Idiopathic eosinophilic myositis: a systematic literature review

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Muscle eosinophilia is a hallmark of chronic disease in facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy

“…They are critical effectors of the type 2 inflammatory response with a long-standing association with multiple diseases including allergic rhinitis, asthma eosinophilic, chronic rhinosinusitis, and esophagitis [ 49 , 52 ]. Muscle eosinophilia has been reported in several neuromuscular diseases including Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy [ 53–56 ], LAMA2 -CMD muscular dystrophy [ 57 ], Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy [ 58 , 59 ], and idiopathic eosinophilic myositis [ 60 , 61 ]. However, the only study to date that quantified eosinophils in FSHD reported an increase in the hemogram eosinophil count in 1 out of 3 FSHD patients analyzed [ 62 ].…”

Revisiting idiopathic eosinophilic myositis: towards a clinical-pathological continuum from the muscle to the fascia and skin

“…In an exhaustive literature review about IEM, 69 published cases of IEM were analysed [ 3 ]. These cases were classified according to the previously mentioned classification [ 2 , 10 , 12 ], based only on the histological pattern, which included focal IEM, diffuse IEM (initially referred to as eosinophilic polymyositis) and eosinophilic perimyositis.…”

“…The findings concerning immunostaining (MHC-I, CD56, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20, CD68, CD138) include a number of missing data, due to technical considerations and sample availability, and thus need to be further confirmed. Nevertheless, with only 69 cases published in the literature so far [ 3 ], this study represents the largest IEM/EF case series. The review of muscle biopsies by three clinicians allowed to decrease potential interpretation biases while the complete review of patient records was performed by a single clinician in order to standardize data collection.…”