Ultrasound can differentiate inclusion body myositis from disease mimics

Introduction The diagnosis of inclusion body myositis (IBM) can be challenging, and its presentation can be confused with other forms of myositis or neuromuscular disorders. In this study we evaluate the ability of quantitative muscle ultrasound to differentiate between IBM and mimicking diseases. M...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Muscle & nerve 2020-06, Vol.61 (6), p.783-788
Hauptverfasser: Leeuwenberg, Kristofoor E., Alfen, Nens, Christopher‐Stine, Lisa, Paik, Julie J., Tiniakou, Eleni, Mecoli, Christopher, Doorduin, Jonne, Saris, Christiaan G.J., Albayda, Jemima
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The diagnosis of inclusion body myositis (IBM) can be challenging, and its presentation can be confused with other forms of myositis or neuromuscular disorders. In this study we evaluate the ability of quantitative muscle ultrasound to differentiate between IBM and mimicking diseases. Methods Patients 50 years of age and older were included from two specialty centers. Muscle echogenicity and muscle thickness of four characteristically involved muscles in IBM were measured and compared with polymyositis (PM)/dermatomyositis (DM), other neuromuscular disorders, and healthy controls. Results Echogenicity was higher and muscle thickness generally lower in all four muscles in IBM compared with PM/DM and normal controls. When comparing IBM with the comparator groups, the flexor digitorum profundus was the most discriminative muscle. Discussion Ultrasound appears to be a good test to differentiate established IBM from PM/DM and neuromuscular controls, with value as a diagnostic tool for IBM.
ISSN:0148-639X
1097-4598
DOI:10.1002/mus.26875