Importance: In 2017, the International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis revised the McDonald 2010 criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). The new criteria are easier to apply and could lead to more and earlier diagnoses. It is important to validate these criteria globally for their accuracy in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the 2017 criteria vs the 2010 criteria in prediction of clinically definite MS in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). Design, Setting and Patients: A total of 251 patients at Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with several regional hospitals, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirteen patients received another diagnosis early in the diagnostic process and therefore were excluded from the analyses. Nine patients with CIS declined to participate in the study. This left 229 patients who were included between March 2006 and August 2016 in this prospective CIS cohort. Patients underwent a baseline magnetic resonance imaging scan within 3 months after onset of symptoms and, if clinically required, a lumbar puncture was performed. Data were analyzed between December 2017 and January 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive value were calculated after 1, 3, and 5 years for the 2017 vs the 2010 criteria. Results: Among the 229 patients with CIS, 167 were women (73%), and the mean (SD) age was 33.5 (8.2) years. One hundred thirteen patients (49%) were diagnosed as having CDMS during a mean (SD) follow-up time of 65.3 (30.9) months. Sensitivity for the 2017 criteria was higher than for the 2010 criteria (68%; 95% CI, 57%-77% vs 36%; 95% CI, 27%-47%; P < .001), but specificity was lower (61%; 95% CI, 50%-71% vs 85%; 95% CI, 76%-92%; P < .001). Using the 2017 criteria, more MS diagnoses could be made at baseline (n = 97 [54%]; 95% CI, 47%-61% vs n = 46 [26%]; 95% CI, 20%-32%; P < .001). In the group with at least 5 years of follow-up, 33% of patients who were diagnosed as having MS using the 2017 criteria did not experience a second attack during follow-up vs 23% when using the 2010 criteria. Conclusions and Relevance: The 2017 revised McDonald criteria are associated with greater sensitivity but less specificity for a second attack than the previous 2010 criteria. The tradeoff is that it leads to a higher number of MS diagnoses in patients with a less active disease course.
Importance: In 2017, the International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis revised the McDonald 2010 criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). The new criteria are easier to apply and could lead to more and earlier diagnoses. It is important to validate these criteria globally for their accuracy in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the 2017 criteria vs the 2010 criteria in prediction of clinically definite MS in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). Design, Setting and Patients: A total of 251 patients at Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with several regional hospitals, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirteen patients received another diagnosis early in the diagnostic process and therefore were excluded from the analyses. Nine patients with CIS declined to participate in the study. This left 229 patients who were included between March 2006 and August 2016 in this prospective CIS cohort. Patients underwent a baseline magnetic resonance imaging scan within 3 months after onset of symptoms and, if clinically required, a lumbar puncture was performed. Data were analyzed between December 2017 and January 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive value were calculated after 1, 3, and 5 years for the 2017 vs the 2010 criteria. Results: Among the 229 patients with CIS, 167 were women (73%), and the mean (SD) age was 33.5 (8.2) years. One hundred thirteen patients (49%) were diagnosed as having CDMS during a mean (SD) follow-up time of 65.3 (30.9) months. Sensitivity for the 2017 criteria was higher than for the 2010 criteria (68%; 95% CI, 57%-77% vs 36%; 95% CI, 27%-47%; P < .001), but specificity was lower (61%; 95% CI, 50%-71% vs 85%; 95% CI, 76%-92%; P < .001). Using the 2017 criteria, more MS diagnoses could be made at baseline (n = 97 [54%]; 95% CI, 47%-61% vs n = 46 [26%]; 95% CI, 20%-32%; P < .001). In the group with at least 5 years of follow-up, 33% of patients who were diagnosed as having MS using the 2017 criteria did not experience a second attack during follow-up vs 23% when using the 2010 criteria. Conclusions and Relevance: The 2017 revised McDonald criteria are associated with greater sensitivity but less specificity for a second attack than the previous 2010 criteria. The tradeoff is that it leads to a higher number of MS diagnoses in patients with a less active disease course.
Authors: G A SCHUMACHER; G BEEBE; R F KIBLER; L T KURLAND; J F KURTZKE; F MCDOWELL; B NAGLER; W A SIBLEY; W W TOURTELLOTTE; T L WILLMON Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 1965-03-31 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Paolo Preziosa; Alessandro Meani; Olga Ciccarelli; Sarlota Mesaros; Alex Rovira; Jette Frederiksen; Christian Enzinger; Frederik Barkhof; Claudio Gasperini; Wallace Brownlee; Jelena Drulovic; Xavier Montalban; Stig P Cramer; Alexander Pichler; Marloes Hagens; Serena Ruggieri; Vittorio Martinelli; Katherine Miszkiel; Mar Tintorè; Giancarlo Comi; Iris Dekker; Bernard Uitdehaag; Irena Dujmovic-Basuroski; Maria A Rocca Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: S C Rosenkranz; B Kaulen; A Neuhaus; S Siemonsen; S Köpke; M Daumer; J-P Stellmann; C Heesen Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Brenda Banwell; Michel Clanet; Jeffrey A Cohen; Massimo Filippi; Kazuo Fujihara; Eva Havrdova; Michael Hutchinson; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Xavier Montalban; Paul O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: W I McDonald; A Compston; G Edan; D Goodkin; H P Hartung; F D Lublin; H F McFarland; D W Paty; C H Polman; S C Reingold; M Sandberg-Wollheim; W Sibley; A Thompson; S van den Noort; B Y Weinshenker; J S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Pietro Maggi; Martina Absinta; Pascal Sati; Gaetano Perrotta; Luca Massacesi; Bernard Dachy; Caroline Pot; Reto Meuli; Daniel S Reich; Massimo Filippi; Renaud Du Pasquier; Marie Théaudin Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: T K Banerjee; M Saha; E Ghosh; A Hazra; A Das; D Choudhury; S Ojha; A Haldar; A Mukherjee; S S Nandi; A Ghosh; A Mukherjee; A Chatterjee; A Datta; S Purakayastha Journal: Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin Date: 2019-05-13
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Paolo Preziosa; Brenda L Banwell; Frederik Barkhof; Olga Ciccarelli; Nicola De Stefano; Jeroen J G Geurts; Friedemann Paul; Daniel S Reich; Ahmed T Toosy; Anthony Traboulsee; Mike P Wattjes; Tarek A Yousry; Achim Gass; Catherine Lubetzki; Brian G Weinshenker; Maria A Rocca Journal: Brain Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Fay Probert; Tianrong Yeo; Yifan Zhou; Megan Sealey; Siddharth Arora; Jacqueline Palace; Timothy D W Claridge; Rainer Hillenbrand; Johanna Oechtering; David Leppert; Jens Kuhle; Daniel C Anthony Journal: Brain Commun Date: 2021-04-19
Authors: Fay Probert; Tianrong Yeo; Yifan Zhou; Megan Sealey; Siddharth Arora; Jacqueline Palace; Timothy D W Claridge; Rainer Hillenbrand; Johanna Oechtering; Jens Kuhle; David Leppert; Daniel C Anthony Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Andrew J Solomon; Marwa Kaisey; Stephen C Krieger; Salim Chahin; Robert T Naismith; Sarah M Weinstein; Russell T Shinohara; Brian G Weinshenker Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 5.855