Performance of the 2017 and 2010 Revised McDonald Criteria in Predicting MS Diagnosis After a Clinically Isolated Syndrome
A MAGNIMS Study
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background and Objectives To compare the performance of the 2017 revisions to the McDonald criteria with the 2010 McDonald criteria in establishing multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis and predicting prognosis in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) suggestive of MS.
Methods CSF examination and brain and spinal cord MRI obtained ≤5 months from CIS onset and a follow-up brain MRI acquired within 15 months from CIS onset were evaluated in 785 patients with CIS from 9 European centers. Date of second clinical attack and of reaching Expanded Disability Status Scale score (EDSS) ≥3.0, if they occurred, were also collected. Performance of the 2017 and 2010 McDonald criteria for dissemination in space (DIS), dissemination in time (DIT) (including oligoclonal bands assessment), and DIS plus DIT for predicting a second clinical attack (clinically definite MS [CDMS]) and EDSS ≥3.0 at follow-up was evaluated. Time to MS diagnosis for the different criteria was also estimated.
Results At follow-up (median 69.1 months), 406/785 patients with CIS developed CDMS. At 36 months, the 2017 DIS plus DIT criteria had higher sensitivity (0.83 vs 0.66), lower specificity (0.39 vs 0.60), and similar area under the curve values (0.61 vs 0.63). Median time to MS diagnosis was shorter with the 2017 vs the 2010 or CDMS criteria (2017 revision, 3.2; 2010 revision, 13.0; CDMS, 58.5 months). The 2 sets of criteria similarly predicted EDSS ≥3.0 milestone. Three periventricular lesions improved specificity in patients ≥45 years.
Discussion The 2017 McDonald criteria showed higher sensitivity, lower specificity, and similar accuracy in predicting CDMS compared to 2010 McDonald criteria, while shortening time to diagnosis of MS.
Classification of Evidence This study provides Class II evidence that the 2017 McDonald Criteria more accurately distinguish CDMS in patients early after a CIS when compared to the 2010 McDonald criteria.
Glossary
- aHR=
- adjusted hazard ratio;
- AUC=
- area under the curve;
- CDMS=
- clinically definite multiple sclerosis;
- CI=
- confidence interval;
- CIS=
- clinically isolated syndrome;
- DE=
- dual-echo;
- DIR=
- double inversion recovery;
- DIS=
- dissemination in space;
- DIT=
- dissemination in time;
- DMT=
- disease-modifying treatment;
- EDSS=
- Expanded Disability Status Scale;
- FLAIR=
- fluid-attenuated inversion recovery;
- Gd=
- gadolinium;
- MS=
- multiple sclerosis;
- OCB=
- oligoclonal band;
- STIR=
- short tau inversion recovery;
- WM=
- white matter
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
MAGNIMS Study Group coinvestigators are listed in the appendix at the end of the article.
Editorial, page 12
Class of Evidence: NPub.org/coe
- Received March 8, 2021.
- Accepted in final form September 30, 2021.
- © 2021 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.