Application of the 2010 revised criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis to patients with clinically isolated syndromes

Authors

  • T. F. Runia,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Hospital Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • Correspondence: T.F. Runia, Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Hospital Rotterdam, room Ee2230, Postbus 2040, 3000CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands (tel.: +31 10 7043980; fax: +31 10 7045927; e-mail: t.runia@erasmusmc.nl).

    Search for more papers by this author
  • N. Jafari,

    1. Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Hospital Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • R. Q. Hintzen

    1. Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Hospital Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

  • This is a Continuing Medical Education article, and can be found with corresponding questions on the Internet at http://www.efns.org/EFNS Continuing-Medical-Education-online.301.0.html. Certificates for correctly answering the questions will be issued by the EFNS.

Abstract

Background and purpose

Recently, the McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) have been revised, with the aims to diagnose earlier and to simplify the use of brain MRI. To validate the 2010 revised criteria they were applied to a cohort of patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS).

Methods

In all, 178 CIS patients were followed from onset. Test characteristics were calculated after 1, 3 and 5 years and compared between the 2005 and 2010 revised criteria. The time to diagnosis of the 2005 and 2010 criteria was compared using survival analysis and the log-rank test. Clinical evidence for dissemination in space and time was the gold standard for clinically definite MS (CDMS).

Results

During follow-up, 76 patients converted to CDMS (mean time to conversion 23.9 months). At 1 year, the specificity and accuracy of the 2005 criteria were a little higher than those of the 2010 criteria (98.0% and 98.4% vs. 86.3% and 88.5%). However, at 5 years, differences completely disappeared (specificity 85.7% and accuracy 93.3% for both criteria). MS diagnosis could be made significantly faster with the 2010 criteria (P = 0.007). Using the 2010 criteria, in 19% of patients the diagnosis could already be made at baseline.

Conclusions

By applying the 2010 revised criteria a diagnosis of MS can be made earlier, whilst prediction of disease progression is maintained. This validation brings along great advantages, for treatment possibilities as well as patient counselling.

Ancillary