Impact of muscle biopsy on the clinical decision-making process in patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy.

BACKGROUND

The significance of muscle biopsy as a diagnostic tool in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) remains elusive. We aimed to determine the diagnostic weight that has been given to muscle biopsy in patients with suspected IIM, particularly in terms of clinical diagnosis and therapeutic decisions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective multicentric study, we analyzed muscle biopsy results of adult patients with suspected IIM referred to a tertiary center between January 1, 2007, and October 31, 2021. Information regarding referral department, suspected diagnosis, biopsy site, demographic, clinical, laboratory data, and imaging results were extracted. Statistical analyses included the level of agreement between suspected and histological diagnosis and calculation of diagnostic performance (positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity of muscle biopsy in relation to clinical diagnosis and/or treatment initiation). Performance was tested in different strata based on clinical pre-test probability.

RESULTS

Among 758 muscle biopsies, IIM was histologically compatible in 357/758 (47.1%) cases. Proportion of IIM was higher if there was a solid clinical pre-test probability (64.3% vs. 42.4% vs. 48% for high, medium and low pre-test probability). Sensitivity and specificity of muscle biopsy were highest (82%) when the diagnosis by the clinician was used as outcome scenario. Negative predictive value was only moderate (between 63% and 80%) and lowest if autoantibodies were positive (35%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with clinically suspected IIM, approximately 50% of biopsies revealed features indicative of IIM. Diagnostic performance of muscle biopsy was moderate to high depending on clinical pre-test probability.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest KK reports honoraria for lectures and presentations from UCB Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and AbbVie; support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. DM reports support for meeting attendances from Pfizer and personal fees from AstraZeneca. DA received grants, speaker fees, or consultancy fees from Abbvie, Gilead, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi. MB received grants from GSK. HR reports honoraria for lectures and presentations from Gilead, Merck and Pfizer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Janssen. NNL, MGT, EG, SH, RH, FZ, HC, ELP, PMH, HPK and LXH have no financial relationship to disclose.