in 2004 and the revised criteria for s-IBM, and also by the Bohan and Peter criteria.[1],[2],[4] The study period was between January 2014 and May 2015. Patients were referred for muscle biopsy from both the neurology and rheumatology departments, of a university hospital in South India – and from the other hospitals in the city and state. This is the only department of pathology with the facilities for a detailed evaluation of muscle biopsy in the state in South India.

The data collected included demographic details, onset of the disease, clinical features including skin rash and other skin lesions, pattern of muscle involvement, involvement of other organs, presence of CTD, and malignancy. The laboratory data collected included serum creatine kinase and electro-diagnostic findings. Serum autoantibodies and magnetic resonance imaging of muscles were not done routinely as part of the workup, but were noted wherever available.

Muscle biopsy was done by the open method from vastus lateralis muscle in all patients. The cryostat sections were evaluated for the presence of perifascicular atrophy (PFA), necrotic fibers, rimmed vacuoles, ragged red fibers, cytochrome oxidase negative fibers, presence of inflammatory cells, scattered in the endomysium, surrounding and/or invading nonnecrotic muscle fibers, or the perivascular structures in the perimysium. Muscle biopsy was evaluated in the four domains: muscle fiber, inflammatory, connective tissue, and vascular, with the basic panel of histochemical stains.[6] The stains included hematoxylin and eosin (H and E), Masson's trichrome, modified Gomori trichrome, ATPase preincubated at pH 9.4 and 4.6, succinic dehydrogenase (SDH), nicotinamide adenine tetrazolium reductase, cytochrome c oxidase (COX), and combined COX-SDH stains. Periodic acid Schiff, oil red O, and Congo red stains were done wherever necessary. Acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, and nonspecific esterase stains were not performed.

The Bohan and Peter criteria define muscle pathology as only the presence of inflammatory cells, whereas the ENMC criteria elaborates on detailed muscle pathology apart from presence or absence of inflammatory cells [Table 1].{Table 1}

In this study, immunohistochemical (IHC) studies for major histocompatibility complex-1, membrane attack complex, characterization of inflammatory cells, and electron microscopic studies were not done as part of the routine workup of IIMs. Other disease mimics were excluded based on clinical, laboratory, and muscle biopsy features with appropriate histochemical and immunohistochemical stains (for dystrophy and metabolic diseases).

Patients were classified into subgroups using clinical, laboratory, and histological features on muscle biopsy proposed by the ENMC 2004 criteria [Table 1].[2] The ENMC criteria identify amyopathic and sine dermatitis subgroups of DM as well as the NM and IMNM subgroups of IIMs. The same patient groups were also classified into subgroups using clinical, laboratory, and histological features on muscle biopsy using the criteria proposed by Bohan and Peter.[1] A comparison between the subgroups according to the ENMC and the Bohan and Peter criteria was done. Patients with s-IBM were classified according to the ENMC IBM research diagnostic criteria.[4] Subgroup analysis and comparison between these two criteria were attempted to highlight the limitations of the widely used Bohan and Peter criteria.

 Results



During the study period, 652 muscle biopsies were done and histological diagnosis of IIMs in adults was done in 69 (10.58%) patients, including 53 (76.81%) by the ENMC criteria and 16 (23.19%) diagnosed as s-IBM according to the ENMC IBM Research Diagnostic Criteria 2011.[2],[4] Among the 53 IIMs diagnosed by the ENMC criteria, when analyzed according to the Bohan and Peter criteria; only 35 (66.04%) could be diagnosed as IIM.[1],[2] s-IBM is not a subgroup of IIM in either the ENMC or the Bohan and Peter criteria.[1],[2]

The subgroup diagnosis of IIMs by the ENMC 2004 criteria was: DM in 30 (56.60%), PM in 2 (3.77%), IMNM in 9 (16.98%), and NM in 12 (22.64%) patients.[2] The subtypes of DM diagnosed by the ENMC 2004 criteria were: definite DM in 10 (33.33%); probable DM in 10 (3.33%); possible DM sine dermatitis in 16 (53.33%); and amyopathic DM in 3 (10%) patients. The subgroup diagnosis by the Bohan and Peter criteria was: DM in 9 (25.71%); PM 21 (60%); and PM with CTD in 5 (14.29%) patients [1] [Figure 1]. The under diagnosis of DM by the Bohan and Peter criteria could be explained by the presence of clinico-histopathological subtypes in the ENMC criteria. The over-diagnosis of PM with and without CTD by the Bohan and Peter criteria occurred in 26 patients. The error in the over-diagnosis of PM by the Bohan and Peter criteria was due to misdiagnosis of possible DM sine dermatitis as PM in 10, NM as PM in 9, and DM and NM in association with CTD as PM with CTD in 2 and 3 patients, respectively. In this study, the diagnosis of IIMs was made in 18 (33.96%) more patients by the ENMC criteria when compared to the Bohan and Peter criteria: DM in 9 (16.98%) and IMNM in 9 (16.98%) patients [Table 2].{Figure 1}{Table 2}

The subtyping of s-IBM was 'clinico-pathologically defined' in 3 (18.75%) patients; 'clinically defined' in 9 (56.25%) patients; and was 'possible' in 4 (25%) patients.

 Discussion



There has been a controversy regarding which classification is best for subgrouping IIMs. The primary goal of any classification should be in differentiating the subgroups of IIMs, and in differentiating IIMs from mimics.[17] A comparative study of the different classifications of IIMs currently available suggested that the Bohan and Peter criteria were too inclusive and nonspecific.[18] The same study demonstrated 71% sensitivity and 82% specificity for the ENMC criteria. In spite of these observations, the Bohan and Peter criteria are still widely used for establishing the clinical diagnosis of IIMs. In the present study, more (33.96%) number of patients could be grouped into various subgroups of IIMs, mostly treatable, using the ENMC criteria. Similar were the observations in the study by Danielsson et al.[19] In their study, they suggested that the ENMC criteria were more restrictive and led to a difference in the groups defined by the Bohan and Peter classification.[19]

Using the Bohan and Peter criteria, 26 (74.29%) patients were grouped into PM with or without CTD group, whereas it was only 2 (3.77%) by the ENMC 2004 criteria. By the Bohan and Peter classification, s-IBM, IMNM, and NM could be wrongly grouped in the PM group.[1],[3],[20],[21],[22]

The ENMC groups DM into various subtypes which may have therapeutic and prognostic implications. The typical rash in patients with DM may precede, occur simultaneously, or follow muscle weakness.[21] Moreover, the rash may be transient or poorly recognized.[21] Approximately 6% of DM patients may have no skin involvement and 20% of DM patients develop skin rash but no muscle weakness.[22],[23] Amyopathic and myopathic DM are a part of the range of DM affecting skin and muscle to a varying degree.[21] Muscle biopsy is essential to make a diagnosis of DM sine dermatitis to avoid the misdiagnosis of PM.[21] By the ENMC criteria, 30 (56.60%) patients could be subgrouped into the DM group, group, whereas only 9 (25.71%) patients could be classified into the DM group by the Bohan and Peter criteria. Perifascicular atrophy (PFA) detectable on muscle biopsy is an important feature for establishing the diagnosis of DM by the ENMC criteria, whereas this feature has not been described in the Bohan and Peter criteria.[1],[2]

The diagnostic criteria proposed by Griggs et al.,[3] for the diagnosis of s-IBM places emphasis on the histological features. However, it was realized on a long-term follow-up that many patients with s-IBM do not show all the histological features, especially, rimmed vacuoles.[24] The revised diagnostic criteria were proposed with emphasis on specific clinical features.[4] In this study, these revised criteria for the diagnosis of s-IBM were used.

In this study, only the basic panel of stains was used to evaluate all the four domains of muscle.[5],[6] Ancillary investigations on muscle biopsy are important for the accurate identification of subgroups. However, IHC and electron microscopy studies could not be performed in the present study. We could have missed out the accurate diagnosis in some patients because of the lack of these studies; however, the systematic evaluation of muscle biopsy according to the ENMC criteria, based on light microscopy with histochemical stains improved the diagnostic yield significantly when compared to the Bohan and Peter criteria. We plan to include immunohistochemistry for routine practice in the future.

To conclude, the classification of IIMs by the ENMC criteria with a detailed muscle biopsy evaluation leads to a better diagnostic yield as well as a better subgroup identification to guide the treatment options.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Bohan A, Peter JB. Polymyositis and dermatomyositis ( first of two parts). N Engl J Med. 1975;292:344-7.
2Hoogendijk JE, Amato AA, Lecky BR, Choy EH, Lundberg IE, Rose MR, et al. 119th ENMC International Workshop: Trial design in adult idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, with the exception of inclusion body myositis, 10-12 October 2003, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord 2004;14:337-45.
3Griggs RC, Askanas V, DiMauro S, Engel A, Karpati G, Mendell JR, et al. Inclusion body myositis and myopathies. Ann Neurol 1995;38:705-13.
4Rose MR, ENMC IBM Working Group. 188th ENMC International Workshop: Inclusion Body Myositis, 2–4 December 2011, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord 2013;23:1044-55.
5De Bleecker JL, Lundberg IE, de Visser M, ENMC Myositis Muscle Biopsy Study Group. 193rd ENMC International Workshop on Pathology Diagnosis of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies 30 November–2 December 2012, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord 2013;23:945-51.
6De Bleecker JL, De Paepe B, Aronica E, de Visser M, Amato A, Lundberg IE, et al. 205th ENMC International Workshop: Pathology diagnosis of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies part II 28-30. 2014, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord 2015;25:268-72.
7Dalakas MC. Inflammatory muscle diseases. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1734-47.
8Findlay AR, Goyal NA, Mozaffar T. An overview of polymyositis and dermatomyositis. Muscle Nerve 2015;51:638-56.
9Jain A, Sharma MC, Sarkar C, Bhatia R, Singh S, Handa R. Major histocompatibility complex class I and II detection as a diagnostic tool in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:1070-6.
10Sundaram C, Uppin MS, Meena AK. Major histocompatibility complex class I expression can be used as a diagnostic tool to differentiate idiopathic inflammatory myopathies from dystrophies. Neurol India 2008;56:363-7.
11Khadilkar SV, Patil SG, Amin SN. Study of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies with special reference to borderland between idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and muscular dystrophies. Neurol India 2008;56:356-62.
12Jain A, Sharma MC, Sarkar C, Bhatia R, Singh S, Gulati S, et al. Detection of the membrane attack complex as a diagnostic tool in dermatomyositis. Acta Neurol Scand 2011;123:122-9.
13Panicker JB, Chacko G, Patil AK, Alexander M, Muliyil J. Immunohistochemical differentiation of inflammatory myopathies. Neurol India 2011;59:513-20.
14Nagappa M, Nalini A, Narayanappa G. Major histocompatibility complex and inflammatory cell subtype expression in inflammatory myopathies and muscular dystrophies. Neurol India 2013;61:614-21.
15Kannan MA, Sundaram C, Uppin M, Mridula R, Jabeen SA, Borgohain R. Incidence of malignancies in biopsy-proven inflammatory myopathy. Neurol India 2013;61:152-5.
16Karri SB, Kannan MA, Rajashekhar L, Uppin MS, Challa S. Clinicopathological study of adult dermatomyositis: Importance of muscle histology in the diagnosis. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2015;18:194-9.
17Sultan SM, Isenberg DA. Re-classifying myositis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:831-3.
18Linklater H, Pipitone N, Rose MR, Norwood F, Campbell R, Salvarani C, et al. Classifying idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Comparing the performance of six existing criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2013;31:767-9.
19Danielsson O, Lindvall B, Gati I, Ernerudh J. Classification and diagnostic investigation in inflammatory myopathies: A study of 99 patients. J Rheumatol 2013;40:1173-82.
20Amato AA, Griggs RC. Unicorns, dragons, polymyositis, and other mythological beasts. Neurology 2003;61:288-9.
21Dalakas MC, Hohlfeld R. Polymyositis and dermatomyositis. Lancet 2003;362:971-82.
22van der Meulen MF, Bronner IM, Hoogendijk JE, Burger H, van Venrooij WJ, Voskuyl AE, et al. Polymyositis: An overdiagnosed entity. Neurology 2003;61:316-21.
23Bendewald MJ, Wetter DA, Li X, Davis MD. Incidence of dermatomyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis: A population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Arch Dermatol 2010;146:26-30.
24Benveniste O, Guiguet M, Freebody J, Dubourg O, Squier W, Maisonobe T, et al. Long-term observational study of sporadic inclusion body myositis. Brain 2011;134:3176-84.