Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology / 2016 / Article

Case Report | Open Access

Volume 2016 |Article ID 6430156 |

Tayfun Akalin, Hatice Akkaya, Barış Büke, İbrahim Koçak, "A Case of New-Onset Dermatomyositis in the Second Trimester of Pregnancy: A Case Report and Review of the Literature", Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 2016, Article ID 6430156, 6 pages, 2016.

A Case of New-Onset Dermatomyositis in the Second Trimester of Pregnancy: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Academic Editor: Michael Geary
Received27 Mar 2016
Revised20 May 2016
Accepted30 May 2016
Published10 Jul 2016


Dermatomyositis (DM), a subtype of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), is characterized by skin rash, proximal muscle weakness, and inflammatory infiltrates in the muscle tissue. The peak incidence of the disease is at the age of 50–60 years, and only 14% of the patients with IIMs are estimated to present during reproductive years. Because of the limited pregnancy experience in patients with IIMs, little is known regarding the effects of DM on pregnancy or vice versa. We herein report a 40-year-old woman who developed DM in the second trimester of her pregnancy and did not respond to treatment with methylprednisolone. Her pregnancy was terminated at the 32nd week of gestation, due to preeclampsia and fetal distress. She delivered a healthy baby and improved rapidly after delivery. We have searched PubMed for relevant articles and reviewed previously published cases.

1. Introduction

Dermatomyositis (DM) is an idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) characterized by skin rash, proximal muscle weakness, and inflammatory infiltrates in the muscle tissue. It is a rare disease with an estimated prevalence of 11 cases per 100,000 individuals [1]. Although it may begin at any age, the peak incidence is at the age of 50–60 years. Only 14% of patients with IIMs are estimated to present during childbearing ages [2]. Therefore, pregnancy-associated cases are rare in the literature.

Little is known regarding the effects of DM on pregnancy or vice versa. Case reports and small series indicate that most patients with quiescent disease at conception remain inactive during pregnancy and have good pregnancy outcomes [3, 4], whereas preexisting active disease or onset of DM during pregnancy was reported to be associated with high frequency of fetal death and premature delivery [4]. Contrary to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), DM seems to remain inactive during pregnancy in most patients [35]. There are conflicting data as to whether pregnancy is a triggering factor for the development of DM [3, 6]. Although corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment and effective in most patients, some patients with DM are nonresponsive or intolerant to corticosteroids and treatment options in these patients are not clear.

We herein report a 40-year-old woman who developed DM in the second trimester of her pregnancy and did not respond to treatment with methylprednisolone. Her pregnancy was terminated at the 32nd week of gestation due to preeclampsia and fetal distress. We have searched PubMed using the search terms “pregnancy”, “dermatomyositis”, and “idiopathic inflammatory myopathy” and reviewed relevant articles.

2. Case Report

A 40-year-old woman in the 27th week of her fourth pregnancy was referred to our rheumatology clinic because of a three-week history of a skin rash, arthralgia, and weak positive anti-nuclear antibody test by immunofluorescence assay (ANA-IFA). Her previous three pregnancies were uneventful. She did not have a history of recent infections nor a potential exposure to toxic or medical agents. Physical examination on admission revealed bilateral periorbital edema and erythema on her eyelids (heliotrope rash) as well as diffuse rash on the face (Figure 1(a)). She had bilateral erythematous macules on the extensor surfaces of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints (Gottron’s sign). There was also symmetrical and proximal muscle weakness in the upper and lower extremities. Other physical examination findings were unremarkable. Laboratory findings were as follows: serum creatine kinase (CK): 2138 U/L (normal: 29–200), lactate dehydrogenase: 520 U/L (normal: 140–280), aspartate aminotransferase: 113 U/L (normal: <35), and alanine aminotransferase: 58 U/L (normal: <35). ANA-IFA was weakly positive at 1/100 titration (homogenous pattern). Anti-Ro52 was positive, but antibodies to Jo-1 or other extractable nuclear antigens were negative. Serum anti-double stranded DNA, rheumatoid factor, and complement levels were within normal ranges. Serum creatinine level and urine analysis were normal. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 31 mm/h and serum C-reactive protein level was 17.9 mg/L (normal 0–5). Electromyography of the right deltoid muscle revealed fibrillations and small polyphasic motor unit action potentials. Magnetic resonance imaging showed diffuse edema in thigh muscles (Figure 1(b)). She declined muscle biopsy. Investigations for occult malignancies including breast ultrasound, pelvic and abdominal ultrasound, peripheral blood smear, and fecal occult blood test were all negative. Serum CA-125 level was 6.5 U/mL (normal 0–35). She was diagnosed with dermatomyositis according to Bohan and Peter’s criteria [27, 28] and started on methylprednisolone 32 mg/day orally. Five weeks later, however, no improvement was noted in muscle strength, skin rash, or serum CK level. Her blood pressure was 180/120 mmHg and she had developed bilateral pretibial edema. She was diagnosed as having preeclampsia and her pregnancy was terminated by an emergency caesarean section at the 32nd week of the gestation. She gave birth to a 1800 g male infant with no apparent congenital malformation. In postpartum period, we searched the mother for the presence of anti-phospholipid antibodies. Anti-cardiolipin and anti-β2 glycoprotein-1 antibodies (immunoglobulin G and M isotypes) were found to be negative. Lupus anticoagulant test could not be performed due to technical limitations.

After delivery, her muscle strength and rash improved rapidly. The dosage of methylprednisolone was tapered off. At postpartum 6th week, she was on methylprednisolone 8 mg/day and serum CK levels were within normal limits. There was only mild facial rash left, but heliotrope rash and Gottron’s sign had completely resolved.

3. Discussion

DM in pregnant patients may be present before the onset of pregnancy, occur during pregnancy, or develop in postpartum period [4]. Table 1 summarizes the pregnancies with DM [24, 626]. There are 53 pregnancies in 41 patients. The onset of DM was before pregnancy in 21 patients, during pregnancy in 16, and in puerperal period in 4.

Author [ref.]PatientAge at diagnosis (years)DM onsetDisease activity (during pregnancy)TreatmentFetal outcome

Glickman [7]127BPImprovedPrednisoneHealthy

Masse [8]126BPImprovedACTHHealthy

Tsai et al. [9]133DPActiveNo treatmentNeonatal death

Gutierrez et al. [6] 1NIDPActivePrednisoneAbortion
3JDMBPInactiveNo treatmentAbortion
4NIPPInactiveNo treatmentAbortion
InactiveNo treatmentCaesarean at term
5NIBPInactiveNo treatmentHealthy
InactiveNo treatmentTwins Premature/neonatal death

King and Chow [10] 112BPInactiveNo treatmentIUGR
InactiveNo treatmentHealthy
220BPInactiveNo treatmentHealthy
InactiveNo treatmentHealthy

England et al. [11]135DPActiveSteroidIUGR

Ishii et al. [12] 131DPActiveSteroidHealthy

Pinheiro Gda et al. [2]114DPActiveSteroidHealthy

Suwa et al. [13]129PPSpontaneous remission

Harris et al. [14]129DPActiveInduced labor, pulse steroid PPHealthy

Solomon and D’Alton [15]128DPActiveSteroidHealthy

Kofteridis et al. [16]125DPActivePulse steroidAbortion

Kanoh et al. [17]133PPPrednisolone PP

Lee and Yoo [18]133PPMethylprednisolone PP

Silva et al. [4] 122BPActive, no changeSteroid, MTXAbortion

Park et al. [19]122DPActiveTherapeutic abortion, IVIG PPAbortion

Mosca et al. [20]132DPActiveMethylprednisolone, IVIGHealthy

Pasrija et al. [21]127DPActiveDexamethasone, HCQHealthy

Váncsa et al. [22] 122BPInactiveMethylprednisoloneHealthy
333BPInactiveNo treatmentHealthy
530BPInactiveNo treatmentHealthy

Chopra et al. [23] 128BPInactiveNo treatmentHealthy
InactiveNo treatmentIUGR

Nozaki et al. [24]131DPActivePrednisolone, IVIG PPPremature

Linardaki et al. [25]142DPActiveMethylprednisolone, IVIGHealthy

Madu et al. [26]1JDMBPExacerbationPrednisoloneHealthy

Pinal-Fernandez et al. [3] 135BPImprovementPrednisone, MTXInduced abortion
338BPImprovementPrednisoneInduced abortion (anencephaly)
432PPPrednisone PP
531BPAsymptomaticNo treatmentHealthy
AsymptomaticNo treatmentAbortion
636BPNo changePrednisoneHealthy

Present case140DPActiveMethylprednisolonePremature

BP, before pregnancy; DP, during pregnancy; PP, puerperal period; NI, not indicated; JDM, juvenile dermatomyositis; ACTH, adrenocorticotrophic hormone; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; MTX, methotrexate; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction.

Gutierrez et al. [6] reported 18 female patients with IIMs (2 polymyositis-PM, 16 DM). Four of these patients (22%) had developed DM/PM in pregnancy-related period (3 in pregnancy, 1 in postpartum period), and they speculated that pregnancy was a precipitating factor in the onset of inflammatory myositis. However, a recent retrospective cohort study [3] with 41 patients with DM showed that only in one patient (2.4%) did the disease begin in the pregnancy-related period (i.e., during pregnancy or in puerperal period). Furthermore, the observed and expected proportions of IIM patients with the onset of disease in pregnancy-related period were similar (3.9% versus 3.7%, resp.). In a case series with 78 female patients with DM, no patient was identified with the onset of her disease during pregnancy or in postpartum period [10]. Moreover, in another case series with 173 female patients with DM/PM, only one patient had disease onset during pregnancy [22]. It seems that pregnancy is not a triggering factor for the development of DM.

Pregnancy outcomes in DM are shown in Table 2 (derived from Table 1). There are 6 (11.1%) premature babies, 11 (20.4%) abortions, and 3 (5.6%) intrauterine growth restrictions (IUGR) in 53 pregnancies (1 pair of twins). Patients with active disease have more frequent preterm birth compared to inactive patients (23.8% versus 3%, ). Relative frequencies of total fetal loss and IUGR in patients with active disease are similar to those in inactive patients (28.6% versus 24.2% and 4.8% versus 6.1%, resp.).

Pregnancy outcomesDisease activity during pregnancy valueOR (95% CI)
Active () (%)Inactive () (%)
(1 pair of twins)

Healthy9 (42.8)22 (66.7)NS0.38 (0.12–1.16)
Premature birth 5 (23.8)1 (3.0)0.02810.00 (1.08–92.94)
IUGR1 (4.8)2 (6.1)NS0.78 (0.07–9.12)
Abortion4 (19)7 (21.2)NS0.87 (0.22–3.44)
Stillbirth1 (4.8)0 (0)NS
Neonatal death1 (4.8)1 (3.0)NS1.60 (0.10–27.04)
Total fetal loss6 (28.6)8 (24.2)NS1.25 (0.36–4.31)

Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test used where appropriate. is considered to be statistically significant.
Sum of the abortions, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths.
DM, dermatomyositis; OR, odds ratio; NS, not significant; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction.

It is controversial whether pregnancy is a risk factor for exacerbation of DM. In a case series, exacerbation occurred in 3 of 7 pregnancies (43%) and pregnancy was considered as a precipitating factor for DM activation [6]. In another case series, however, no exacerbation was observed in 11 pregnancies; DM improved in 8 pregnancies and remained inactive in the other three [3]. Review of the published cases indicates only four DM exacerbations [6, 10, 26] in 37 pregnancies (10.8%). This flare rate is markedly less frequent than that reported in pregnant patients with SLE (57%) [5].

Our case did not respond to moderate dose steroid during pregnancy. Nonresponsiveness to corticosteroid treatment during pregnancy and rapid improvement after delivery suggest that pregnancy-related factors such as hormonal changes or fetal antigen transfer to the mother during pregnancy may have been involved in the pathogenesis in this patient [29]. However, it should be noted that, in addition to pregnancy-related factors, inadequate steroid dose could also be responsible for treatment failure in our patient.

Corticosteroids are relatively safe drugs during pregnancy and are the first choice of treatment in pregnant patients with DM. However, some patients are nonresponsive or intolerant to corticosteroids [20]. Treatment options in this group of patients are not clear. Four patients were treated with IVIG either during pregnancy [20, 25] or in postpartum period [19, 24]. IVIG treatments were successful in all patients. Babies were born at term and healthy. No patient was treated with other immunosuppressive drugs such as azathioprine or cyclosporine. Inadvertent methotrexate use resulted in abortions in two patients [3, 4].

In conclusion, pregnancy does not seem to be a triggering factor for the development of DM. In most patients, DM improves or remains inactive during pregnancy. Active disease and/or its treatment may be associated with preterm birth and/or preeclampsia. IVIG should be considered as a therapeutic option in steroid resistant/intolerant pregnant patients, especially if delivery is not a feasible option.

The patient has given informed consent for the case report to be published.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. L. Iaccarino, A. Ghirardello, S. Bettio et al., “The clinical features, diagnosis and classification of dermatomyositis,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 48-49, pp. 122–127, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. R. Pinheiro Gda, J. Goldenberg, E. Atra, R. B. Pereira, L. Camano, and B. Schmidt, “Juvenile dermatomyositis and pregnancy: report and literature review,” The Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1798–1801, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  3. I. Pinal-Fernandez, A. Selva-O'Callaghan, A. Fernandez-Codina et al., “‘Pregnancy in adult-onset idiopathic inflammatory myopathy’: report from a cohort of myositis patients from a single center,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 234–240, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. C. A. Silva, S. M. Sultan, and D. A. Isenberg, “Pregnancy outcome in adult-onset idiopathic inflammatory myopathy,” Rheumatology, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1168–1172, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. E. Borella, A. Lojacono, M. Gatto et al., “Predictors of maternal and fetal complications in SLE patients: a prospective study,” Immunologic Research, vol. 60, no. 2-3, pp. 170–176, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. G. Gutierrez, R. Dagnino, and G. Mintz, “Polymyositis/dermatomyositis and pregnancy,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 291–294, 1984. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. F. S. Glickman, “Dermatomyositis associated with pregnancy,” United States Armed Forces Medical Journal, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 417–425, 1958. View at: Google Scholar
  8. M. R. Masse, “Pregnancies and dermatomyositis,” Bulletin de la Société Française de Dermatologie et de Syphiligraphie, vol. 69, pp. 921–923, 1962. View at: Google Scholar
  9. A. Tsai, M. D. Lindheimer, and S. I. Lamberg, “Dermatomyositis complicating pregnancy,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 570–573, 1973. View at: Google Scholar
  10. C. R. King and S. Chow, “Dermatomyositis and pregnancy,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 589–592, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  11. M. J. England, T. Perlmann, and Y. Veriava, “Dermatomyositis in pregnancy: a case report,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 633–636, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  12. N. Ishii, H. Ono, T. Kawaguchi, and H. Nakajima, “Dermatomyositis and pregnancy. Case report and review of the literature,” Dermatologica, vol. 183, no. 2, pp. 146–149, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. Suwa, M. Hirakata, K. Tsuzaka et al., “Spontaneous remission of dermatomyositis which developed one month after normal delivery,” Ryumachi, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 73–79, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  14. A. Harris, M. Webley, M. Usherwood, and S. Burge, “Dermatomyositis presenting in pregnancy,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 133, no. 5, pp. 783–785, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  15. J. E. Solomon and M. E. D'Alton, “Dermatomyositis in pregnancy,” Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 83–86, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  16. D. P. Kofteridis, P. I. Malliotakis, F. Sotsiou, N. K. Vardakis, L. N. Vamvakas, and D. S. Emmanouel, “Acute onset of dermatomyositis presenting in pregnancy with rhabdomyolysis and fetal loss,” Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 192–194, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. H. Kanoh, T. Izumi, M. Seishima, M. Nojiri, Y. Ichiki, and Y. Kitajima, “A case of dermatomyositis that developed after delivery: the involvement of pregnancy in the induction of dermatomyositis,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 141, no. 5, pp. 897–900, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. I. Lee and W. H. Yoo, “Postpartum-onset dermatomyositis: case report and literature review,” Modern Rheumatology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 362–365, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. I. W. Park, Y. J. Suh, J. H. Han et al., “Dermatomyositis developing in the first trimester of pregnancy,” The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 196–198, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. Mosca, F. Strigini, A. Carmignani, A. D'Ascanio, A. R. Genazzani, and S. Bombardieri, “Pregnant patient with dermatomyositis successfully treated with intravenous immunoglobulin therapy,” Arthritis Care & Research, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 119–121, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. S. Pasrija, R. Rana, K. Sardana, and S. S. Trivedi, “A case of autoimmune myopathy in pregnancy,” Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 109–112, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. A. Váncsa, A. Ponyi, T. Constantin, M. Zeher, and K. Dankó, “Pregnancy outcome in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy,” Rheumatology International, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 435–439, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. S. Chopra, V. Suri, R. Bagga, M. R. Thami, A. Sharma, and P. Bambery, “Autoimmune inflammatory myopathy in pregnancy,” The Medscape Journal of Medicine, vol. 10, no. 1, article 17, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  24. Y. Nozaki, S. Ikoma, M. Funauchi, and K. Kinoshita, “Respiratory muscle weakness with dermatomyositis during pregnancy: successful treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin therapy,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 35, no. 11, p. 2289, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. G. Linardaki, E. Cherouvim, G. Goni, and K. A. Boki, “Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for pregnancy-associated dermatomyositis,” Rheumatology International, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 113–115, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. A. E. Madu, E. Omih, E. Baguley, and S. W. Lindow, “Juvenile dermatomyositis in pregnancy,” Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 2013, Article ID 890107, 3 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. A. Bohan and J. B. Peter, “Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (first of two parts),” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 292, no. 7, pp. 344–347, 1975. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. A. Bohan and J. B. Peter, “Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (second of two parts),” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 292, no. 8, pp. 403–407, 1975. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. J. L. Nelson, “Pregnancy immunology and autoimmune disease,” The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 335–340, 1998. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2016 Tayfun Akalin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.