TY - JOUR
T1 - Neurologists are from Mars. Rheumatologists are from Venus
T2 - Differences in approach to classifying the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies
AU - Christopher-Stine, Lisa
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2010/11
Y1 - 2010/11
N2 - Purpose of Review: Inflammatory myopathy (IIM) classification criteria have been the source of considerable debate. In the three decades since Bohan and Peter published their criteria which have long stood as the gold standard for diagnosis in clinical practice as well as inclusion into clinical trials, more sophisticated understanding of immunopathogenesis, histology, and specific autoantibody associations has broadened our understanding of these diseases. This editorial review examines the diverse approaches between different subspecialists in deriving appropriate IIM classification utilizing this updated knowledge. Recent Findings: Several investigators have proposed improved IIM classification criteria. More recently, larger scale consensus efforts have been undertaken by various expert groups including the European Neuromuscular Centre (ENMC) and The International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS). The intent is to refine the classification criteria utilizing our enhanced understanding which has matured since the original publication of Bohan and Peter's proposal in 1975. Summary: Many diagnostic/classification criteria have been proposed for different forms of IIM over the last three decades. The majority of these have been based on clinical impressions rather than rigorous data analyses or expert consensus and none has been fully tested for sensitivity or specificity using appropriately powered studies that take into account relevant disease confounders. Different sets of criteria proposed and adopted by different specialties hamper the ability to compare clinical studies and assess clinical trials' outcomes. Large, multicentered, multispecialty studies are required to develop improved IIM criteria.
AB - Purpose of Review: Inflammatory myopathy (IIM) classification criteria have been the source of considerable debate. In the three decades since Bohan and Peter published their criteria which have long stood as the gold standard for diagnosis in clinical practice as well as inclusion into clinical trials, more sophisticated understanding of immunopathogenesis, histology, and specific autoantibody associations has broadened our understanding of these diseases. This editorial review examines the diverse approaches between different subspecialists in deriving appropriate IIM classification utilizing this updated knowledge. Recent Findings: Several investigators have proposed improved IIM classification criteria. More recently, larger scale consensus efforts have been undertaken by various expert groups including the European Neuromuscular Centre (ENMC) and The International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS). The intent is to refine the classification criteria utilizing our enhanced understanding which has matured since the original publication of Bohan and Peter's proposal in 1975. Summary: Many diagnostic/classification criteria have been proposed for different forms of IIM over the last three decades. The majority of these have been based on clinical impressions rather than rigorous data analyses or expert consensus and none has been fully tested for sensitivity or specificity using appropriately powered studies that take into account relevant disease confounders. Different sets of criteria proposed and adopted by different specialties hamper the ability to compare clinical studies and assess clinical trials' outcomes. Large, multicentered, multispecialty studies are required to develop improved IIM criteria.
KW - Bohan and Peter
KW - autoimmune necrotizing myopathy
KW - myositis
KW - myositis classification criteria
KW - polymyositis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77958053448&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77958053448&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/BOR.0b013e32833f8f72
DO - 10.1097/BOR.0b013e32833f8f72
M3 - Review article
C2 - 20842038
AN - SCOPUS:77958053448
SN - 1040-8711
VL - 22
SP - 623
EP - 626
JO - Current opinion in rheumatology
JF - Current opinion in rheumatology
IS - 6
ER -