Subscribe to RSS
Choosing wisely? Multiple Sclerosis and Laboratory Screening for Autoimmune Differential DiagnosesDo the Guideline Recommendations of the German Society of Neurology Make Sense?
16 October 2017 (online)
Background A variety of diseases can mimic the presentation of multiple sclerosis (MS). Diagnosing MS requires the exclusion of conditions considered in the differential diagnosis of MS. The guidelines of the German Society of Neurology (DGN) recommend analyzing 13 mandatory and 9 optional laboratory parameters. The mandatory recommendations include antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as well as antibodies against double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA Abs)).
Methods In a cohort of MS outpatients, those patient records were analyzed in which test results for all or at least some of the recommended laboratory parameters were available. In addition to these laboratory parameters, MRI data, family history, clinical presentation, evoked potentials, and CSF findings were analyzed. Furthermore, a questionnaire was used to prospectively collect information about rheumatological symptoms relevant to the differential diagnosis of MS.
Results In 197 of the included 554 patients, at least some of the recommended differential diagnostic laboratory parameters were available. In 59.4% of these patients, ANA titers ≥ 1:80 were detected. Neither ANA nor ANCA nor anti-dsDNA abs were able to distinguish between MS and non-MS. In 124 MS patients, 54.8% had positive ANA titers ≥1:80. MS patients with these titers suffered more frequently from autoimmune diseases and were more likely to have a family history of MS. Of the remaining 73 patients without MS, 67.1% were ANA positive. In this patient population, the ANA-positive patients were more frequently diagnosed with psychiatric diseases. In the prospectively surveyed MS patients with an ANA titer >1:160, no rheumatologic disease was diagnosed during the average follow-up period of 1.9 years.
Conclusion In line with the "Choosing Wisely" recommendations of the American College of Rheumatology, mandatory laboratory screening appears to offer no benefit to the initial diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, unless a specific differential diagnosis is to be excluded.
* equal first authors
- 1 Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B. et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011; 69: 292-302
- 2 Swanton JK, Rovira A, Tintore M. et al. MRI criteria for multiple sclerosis in patients presenting with clinically isolated syndromes: A multicentre retrospective study. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 677-686
- 3 Kollia K, Maderwald S, Putzki N. et al. First clinical study on ultra-high-field MR imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis: Comparison of 1.5T and 7T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 699-702
- 4 Dixon JE, Simpson A, Mistry N. et al. Optimisation of T(2)*-weighted MRI for the detection of small veins in multiple sclerosis at 3 T and 7 T. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 719-727
- 5 Gold R, Hemmer B, Wiendl H. Leitlinie Diagnose und Therapie der Multiplen Sklerose. In: Diener HC, Weimar C, (Hrsg.). Leitlinien für Diagnostik und Therapie in der Neurologie. Stuttgart: Thieme Verlag; 2014
- 6 Arinuma Y, Kikuchi H, Wada T. et al. Brain MRI in patients with diffuse psychiatric/neuropsychological syndromes in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus Sci Med 2014; 1: e000050
- 7 Saruhan-Direskeneli G, Yentur SP, Mutlu M. et al. Intrathecal oligoclonal IgG bands are infrequently found in neuro-Behcet's disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2013; 31: 25-27
- 8 Chabriat H, Joutel A, Dichgans M. et al. Cadasil. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 643-653
- 9 Bottcher T, Rolfs A, Tanislav C. et al. Fabry disease - underestimated in the differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis?. PLoS One 2013; 8: e71894
- 10 Becker J, Rolfs A, Karabul N. et al. D313Y mutation in the differential diagnosis of white matter lesions: Experiences from a multiple sclerosis outpatient clinic. Mult Scler 2016; 22: 1502-1505
- 11 Karussis D, Leker RR, Ashkenazi A. et al. A subgroup of multiple sclerosis patients with anticardiolipin antibodies and unusual clinical manifestations: do they represent a new nosological entity?. Ann Neurol 1998; 44: 629-634
- 12 Heinzlef O, Weill B, Johanet C. et al. Anticardiolipin antibodies in patients with multiple sclerosis do not represent a subgroup of patients according to clinical, familial, and biological characteristics. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72: 647-649
- 13 Barned S, Goodman AD, Mattson DH. Frequency of anti-nuclear antibodies in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1995; 45: 384-385
- 14 Collard RC, Koehler RP, Mattson DH. Frequency and significance of antinuclear antibodies in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1997; 49: 857-861
- 15 Garg N, Zivadinov R, Ramanathan M. et al. Clinical and MRI correlates of autoreactive antibodies in multiple sclerosis patients. J Neuroimmunol 2007; 187: 159-165
- 16 Etemadifar M, Fatemi A, Hashemijazi H. et al. Is it necessary to perform connective tissue disorders laboratory tests when a patient experiences the first demyelinating attack?. J Res Med Sci 2013; 18: 617-620
- 17 Solomon AJ, Klein EP, Bourdette D. "Undiagnosing" multiple sclerosis: The challenge of misdiagnosis in MS. Neurology 2012; 78: 1986-1991
- 18 Chow SL, Carter Thorne J, Bell MJ. et al. Choosing wisely: The Canadian Rheumatology Association's list of 5 items physicians and patients should question. J Rheumatol 2015; 42: 682-689
- 19 Ferrari R. Evaluation of the Canadian Rheumatology Association Choosing Wisely recommendation concerning anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) testing. Clin Rheumatol 2015; 34: 1551-1556
- 20 Rouster-Stevens KA, Ardoin SP, Cooper AM. et al. Choosing Wisely: The American College of Rheumatology's Top 5 for pediatric rheumatology. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014; 66: 649-657
- 21 Kavanaugh A, Tomar R, Reveille J. et al. Guidelines for clinical use of the antinuclear antibody test and tests for specific autoantibodies to nuclear antigens. American College of Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124: 71-81
- 22 Fritzler MJ. Choosing wisely: Review and commentary on anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) testing. Autoimmun Rev 2016; 15: 272-280
- 23 Verstegen G, Duyck MC, Meeus P. et al. Detection and identification of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in a large community hospital. Acta Clin Belg 2009; 64: 317-323
- 24 Tintore M, Rovira A, Rio J. et al. Do oligoclonal bands add information to MRI in first attacks of multiple sclerosis?. Neurology 2008; 70: 1079-1083
- 25 Tan EM, Feltkamp TE, Smolen JS. et al. Range of antinuclear antibodies in "healthy" individuals. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 1601-1611
- 26 Vaile JH, Dyke L, Kherani R. et al. Is high titre ANA specific for connective tissue disease?. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2000; 18: 433-438
- 27 Illei GG, Klippel JH. Why is the ANA result positive?. Bull Rheum Dis 1999; 48: 1-4
- 28 Barcellos LF, Kamdar BB, Ramsay PP. et al. Clustering of autoimmune diseases in families with a high-risk for multiple sclerosis: a descriptive study. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5: 924-931
- 29 Broadley SA, Deans J, Sawcer SJ. et al. Autoimmune disease in first-degree relatives of patients with multiple sclerosis. A UK survey. Brain 2000; 123 Pt 6 1102-1111
- 30 Ramagopalan SV, Dyment DA, Valdar W. et al. Autoimmune disease in families with multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 604-610
- 31 Farez MF, Balbuena Aguirre ME, Varela F. et al. Autoimmune disease prevalence in a multiple sclerosis cohort in Argentina. Mult Scler Int 2014; 2014: 828162