Objective

To define the clinicopathologic features and diagnostic utility associated with anti-cytosolic 5'-nucleotidase 1A (NT5C1A) antibody seropositivity in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs).

Methods

Anti-NT5C1A antibody status was clinically tested between 2014 and 2019 in the Washington University neuromuscular clinical laboratory. Using clinicopathologic information available for 593 patients, we classified them as inclusion body myositis (IBM), dermatomyositis, antisynthetase syndrome, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), nonspecific myositis, or noninflammatory muscle diseases.

Results

Of 593 patients, anti-NT5C1A antibody was found in 159/249 (64%) IBM, 11/53 (21%) dermatomyositis, 7/27 (26%) antisynthetase syndrome, 9/76 (12%) IMNM, 20/84 (24%) nonspecific myositis, and 6/104 (6%) noninflammatory muscle diseases patients. Among patients with IBM, anti-NT5C1A antibody seropositive patients had more cytochrome oxidase-negative fibers compared with anti-NT5C1A antibody seronegative patients. Among 14 IBM patients initially negative for anti-NT5C1A antibody, three patients (21%) converted to positive. Anti-NT5C1A antibody seropositivity did not correlate with malignancy, interstitial lung disease, response to treatments in dermatomyositis, antisynthetase syndrome, and IMNM, or survival in IIMs.

Interpretation

Anti-NT5C1A antibody is associated with IBM. However, the seropositivity can also be seen in non-IBM IIMs and it does not correlate with any prognostic factors or survival.

BACKGROUND: Immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is an autoimmune myopathy characterised by proximal muscle weakness, high creatine kinase (CK) values, and autoantibodies recognizing 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGCR) or the signal recognition particle (SRP). There are currently no approved therapies for IMNM and many patients experience active disease despite off-label treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, glucocorticoids, and immunosuppressants. Detection of complement-activating anti-HMGCR and anti-SRP autoantibodies and the presence of complement deposition on the sarcolemma of non-necrotic myofibers led to the hypothesis that complement activation may be pathogenic in IMNM, therefore zilucoplan, a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor, could be a potential therapy. METHODS: IMNM01, a phase 2, multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT04025632) at 15 sites (four countries) evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zilucoplan in adult participants with anti-HMGCR or anti-SRP autoantibody-positive IMNM. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive daily subcutaneous zilucoplan (0·3mg/kg) or placebo for eight weeks; with optional enrolment in the study open-label extension. Primary efficacy endpoint was percent change from baseline to Week 8 in CK levels. Secondary endpoints included safety. FINDINGS: Between 07 November 2019 and 07 January 2021, 27 participants (13 female and 14 male) received zilucoplan (n=12) or placebo (n=15) and completed the 8-week main study. At Week 8 there were no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences, despite target engagement based on mode of action, between treatment arms in mean percent change (standard deviation) of CK levels versus baseline (-9·86% [26·06] versus -20·72% [31·22] in zilucoplan [n=10] and placebo arms [n=14], p=0·46, respectively) and no clinically relevant improvement over time within the treatment arm. There were no unexpected adverse safety or tolerability findings. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs were reported in n=9 (75·0%) vs n=13 (86·7%) and n=0 (0%) and n=3 (20·0%) participants, respectively. The most frequent TEAEs were headache (n=4 in both groups [33·3% and 26·7%, respectively]) and nausea (n=3 in both groups [25·0% and 20·0%, respectively]). INTERPRETATION: C5 inhibition does not appear to be an effective treatment modality for IMNM. Rather than driving myofiber necrosis, complement activation may be secondary to muscle injury. FUNDING: Study funded by Ra Pharmaceuticals (now part of UCB Pharma).

Introduction/aims

It is unknown if patients with neuromuscular diseases prefer in-person or virtual telemedicine visits. We studied patient opinions and preference on virtual versus in-person visits, and the factors influencing such preferences.

Methods

Telephone surveys, consisting of 11 questions, of patients from 10 neuromuscular centers were completed.

Results

Five hundred and twenty surveys were completed. Twenty-six percent of respondents preferred virtual visits, while 50% preferred in-person visits. Sixty-four percent reported physical interaction as "very important." For receiving a new diagnosis, 55% preferred in-person vs 35% reporting no preference. Forty percent were concerned about a lack of physical examination vs 20% who were concerned about evaluating vital signs. Eighty four percent reported virtual visits were sufficiently private. Sixty eight percent did not consider expenses a factor in their preference. Although 92% were comfortable with virtual communication technology, 55% preferred video communications, and 19% preferred phone calls. Visit preference was not significantly associated with gender, diagnosis, disease severity, or symptom management. Patients who were concerned about a lack of physical exam or assessment of vitals had significantly higher odds of selecting in-person visits than no preference.

Discussion

Although neither technology, privacy, nor finance burdened patients in our study, more patients preferred in-person visits than virtual visits and 40% were concerned about a lack of physical examination. Interactions that occur with in-person encounters had high importance for patients, reflecting differences in the perception of the patient-physician relationship between virtual and in-person visits.