DOCSLIB.ORG

Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis Continuing Medical Education 213 Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis Chih-Chao Yang Abstract- Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating autoimmune disease of the central ner- vous system. The disorder displays marked clinical heterogeneity. In certain cases, making diagnosis can be challenging. Diagnosis of MS has become more important in the era of treatments that change the natural history of the disease. Several general diagnostic principles are useful to guide the diagnostic approach to MS. Clinically, MS requires neurological problems associated with objective abnormalities. Certain basic principles, first outlined by Schumacher et al. (1965) are still pertinent. Poser et al. (1983) have further modified the criteria using data derived from clinical evaluation and laboratory studies, including cere- brospinal fluid analysis, evoked potentials, and imaging studies. Poser criteria have long been familial for most neurologists. The most recent addition to our diagnostic armamentarium are the McDonald crite- ria(2001), which are the first attempt to incorporate standardized MRI criteria into the MS diagnostic process. The most innovative use of MRI to support an MS diagnosis is dissemination of demyelination can be demonstrated by MRI alone, in the absence of any new clinical attacks. Diagnosing MS by such sensitive MRI criteria will occur more quickly than waiting for a second clinical event. This has added some sensitiv- ity, some controversy, and a lot of confusion. The application of the new criteria on Asian MS patients remains to be validated. Each of the criteria will be discussed, with major emphasis on the McDonald crite- ria. Key Words: Multiple sclerosis, Criteria, Schumacher criteria, Poser criteria, McDonald criteria From the Department of Neurology, National Taiwan Reprint requests and correspondence to: Chih-Chao Yang, MD. University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Department of Neurology, National Taiwan University Received November 10, 2005. Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan S. Road, Taipei, Taiwan. Revised and Accepted November 28, 2005. E-mail: [email protected] Acta Neurologica Taiwanica Vol 14 No 4 December 2005 214 Multiple Sclerosis MS MS MS MS Schumacher 1965 Poser 1983 McDonald 2001 McDonald Schumacher Poser McDonald Acta Neurol Taiwan 2005;14:214-220 Multiple Sclerosis MS MS MS (1) Schumacher 1965 Poser 2005 11 10 7 2005 11 28 E-mail: [email protected] Acta Neurologica Taiwanica Vol 14 No 4 December 2005 215 1983 MS ADEM 15~20% McDonald 2001 ADEM (2) McDonald MS Schumacher (7,8,9,10) MS (11,12) Schumacher (3,4) MS MS 24 (13) MS RRMS (5) Poser (14) sec- (15) IgG IgG index ondary progressive MS SPMS MS 90-95% (16) primary progressive MS PPMS IgG Poser Schumacher ADEM Schumacher MS A1 C1 C2 . Schumacher 1. MS MS Poser laboratory supported MS 10 50 2. MS MS IgG IgG MS 50~90% IgG 90~95% MS Acta Neurologica Taiwanica Vol 14 No 4 December 2005 216 . Poser (Poser criteria for MS diagnosis) Category Attacks Clinical evidence Paraclinical evidence CSF OB/IgG1 OB/IgG A. Clinical definite ( MS) CDMS A1 2 2 CDMS A2 2 1 and 1 B. Laboratory supported definite ( MS) LSDMS B1 2 1 or 1 + LSDMS B2 1 2 + LSDMS B3 1 1 and 1 + C. Clinical probable ( MS) CPMS C1 2 1 CPMS C2 1 2 CPMS C3 1 1 and 1 D. Laboratory-supported Probable ( MS) LSPMS D1 2 + OB/IgG: IgG A. MS CDMS 1. 2. B. MS LSDMS IgG IgG IgG 1. IgG 2. IgG 3. IgG ADEM MS MS C. MS CPMS 1. 2. 3. D. MS LSPMS 1. IgG IgG index MS A2 C3 B1 B3 MS paraclinical evidence Acta Neurologica Taiwanica Vol 14 No 4 December 2005 217 Poser MRI paraclinical MRI CDMS A2 MRI paraclinical MRI B1 B3 MS MRI C3 MS (23,24) International Panel on the Diagnosis of MS MRI McDonald (25) McDonald Schumacher Poser Poser B1 B2 B3 MS B2 B3 progressive McDonald MS CSF Poser SPMS PPMS McDonald MS IgG IgG index Poser IgG IgG MS McDonald MRI MS IgG MRI MS IgG MS McDonald MS (17,18) MRI MS MRI CSF T2 MRI CSF gadolinium McDonald a b 1990 MRI MS Schumacher MS 90~95% MS MRI McDonald MRI gadolinium MS MRI (19,20) MS gadolinium MRI Acta Neurologica Taiwanica Vol 14 No 4 December 2005 218 . McDonald MS MRI ( a.) MRI MRI ( b.) MRI ( a.) MRI MRI MS MRI (1) 9 T2 (2) (3) 4-8 MRI (1) 4-8 (2) 4 (1) MRI (2) a. MS 1. gadolinium T2 2. 3. 4. b. MS 1. gadolinium T2 gadolinium 2. gadolinium T2 MRI MRI MRI T2 PPMS 50 McDonald Criteria MS MRI (26,27,28) McDonald (29,30,31) MRI MRI MRI MS MRI Acta Neurologica Taiwanica Vol 14 No 4 December 2005 219 . MS 1. ADEM 2. Wegener 3. subacute combined degeneration 4. HTLV-1 HIV 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Tay-Sachs metachromatic leukodystrophy 12. Leber McDonald McDonald Poser clini- 1. Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, et al. cally isolated syndrome, CIS Multiple sclerosis. New Engl J Med 2000;343:938-52. 37% McDonald MS 11% 2. Mattson DH. Update on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Neurotherapeutics 2002;2:319-28. Poser MS(32) MRI 3. Matthews WB, Acheson ED, Batchelor JR, et al. Poser MS McAlpine’s Multiple Sclerosis. Churchill Livingstone, MS Edinburgh, London, Melbourne and New York 1985:146- 49 80% 166, 167-209. Poser CIS 4. Schumacker GA, Beebe G, Kibler RF, et al. Problems of 58% McDonald experimental trials of therapy in multiple sclerosis: report MS 38% CDMS(33) by the panel on the evaluation of experimental trials of therapy in multiple sclerosis. Ann NY Acad Sci 1965;122: MS 552-68. 5. Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Defining the clinical course of Poser Schumacher McDonald multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. MS Neurology 1996;46:907-11. 6. Paty DW, Ebers GC. Multiple Sclerosis. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company, 1998:48-134. 7. Optic Neuritis Study Group. The 5-year risk of MS after optic neuritis. Experience of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Neurology 1997;49:1404-13. MS 8. Miller DH, Ormerod IE, Rudge P, et al. The early risk of multiple sclerosis following isolated acute syndromes of the brainstem and spinal cord. Ann Neurol 1989;26:635-9. 9. Kesselring J, Miller DH, Robb SA, et al. Acute disseminat- ed encephalomyelitis: MRI findings and the distinction Acta Neurologica Taiwanica Vol 14 No 4 December 2005 220 from multiple sclerosis. Brain 1990;113:291-302. Policy statement. Neurology 1986;36:1575. 10. Schwar S, Mohr A, Knauth M, et al. Acute disseminated 22. Paty DW, McFarlin DE, McDonald WI. Magnetic reso- encephalomyelitis: a follow-up study of 40 adult patients. nance imaging and laboratory aids in the diagnosis of mul- Neurology 2001;56:1313-8. tiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1991;29:3-5. 11.Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP, et al. The natural histo- 23. Barkhof F, Filippi M, Miller DH, et al. Comparison of MR ry of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. II. imaging criteria at first presentation to predict conversion Predictive value of the early clinical course. Brain 1989; to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. Brain 1977;120: 112:1419-28. 2059-69. 12. Confavreux C, Vukusic S, Moreau T, et al. Relapses and 24. Tintore M, Rovira A, Martinez MJ, et al. Isolated demyeli- progression of disability in multiple sclerosis. New Engl J nating syndromes: comparison of different MR imaging Med 2000;343:1430-8. criteria to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple 13. Herndon RM, Brooks B. Misdiagnosis of multiple sclero- sclerosis. Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:702-6. sis. Seminars in Neurology 1985;5:94-8. 25. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. Recommended 14. Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research proto- the international panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclero- cols. Ann Neurol 1983;13:227-31. sis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121-7. 15. Gronseth GS, Ashman EJ. Practice parameter: the useful- 26. Sailer M, O’Riordan JI, Thompson AJ, et al. Quantitative ness of evoked potentials in identifying clinically silent MRI in patients with clinically isolated syndromes sugges- lesions in patients with suspected multiple sclerosis (an evi- tive of demyelination. Neurology 1999;52:599-605. dence-based review): report of the quality standards sub- 27. Filippi M, Horsfield MA, Morrissey SP, et al. Quantitative comittee of the American Academy of Neurology. brain MRI lesion load predicts the course of clinically iso- Neurology 2000;54:1720-5. lated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis. 16. Andersson M, Alvarez-Cermeno J, Bernardi G, et al. Neurology 1994;44:635-41. Cerebrospinal fluid in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a 28. Khoury SJ, Guttmann CR, Orav EJ, et al. Longitudinal consensus report. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; MRI in multiple sclerosis: correlation between disability 57:897-902. and lesion burden. Neurology 1994;44:2120-4. 17. Paolino E, Fainardi E, Ruppi P, et al. A prospective study 29. Barkhof F, Rocca M, Francis G, et al. Validation of diag- on the predictive value of CSF oligoclonal bands and MRI nostic magnetic imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis and in acute isolated neurological syndromes for subsequent response to interferon-beta-1a. Ann Neurol 2003;53:718- progression to multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg 24. Psychiatry 1996;60:572-5. 30. Miller DH, Filippi M, Fazekas F, et al. Role of magnetic 18. Lee KH, Hashimoto SA, Hooge JP, et al. Magnetic reso- resonance imaging within diagnostic criteria for multiple nance imaging of the head in the diagnosis of multiple scle- sclerosis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Updated Criteria for Diagnosing Multiple Sclerosis
    r e v i e w a r t i c l e Updated criteria for diagnosing Multiple Sclerosis or in the case of progressive MS, a slow or step- Key take home messages wise progression of disability over a period of • The diagnostic criteria for MS have at least six months been recently updated • and objective clinical evidence of lesions in • These criteria should only be applied two or more distinct sites in the white matter to populations in whom MS is of the central nervous system common and patients who present • with no more satisfactory explanation. Peter Brex with typical symptoms for which no The Schumacher criteria were purely clinical, MB BS, MD, FRCP is a Consultant Neurologist at King’s College Hospital better explanation can be found although investigations were encouraged (blood, NHS Foundation Trust. He trained in • All patients with suspected MS should urine, chest X-ray, CSF analysis) to exclude London and was appointed to his current have an MRI brain scan; spinal cord alternative conditions. role in 2005. He specialises in multiple imaging is not mandatory Over the next few years modifications to the sclerosis, with a particular interest in early 2,3 prognostic markers and the management • Unmatched oligoclonal bands in the Schumacher criteria were published but in 1983 of MS during pregnancy. CSF can be used as a substitute for the Schumacher criteria were replaced by criteria demonstrating dissemination in time, developed by a committee chaired by Charles allowing an earlier diagnosis than was Poser (1923 – 2010).4 The Poser criteria incorpor- previously possible ated laboratory and clinical tests developed in the previous decade to support the diagnosis with ‘paraclinical evidence’ of lesions.
    [Show full text]
  • And Multiple Sclerosis Particular Problem, I Wish to Make the Follow
    524 Maters arising prolong the lives of those suffering, thereby Most of these problems are not taken into 6 Poser C, Paty D, Scheinberg L, et al. New J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp.55.6.524-b on 1 June 1992. Downloaded from providing the necessity for self-action by the consideration in Sibley's article. diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis. Ann patient. It is germane to point out that the "scien- Neurol 1983;13:227-31. Perhaps when we advise patients and tific" evidence of epidemiology and biostatis- families who face difficult decisions, we tics overlooks the fact that such studies can at Sibley et al reply: would be better to heed the available evi- best only be estimates within a cohort and dence about who will do well and who will do cannot be generalised; epidemiological stud- We age- and sex-matched MS patients with badly rather than withholding recommenda- ies are most useful in providing aetiological healthy controls solely to establish the degree tions because unduly cautious statisticians clues but cannot be used to deny possible of accident-proneness of MS patients. It choose to neglect the downside effects of causal relationships.2 As was pointed out by probably needs to be clearly restated that the their theoretical arguments. Neurologists are Schoenberg, "Statistical significance (or lack patients were used as their own controls in an especially favourable position to under- thereof) does not equal biological when they were not "at risk". stand the misery that accompanies chronic, significance". Physical trauma had no positive influence overwhelming brain damage.
    [Show full text]
  • (Pre-Allison & Millar) Ipsen Criteria: 1939-48, Boston, MA
    Early criteria (pre-Allison & Millar) Ipsen criteria: 1939-48, Boston, MA USA1 - Probable MS o Those cases with records presenting convincing evidence - Possible MS o Those cases whose evidence was more doubtful. Ipsen acknowledges these allocations are fairly arbitrary but also notes that absolutely certainty of diagnosis is impossible except by autopsy, a limitation we are similarly affected by even today. Westlund & Kurland: 1951, Winnipeg, MT Canada & New Orleans, LA USA2 Diagnostic groupings as follows, with no explicit requirements for each, rather deferring to the discretion of the examining neurologist: - Certain MS - Probable MS - Possible MS o In this class, the changes for and against MS were considered approximately even - Doubtful, unlikely or definitely-not MS2 Sutherland criteria: 1954, Northern Scotland3 - Probable MS o This category for patients in whom the history, the results of clinical examination and, where available, hospital investigations, indicated that the diagnosis of MS was beyond reasonable doubt. - Possible MS o Patients in whom a diagnosis of MS appears justifiable but in which the diagnosis could not be established beyond reasonable doubt; o This group also included patients who did not wish to be examined or could not be seen – review of hospital records for these patients suggested a diagnosis of MS - Rejected cases o Patients found to be suffering from a disease other than MS Allison & Millar Criteria and variants Allison & Millar criteria: 1954, Northern Ireland4 - Early disseminated sclerosis: 1) this category for patients with little in the way of symptomatic presentation but with a recent history consistent with disease onset, i.e. optic neuritis, ophthalmoplegia (double vision), vertigo, sensory problems like pins & needles or numbness, or motor problems like weakness.
    [Show full text]
  • Nayakphd2018.Pdf
    This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights and duplication or sale of all or part is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for research, private study, criticism/review or educational purposes. Electronic or print copies are for your own personal, non- commercial use and shall not be passed to any other individual. No quotation may be published without proper acknowledgement. For any other use, or to quote extensively from the work, permission must be obtained from the copyright holder/s. 1 2 3 Structure and function of the visual pathway in demyelinating optic neuropathy Devaki Nayak Thesis submitted for degree of PhD June 2018 Keele University 4 Acknowledgments I take this opportunity to thank Professor Hawkins for all the help and advice that he provided me over the entire duration of work. I would like to thank the team at Keele Multiple Sclerosis Research Group for their help, friendship and humor throughout the period of research. I once again thank Professor Hawkins for guiding an Ophthalmologist to explore the world of MS in Neurology. I would like to thank Professor Peter Jones for his valuable input on statistical methodology and Professor Richard Strange for his weekly input on statistics from the very first recruitment into this project. I specially want to thank Dr. Ramachandran who spent considerable amount of time in guiding the project and helping with meetings with Professor Jones. I am also thankful to Janice Guildford who helped me with knowledge of existent database in the Keele Multiple Sclerosis Research Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Standard of Cerebrospinal Fluid Analysis in the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis a Consensus Statement
    NEUROLOGICAL REVIEW Recommended Standard of Cerebrospinal Fluid Analysis in the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis A Consensus Statement Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, FRCPC; Edward J. Thompson, DSc; Florian Deisenhammer, MD; Gavin Giovannoni, PhD; Guy Grimsley, PhD; Geoffrey Keir, PhD; Sten Öhman, PhD; Michael K. Racke, MD; Mohammad Sharief, PhD; Christian J. M. Sindic, MD, PhD; Finn Sellebjerg, MD, PhD, DMSci; Wallace W. Tourtellotte, MD, PhD ew criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) were published as the result of an internationally formed committee. To increase the specificity of diagnosis and to minimize the number of false diagnoses, the committee recommended the use of both clinical and paraclinical criteria, the latter involving information obtained from Nmagnetic resonance imaging, evoked potentials, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis. Although rigorous magnetic resonance imaging requirements were provided, the “new criteria paper” fell short in terms of guidelines as to how the CSF analysis should be performed and simply equated the IgG index with isoelectric focusing, without any justification. The spectrum of parameters ana- lyzed and methods for CSF analysis differ worldwide and often yield variable results in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and reliability, with no decided “optimal” CSF test for the diag- nosis of MS. To address this question specifically, an international panel of experts in MS and CSF diagnostic techniques was convened and the result was this article, representing a consensus of all the participants. These recommendations for establishing a standard for the evaluation of CSF in patients suspected of having MS should greatly complement the new criteria in ensuring that a correct diagnosis of MS is being made.
    [Show full text]
  • New Diagnostic Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis: Guidelines for Research Protocols
    SPECIAL ARTICLE New Diagnostic Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis: Guidelines for Research Protocols Charles M. Poser, MD,l Donald W. Paty, MD,’ Labe Scheinberg, MD,3 W. Ian McDonald, FRCP,4 Floyd A. Davis, MD,’ George C. Ebers, MD,‘ Kenneth P. Johnson, MD,’ William A. Sibley, MD,8 Donald H. Silberberg, MD,9 and Wallace W. Tourtellotte, MD” Several schemes for the diagnosis and clinical clas- Method and Procedure sification of multiple sclerosis (MS) have been ad- On April 26 and 27, 1982, the following persons participated vanced [l}. The best known is that published by in a Workshop on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis, held in Schumacher et alC31. The criteria for this scheme were Washington, DC, for the purpose of establishing new diag- established in order to select patients for participation nostic criteria for MS: Bruce Becker (National Naval Medical in therapeutic trials, and pertain only to what might be Center),Jerry Blaivas (Columbia), Keith Chiappa (Harvard), called definite MS. No provision was made for incor- Floyd Davis (Rush), Burton Drayer (Duke), George Ebers porating supportive laboratory data into the diagnostic (Western Ontario), Andrew Eism (British Columbia), criteria. Robert Herndon (Rochester, NY), Kenneth Johnson (Mary- As no reliable specific laboratory test for the diag- land), Ian McDonald (National Hospital, London), Dale nosis of MS has been discovered, the diagnosis remains McFarlin (NINCDS), Donald Paty, Co-chairman (British a clinical one, and there is still a need for clinical diag- Columbia),Janis Peyser
    [Show full text]
  • Swedish Neuroscience Institute
    Diagnosing MS MS can be difficult to diagnose. There is no test that is 100% certain in identifying who has the disease and who does not have the disease. This has led to the development of several sets of diagnostic criteria over the years. One of the first sets of criteria was known as the Schumacher criteria. These criteria required dissemination in both space and time, meaning that patients had to have more than one part of the nervous system involved (dissemination in space) at more than one time (dissemination in time). Dissemination is space and time is still a cornerstone of the diagnosis. The Schumacher criteria were followed by the Poser Criteria which included testing for spinal fluid and recognized degrees of certainty with the diagnosis. The best and most current set of criteria for diagnosing MS is the McDonald criteria. These were first developed in 2001 by an international panel in association with the National MS Society. The McDonald criteria were revised in 2005 and again in 2010. The 2010 revision to the McDonald criteria is the current standard for diagnosis. Overview The primary goal of the McDonald Criteria is to enable the diagnosis of MS sooner and to permit earlier treatment of MS. For clinical research trials it is important to ensure that those without a definite diagnosis of MS are not enrolled. The bottom line is that there have to be 2 attacks in time and at 2 locations. You can get the locations in time either by clinical attacks or by MRI changes over time.
    [Show full text]
  • MS Misdiagnosis— an Analysis from Case Studies
    6/6/2011 MS Misdiagnosis— An Analysis From Case Studies Joseph R. Berger, MD Ruth L. Works Professor and Chairman Department of Neurology University of Kentucky College of Medicine Chief of Department and Head of MS Center University of Kentucky Medical Center Lexington, Kentucky Disclosures Sources of Funding for Research: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; Biogen Idec; EMD Serono, Inc. Consulting Agreements: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; Biogen Idec; Genentech, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Millennium Pharmaceuticals,,; Inc.; Perseid Other support: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; Biogen Idec; Serono, Inc. Financial Interests/Stock Ownership: None Discussion of Off-Label, Investigational, or Experimental Drug Use: Cyclophosphamide, intravenous immunoglobulins A handful of patience is worth more than a barrel full of brains. Dutch Proverb 1 6/6/2011 Causes of Misdiagnosis • Diagnosis momentum • Diagnosis even on insufficient evidence becomes fixed in a doctor’s mind • Framing effects • Being swayed by subtle wording or focusing on certain aspects of a case more than others • Satisfaction of search • Stopping when you find a satisfying diagnosis • Confirmation bias (anchoring) • Dismissing material that does not fit with your diagnostic impression • Attribution error • Failing to consider a diagnosis that does not fit the prototype • Representativeness error • Failing to consider possibilities that contradict the prototype and base rate of disease • Failing to account for base rates (“If you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras”) •
    [Show full text]
  • Magnetization Transfer Imaging to Investigate Tissue Structure and Optimise Detection of Blood Brain Barrier Leakage in Multiple Sclerosis
    Magnetization Transfer Imaging to Investigate Tissue Structure and Optimise Detection of Blood Brain Barrier Leakage in Multiple Sclerosis Dr Nicholas Charles Silver, MBBS; MRCP A thesis submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2001 NMR Research Unit Institute of Neurology University College London Queen Square London WCIN 3BG United Kingdom ProQuest Number: U643048 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U643048 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a powerful researeh tool for in vivo evaluation and monitoring of multiple sclerosis (MS). Conventional MRI techniques detect changes in the density or relaxation characteristies of “free” water protons. They are sensitive but lack pathological specificity. Magnetization transfer (MX) imaging provides a method for evaluating those protons “bound” to maeromolecular struetures. Part one of this thesis outlines the clinical and pathological features of MS and discusses the importance of demyelination and blood-brain barrier breakdown. An introduction to MRI and MX imaging techniques is provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Sclerosis Disease Modifying Therapies Update
    Practical Controversies in MS Lucas McCarthy, MD, MSc Neurologist, Director MS Center Practical Controversies How to approach common questions in the gray-zone of evidence- based practice? © 2016 Virginia Mason Medical Center The Evidence Free Zone © 2016 Virginia Mason Medical Center Practical Controversies in MS • Misdiagnosis of MS • Vitamin D testing / supplementation • Use of complimentary / experimental treatments • Treatment of Progressive MS © 2016 Virginia Mason Medical Center Poll Everywhere – Audience Participation Open cell phone or laptop to following link to participate in live questions https://pollev.com/MSsummit © 2016 Virginia Mason Medical Center Misdiagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis Misdiagnosis of MS Updated 2017 McDonald MS Diagnostic Criteria Easier to diagnosis = Easier to misdiagnose? © 2016 Virginia Mason Medical Center MS Diagnosis – 2017 Updated Criteria Lesions: ≥ 2 characteristic lesions (>3mm) in ≥ 2 different locations Symptoms: objective clinical evidence of at least 1 lesion Relapse: ≥ 1 characteristic clinical attack Changes over Time: ≥2 CSF Oligoclonal bands or >1 attack over time or new lesions over time (including enhancing and non-enhancing) *No other reasonable diagnosis © 2016 Virginia Mason Medical Center MS Diagnosis – Evolving Diagnostic Criteria MS Diagnostic Criteria Comments 1965 - Schumacher Criteria 2 attacks of neurologic symptoms > 24 hours in duration, separated by at least one month. No MRI yet 1983 - Poser Criteria Added cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers and Evoked Potentials to diagnostic
    [Show full text]
  • Prevalence of Multiple Sclerosis in Al Quseir City, Red Sea Governorate, Egypt
    Journal name: Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Article Designation: Original Research Year: 2016 Volume: 12 Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Dovepress Running head verso: El-Tallawy et al Running head recto: Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Egypt open access to scientific and medical research DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S87348 Open Access Full Text Article ORIGINAL RESEARCH Prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Al Quseir city, Red Sea Governorate, Egypt Hamdy N El-Tallawy1 Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic and disabling disorder with considerable Wafaa M A Farghaly1 social effects and economic sequelae. It is one of the major causes of disability in young Reda Badry1 adults. Nabil A Metwally2 Objectives: This study aimed at detecting the prevalence of MS among the population of Ghaydaa A Shehata1 Al Quseir city. Tarek A Rageh1 Methods: This study is a part of door-to-door survey of major neurological disorders that was conducted in Al Quseir city, Red Sea Governorate, Egypt. The sample size was 33,285 persons. Mohamed Abd El Hamed1 The youngest patient was 17 years old. The number of people at and above 17 years of age Mahmoud R Kandil1 was 21,827. They were screened by three neurologists. Then, the positive cases were subjected 1Department of Neurology and to meticulous clinical evaluation by three staff members of Department of Neurology, Assiut Psychiatry, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt; 2Department of University Hospital, Egypt. Essential investigations were done. For personal use only. Neurology and Psychiatry, Al Azhar Results: A total of three cases of MS were diagnosed with an age-specific prevalence $17 University Hospital, Assiut Branch, years of 13.7/100,000.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis
    TheThe DiagnosisDiagnosis OfOf MultipleMultiple SclerosisSclerosis DRDR SAHERSAHER HASHEMHASHEM PROFPROF OFOF NEUROLOGYNEUROLOGY CAIROCAIRO UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY ThereThere isis nono pathpath gnomonicgnomonic oror perfectperfect laboratorylaboratory testtest whichwhich maymay bebe usedused inin isolationisolation toto reliablyreliably diagnosediagnose MS.MS. TheThe keykey toto correctcorrect diagnosisdiagnosis isis typicalitytypicality TheThe duckduck testtest isis importantimportant ,, (( isis thisthis aa duck,duck, itit lookslooks likelike aa duck,duck, walkwalk likelike andand quacksquacks likelike aa duck,duck, thenthen itit isis probablyprobably aa duck.duck. duck, and QuestionQuestion OneOne WhatWhat isis thethe mostmost commoncommon mistakemistake duringduring MSMS diagnosis?diagnosis? TheThe mostmost commoncommon mistakemistake duringduring MSMS diagnosisdiagnosis isis aa falsefalse positivepositive attributionattribution thatthat isis makingmaking aa diagnosisdiagnosis ofof MSMS inin patientspatients whowho dondon ’’tt havehave MS.OftenMS.Often thisthis errorerror isis thethe resultresult ofof uncriticaluncritical oror causalcausal reliancereliance onon MRIMRI withoutwithout appropriateappropriate clinicalclinical correlationcorrelation 6262 patientspatients assessedassessed byby generalgeneral neurologistsneurologists andand reassessedreassessed byby otherother generalgeneral neurologistsneurologists usingusing McMc DonaldDonald ’’ss criteriacriteria andand foundfound 51%51% ofof MSMS patientspatients werewere notnot confirmed.confirmed.
    [Show full text]