Abstract
Abstract
Background
Juvenile Dermatomyositis (JDM) is the most common idiopathic inflammatory myopathy in children. Imaging exams are useful for muscle assessment, with ultrasonography (US) being a promising tool in detecting disease activity and tissue damage. There are few studies about muscle elastography.
Objectives
Our aim was to associate clinical, laboratory, and nailfold capillaroscopy (NC) assessments with US in JDM patients; and to compare the findings of US and Strain Elastography (SE) from patients and healthy controls.
Methods
An analytic cross-sectional study was performed with JDM patients and healthy controls. Patients underwent clinical exam to access muscle strength and completed questionnaires about global assessment of the disease and functional capacity. Patients were submitted to NC and measurement of muscle enzymes. All subjects underwent US assessment, using gray scale, Power Doppler (PD), and SE.
Results
Twenty-two JDM patients and fourteen controls, aged between 5 and 21 years, matched for age and sex were assessed. In qualitative and semi-quantitative gray scale, we observed a higher frequency of alterations in patients (p < 0.001), while in PD, there was a higher frequency of positivity in patients’ deltoids and anterior tibialis (p < 0.001). Active disease was associated with an important change in the semi-quantitative gray scale in deltoids (p = 0.007), biceps brachii (p = 0.001) and quadriceps femoris (p = 0.005). The SE demonstrated a high negative predictive value of 87.2.
Conclusion
US was able, through gray scale, to differentiate JDM patients from controls, while PD achieved such differentiation only for deltoids and anterior tibialis. The semi-quantitative gray scale showed disease activity in proximal muscles. SE was not able to differentiate patients from controls.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference38 articles.
1. Bottai M, Tjärnlund A, Santoni G, Werth V, Pilkington C, de Visser M, et al. EULAR/ACR classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and their major subgroups: a methodology report. RMD Open. 2017;12:1955–64.
2. Enders FB, Bader-Meunier B, Baildam E, Constantin T, Dolezalova P, Feldman B, et al. Consensus-based recommendations for the management of juvenile dermatomyositis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:329–40.
3. Papadopoulou C, Wedderburn L. Treatment of Juvenile Dermatomyositis: an update. Paediatr Drugs. 2017;19:423–34.
4. Mccann L, Pain C. A practical Approach to Juvenile Dermatomyositis and Juvenile Scleroderma. Indian J Pediatr. 2016;83:163–71.
5. Ruperto N, Ravelli A, Pistorio A, Ferriani V, Calvo I, Ganser G, et al. The Provisional Paediatric Rheumatology International trials Organisation/ American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism Disease Activity Core Set for the evaluation of response to Therapy in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: a prospective validation study. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:4–13.