Comparison between treatment naive juvenile and adult dermatomyositis muscle biopsies: difference of inflammatory cells phenotyping

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
4
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2018
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BMC
Citação
ADVANCES IN RHEUMATOLOGY, v.58, article ID 37, 4p, 2018
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Different inflammatory cells (i.e., CD4, CD8, CD20 and CD68) are involved in pathogenesis of DM muscle. In this context, the aim of this study was to assess and compare these inflammatory cell phenotyping in muscle samples of treatment naive juvenile and adult patients with dermatomyositis. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study, in which 28 untreated juvenile and 28 adult untreated dermatomyositis patients were included. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed on serial frozen muscle sections. Inflammatory cell phenotyping was analyzed quantitatively in endomysium, perimysium, and perivascular (endomysium and perimysium) area. Results: Mean age at disease onset was 73 and 42.0 years in juvenile and adult dermatomyositis, respectively. Both groups had comparable time duration from symptom's onset to biopsy performance. CD4 and CD8 positive cells distributions were similar in both groups in all analyzed area, except for more predominance of CD4 in perimysium at juvenile muscle biopsies. The CD20 and CD68 positive cells were predominantly observed in adult muscle biopsy sections, when compared to juvenile samples, except for similar distribution of CD20 in perivascular endomysium, and CD68 in perimysium. Conclusions: These data show that the differences between juvenile and adult dermatomyositis may be restricted not only to patients' age, but also to different inflammatory cell distribution, particularly, in new-onset disease. Further studies are necessary to confirm the present study data and to analyze meaning of the different inflammatory cell phenotyping distribution finding in these both diseases.
Palavras-chave
Dermatomyositis, Immunohistochemistry, Juvenile dermatomyositis, Myositis, Muscle biopsy
Referências
  1. ARAHATA K, 1984, ANN NEUROL, V16, P193, DOI 10.1002/ana.410160206
  2. BOHAN A, 1975, NEW ENGL J MED, V292, P403, DOI 10.1056/NEJM197502202920807
  3. BOHAN A, 1975, NEW ENGL J MED, V292, P344, DOI 10.1056/NEJM197502132920706
  4. Couderc M, 2011, RHEUMATOLOGY, V50, P2283, DOI 10.1093/rheumatology/ker305
  5. Dalakas MC, 2011, NEUROPATH APPL NEURO, V37, P226, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2990.2010.01153.x
  6. Dalakas MC, 2015, NEW ENGL J MED, V373, P393, DOI 10.1056/NEJMc1506827
  7. Dalakas MC, 1996, CURR OPIN NEUROL, V9, P235, DOI 10.1097/00019052-199606000-00015
  8. De Padilla CML, 2017, J RHEUMATOL, V44, DOI 10.3899/jrheum.160293
  9. Drake LA, 1996, J AM ACAD DERMATOL, V34, P824
  10. EMSLIESMITH AM, 1990, ANN NEUROL, V27, P343, DOI 10.1002/ana.410270402
  11. ENGEL AG, 1986, HUM PATHOL, V17, P704, DOI 10.1016/S0046-8177(86)80180-0
  12. Engel AG, 2006, MYOLOGY
  13. Engel AK, 1986, ANN NEUROL, V19, P119
  14. Haq SA, 2015, INT J RHEUM DIS, V18, P818, DOI 10.1111/1756-185X.12736
  15. Krystufkova O, 2009, ANN RHEUM DIS, V68, P836, DOI 10.1136/ard.2008.091405
  16. Lorenzoni PJ, 2011, PEDIATR NEUROL, V45, P17, DOI 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2011.01.018
  17. Medical Research Council, 1943, WAR MEMORANDUM
  18. Oddis CV, 2013, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V65, P314, DOI 10.1002/art.37754
  19. Papa V, 2016, ULTRASTRUCT PATHOL, V40, P83, DOI 10.3109/01913123.2016.1141823
  20. Shinjo SK, 2012, CLINICS, V67, P885, DOI 10.6061/clinics/2012(08)05