Recent Developments in Biomarkers for the Early Detection and Prognosis of Inclusion Body Myositis

Gabriel Fernandez^*
*Correspondence: Gabriel Fernandez, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy, Email:

Introduction

Inclusion Body Myositis (IBM) is a rare and progressive inflammatory muscle disease that primarily affects older adults, leading to chronic muscle weakness and atrophy. Unlike other myopathies, IBM is characterized by the presence of inclusion bodies abnormal protein aggregates that accumulate in muscle fibers, which can be observed under a microscope. These inclusion bodies are thought to play a central role in the pathogenesis of the disease, causing muscle degeneration. IBM affects predominantly the proximal muscles, such as those of the thighs and forearms, resulting in difficulty performing basic activities like walking, climbing stairs lifting objects. As the disease progresses, it can lead to significant disability [1].

The diagnosis of IBM is challenging, as its clinical features often overlap with other muscle diseases, including polymyositis, dermatomyositis muscular dystrophies. This overlap, coupled with the absence of specific diagnostic tests, makes it difficult to identify IBM in its early stages. Early diagnosis is crucial, however, as it can lead to better management and the potential for more effective treatment strategies. At present, there are no approved disease-modifying treatments for IBM the response to standard immunosuppressive therapies is generally poor. This highlights the importance of improving diagnostic tools and monitoring disease progression. Biomarkers measurable substances that indicate the presence of a disease have become a critical focus in the search for better diagnostic and prognostic tools for IBM. Biomarkers can be used to detect the disease in its early stages, monitor its progression predict outcomes. Recent advancements in the identification of specific biomarkers for IBM hold significant promise for improving patient care. This paper will explore the recent developments in the field of biomarkers for the early detection and prognosis of IBM, focusing on the molecular markers that could transform clinical practice [2].

Description

Inclusion Body Myositis is part of a group of diseases known as inflammatory myopathies, which involve chronic muscle inflammation. However, unlike other myopathies, IBM is characterized by the presence of inclusion bodies abnormal, often toxic aggregates of misfolded proteins like p62, TDP-43 amyloid within muscle cells. These inclusions are thought to contribute to the destruction of muscle fibers, resulting in the progressive muscle weakness that defines the disease. IBM typically affects proximal muscles muscles closest to the center of the body such as the quadriceps, forearms hips, though more advanced stages of the disease can involve distal muscles like the hands and fingers. The slow progression of IBM means that symptoms may not be noticed until the disease has significantly advanced, which complicates early diagnosis [3].

The pathophysiology of IBM remains an area of intense research. It is believed to be driven by a combination of immune-mediated mechanisms, genetic predisposition the accumulation of misfolded proteins. Unlike other inflammatory myopathies, IBM shows a poor response to immunosuppressive treatments, suggesting that the disease may not solely be immune-mediated. In fact, IBM is often regarded as a degenerative myopathy due to the characteristic findings of muscle fiber degeneration and inclusion body formation. These features, combined with the lack of specific biomarkers, make the clinical diagnosis of IBM difficult, particularly in its early stages when it can resemble other myopathies or muscular dystrophies. Biomarkers are molecular indicators that can help diagnose a disease, monitor its progression predict its outcome. For IBM, biomarkers could play a vital role in distinguishing it from other muscle diseases, as well as in identifying the disease during its early stages when treatments may be most effective. Biomarkers for IBM can come from various biological sources, such as serum, muscle tissue, or genetic profiles. Ideally, these biomarkers would be non-invasive, easily measurable highly specific to IBM, thus allowing for accurate diagnosis and monitoring.

There are several potential types of biomarkers for IBM. Enzymatic markers like Creatine Kinase (CK) and aldolase have been explored in muscle diseases and often show elevated levels during muscle damage. While these markers are widely used, they are not specific to IBM and may be elevated in other myopathies as well. However, recent studies have begun to explore more specific biomarkers that could provide insights into the underlying processes of IBM, such as autoantibodies, microRNAs proteins associated with protein aggregation. One of the most promising areas in IBM biomarker research is the identification of autoantibodies immune system molecules that mistakenly attack the body’s own tissues. For instance, the presence of anti-cN1A antibodies has been found to correlate with IBM, offering a potential tool for early diagnosis. Other biomarkers that have emerged include microRNAs (miRNAs), which are small RNA molecules that regulate gene expression.

Certain miRNAs, such as miR-1 and miR-133, have been shown to be differentially expressed in IBM patients, suggesting they may serve as indicators of muscle damage or inflammation. Over the past few years, significant progress has been made in the search for specific biomarkers that can aid in the diagnosis and monitoring of IBM. One of the major developments has been the exploration of proteomic profiling, which involves analyzing the proteins present in muscle tissue or serum to identify specific changes associated with IBM. Studies have identified proteins such as p62 and TDP-43, which are found in the inclusion bodies within muscle fibers and may serve as potential biomarkers for disease progression. These proteins are involved in protein misfolding and aggregation, which are key features of IBM pathology. The detection of these proteins in muscle biopsies or blood samples could provide valuable insights into disease activity [4].

Another promising development is the exploration of muscle-specific miRNAs, which have the potential to serve as non-invasive biomarkers for IBM. miRNAs regulate gene expression and are involved in muscle development, regeneration degeneration. Specific miRNAs, such as miR-1 and miR-133, have been shown to be differentially expressed in the muscle tissues of IBM patients, suggesting their potential role in the diagnosis and progression of the disease Genetic research has also uncovered potential biomarkers for IBM. Mutations in the VCP gene, which is involved in cellular protein homeostasis, have been identified in some familial forms of IBM. These genetic markers could potentially help identify individuals at risk for developing IBM, especially in those with a family history of the disease. Identifying genetic markers in at-risk individuals could lead to earlier surveillance and intervention, improving long-term outcomes. Finally, imaging techniques like MRI have been explored as tools for monitoring muscle involvement in IBM. MRI scans can reveal patterns of muscle atrophy and fat infiltration, which correlate with the severity of the disease. While MRI is not yet a definitive diagnostic tool for IBM, it holds promise for tracking disease progression in clinical settings.

Despite these exciting developments, there are several challenges in the development of biomarkers for IBM. One of the primary obstacles is the heterogeneity of the disease. IBM manifests differently in each patient, with varying severity, muscle involvement disease progression. This variability makes it difficult to identify universal biomarkers that are applicable to all patients. Moreover, many of the biomarkers identified in research studies are still in the early stages of validation and have not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice. Another challenge is the lack of longitudinal studies that track biomarker levels over time. While cross-sectional studies provide valuable snapshots of disease activity, understanding how biomarkers change over the course of IBM is crucial for their application in disease monitoring and prognosis. Long-term studies are needed to confirm the reliability of these biomarkers as tools for tracking disease progression and response to treatment. Lastly, the standardization of biomarkers is essential for their widespread use in clinical settings. For biomarkers to be useful, their detection methods must be reproducible across different laboratories their thresholds for diagnosis and prognosis must be well-defined. Until these issues are addressed, the use of biomarkers in routine clinical practice will remain limited [5].

Conclusion

Inclusion Body Myositis is a complex and progressive muscle disease that presents significant challenges for diagnosis and management. The absence of specific biomarkers for IBM has hindered early detection and accurate prognosis, making it difficult for clinicians to implement effective treatment strategies. However, recent advancements in biomarker research have shown considerable promise in improving our understanding of the disease and providing better tools for its diagnosis and monitoring.

Biomarkers such as autoantibodies, muscle-specific miRNAs proteins involved in protein aggregation have the potential to revolutionize the way IBM is diagnosed and managed. In particular, proteomic profiling and genetic markers may offer novel approaches to identifying the disease at an earlier stage, while imaging biomarkers could provide a non-invasive way to track disease progression. Despite these advancements, challenges remain in the development of reliable and universally applicable biomarkers, primarily due to the heterogeneous nature of IBM and the need for more longitudinal studies. In conclusion, while biomarkers for IBM hold significant promise for improving early detection and prognostic assessment, further research is needed to validate these markers and establish standardized diagnostic criteria. As our understanding of IBM continues to evolve, biomarkers may become indispensable tools in managing the disease, ultimately leading to better outcomes for patients through earlier diagnosis and more personalized treatment options.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Engel, W. King and Valerie Askanas. "Inclusion-body myositis: Clinical, diagnostic pathologic aspects." Neurology 66 (2006): S20-S29.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Carpenter, Stirling, George Karpati, Irving Heller and Andrew Eisen. "Inclusion body myositis: A distinct variety of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy." Neurology 28 (1978): 8-8.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Price, Mark A., Victoria Barghout, Olivier Benveniste and Lisa Christopher-Stine, et al. "Mortality and causes of death in patients with sporadic inclusion body myositis: Survey study based on the clinical experience of specialists in Australia, Europe and the USA." J Neuromuscul Dis 3 (2016): 67-75.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Needham, Merrilee, Alastair Corbett, Timothy Day and Frank Christiansen, et al. "Prevalence of sporadic inclusion body myositis and factors contributing to delayed diagnosis." J Clin Neurosci 15 (2008): 1350-1353.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Callan, Aoife, Gorana Capkun, Vijayalakshmi Vasanthaprasad and Rita Freitas, et al. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies of sporadic inclusion body myositis." J Neuromuscul Dis 4 (2017): 127-137.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at