|
1
|
Solomon AJ, Arrambide G, Brownlee WJ, Flanagan EP, Amato MP, Amezcua L, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, Corboy JR, Correale J, Fujihara K, Graves J, Harnegie MP, Hemmer B, Lechner-Scott J, Marrie RA, Newsome SD, Rocca MA, Royal W, Waubant EL, Yamout B, Cohen JA. Differential diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis: an updated consensus approach. Lancet Neurol 2023; 22:750-768. [PMID: 37479377 DOI: 10.1016/s1474-4422(23)00148-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Revised: 03/14/2023] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 07/23/2023]
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis of multiple sclerosis requires careful attention to its differential diagnosis-many disorders can mimic the clinical manifestations and paraclinical findings of this disease. A collaborative effort, organised by The International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis in 2008, provided diagnostic approaches to multiple sclerosis and identified clinical and paraclinical findings (so-called red flags) suggestive of alternative diagnoses. Since then, knowledge of disorders in the differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis has expanded substantially. For example, CNS inflammatory disorders that present with syndromes overlapping with multiple sclerosis can increasingly be distinguished from multiple sclerosis with the aid of specific clinical, MRI, and laboratory findings; studies of people misdiagnosed with multiple sclerosis have also provided insights into clinical presentations for which extra caution is warranted. Considering these data, an update to the recommended diagnostic approaches to common clinical presentations and key clinical and paraclinical red flags is warranted to inform the contemporary clinical evaluation of patients with suspected multiple sclerosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Solomon
- Department of Neurological Sciences, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, University Health Center, Burlington, VT, USA.
| | - Georgina Arrambide
- Servei de Neurologia-Neuroimmunologia, Centre d'Esclerosi Múltiple de Catalunya (Cemcat), Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca, Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Wallace J Brownlee
- National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK
| | - Eoin P Flanagan
- Departments of Neurology and Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and the Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Maria Pia Amato
- Department NEUROFARBA, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Florence, Italy
| | - Lilyana Amezcua
- Department of Neurology, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Brenda L Banwell
- Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Division of Child Neurology, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Frederik Barkhof
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Queen Square Institute of Neurology and Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK
| | - John R Corboy
- Department of Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Jorge Correale
- Department of Neurology, Fleni Institute of Biological Chemistry and Physical Chemistry (IQUIFIB), Buenos Aires, Argentina; National Council for Scientific and Technical Research/University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Kazuo Fujihara
- Department of Multiple Sclerosis Therapeutics, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Koriyama, Japan; Multiple Sclerosis and Neuromyelitis Optica Center, Southern TOHOKU Research Institute for Neuroscience, Koriyama, Japan
| | - Jennifer Graves
- Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | | - Bernhard Hemmer
- Department of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Medical Faculty, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology, Munich, Germany
| | - Jeannette Lechner-Scott
- Department of Neurology, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute Neurology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | - Ruth Ann Marrie
- Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Scott D Newsome
- Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Maria A Rocca
- Neuroimaging Research Unit, Division of Neuroscience, Neurology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Walter Royal
- Department of Neurobiology and Neuroscience Institute, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Emmanuelle L Waubant
- Weill Institute for Neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Bassem Yamout
- Neurology Institute, Harley Street Medical Center, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Jeffrey A Cohen
- Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Sudheer P, Agarwal A, Vishnu VY. Antinuclear antibodies in neurology and their clinical application. QJM 2021:6447522. [PMID: 34865171 DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcab304] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2021] [Revised: 11/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are a diverse group of autoantibodies found in various systemic autoimmune disorders. They represent a key diagnostic marker in the diagnosis of connective tissue disorders (CTD). Although many techniques exist, ANA by Indirect Immunofluorescence (IIF) remains the gold standard for diagnosing CTDs. Neurologists should be aware of the type of assay used for detection and the advantages and disadvantages of using each method. Through this article, we aimed to review the methodological aspects of the detection of ANA and its subtypes and their clinical relevance in various neurologic disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pachipala Sudheer
- Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Ayush Agarwal
- Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Venugopalan Y Vishnu
- Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Prevalence of antinuclear antibody in patients with multiple sclerosis: a case-control study. THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, PSYCHIATRY AND NEUROSURGERY 2021. [DOI: 10.1186/s41983-021-00284-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Antinuclear antibody (ANA) is a common test for excluding alternative diagnoses. However, the significance of ANA testing in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) remains unclear.
Objectives
To compare the prevalence of positive ANA antibody and its titer between patients with MS (cases) and non-MS patients who attended neurology clinics (control) in Saudi Arabia.
Methods
A case-control review of ANA results for all patients who attended a neurology MS clinic. We compared a convenience sample of patients with MS with individuals with general neurology problems and no known autoimmune diseases.
Results
There were 115 and 103 participants in the MS and control group, respectively. The mean age in the MS and control group was 33.76 ± 8.96 years and 34.95 ± 8.56 years, respectively. In the MS group, 25.22%, 60%, 11.30%, and 3.48% were negative, mildly positive, moderately positive, and strongly positive for ANA, respectively. In the control group, there were 34.95%, 54.37%, and 10.68% were negative, mild positive, and moderate positive, respectively. There were numerically, but not significantly, more positive cases in the MS group (74.78%) than in the control group (65.05%) (p = .117).
Conclusion
ANA testing in routine MS screening for excluding alternative diagnoses should be discouraged unless there is a remarkable history or clinical examination finding. Mild positive ANA is common among patients with MS and does not significantly differ from the general population.
Collapse
|