Central vein sign: A diagnostic biomarker in multiple sclerosis (CAVS-MS) study protocol for a prospective multicenter trial.

The specificity and implementation of current MRI-based diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS) are imperfect. Approximately 1 in 5 of individuals diagnosed with MS are eventually determined not to have the disease, with overreliance on MRI findings a major cause of MS misdiagnosis. The central vein sign (CVS), a proposed MRI biomarker for MS lesions, has been extensively studied in numerous cross sectional studies and may increase diagnostic specificity for MS. CVS has desirable analytical, measurement, and scalability properties. "Central Vein Sign: A Diagnostic Biomarker in Multiple Sclerosis (CAVS-MS)" is an NIH-supported, 2-year, prospective, international, multicenter study conducted by the North American Imaging in MS Cooperative (NAIMS) to evaluate CVS as a diagnostic biomarker for immediate translation into clinical care. Study objectives include determining the concordance of CVS and McDonald Criteria to diagnose MS, the sensitivity of CVS to detect MS in those with typical presentations, and the specificity of CVS among those with atypical presentations. The study will recruit a total of 400 participants (200 with typical and 200 with atypical presentations) across 11 sites. T2*-weighted, high-isotropic-resolution, segmented echo-planar MRI will be acquired at baseline and 24 months on 3-tesla scanners, and FLAIR* images (combination of FLAIR and T2*) will be generated for evaluating CVS. Data will be processed on a cloud-based platform that contains clinical and CVS rating modules. Imaging quality control will be conducted by automated methods and neuroradiologist review. CVS will be determined by Select6* and Select3* lesion methods following published criteria at each site and by central readers, including neurologists and neuroradiologists. Automated CVS detection and algorithms for incorporation of CVS into McDonald Criteria will be tested. Diagnosis will be adjudicated by three neurologists who served on the 2017 International Panel on the Diagnosis of MS. The CAVS-MS study aims to definitively establish CVS as a diagnostic biomarker that can be applied broadly to individuals presenting for evaluation of the diagnosis of MS.

Cognitive processing speed in multiple sclerosis clinical practice: association with patient-reported outcomes, employment and magnetic resonance imaging metrics.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To analyze the relationship between cognitive processing speed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), employment and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) metrics in a large multiple sclerosis cohort. METHODS: Cross-sectional clinical data, PROMs, employment and MRI studies within 90 days of completion of the Processing Speed Test (PST), a technology-enabled adaptation of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, were collected. MRI was analyzed using semi-automated methods. Correlations of PST score with PROMs and MRI metrics were examined using Spearman's rho. Wilcoxon rank sum testing compared MRI metrics across PST score quartiles and linear regression models identified predictors of PST performance. Effects of employment and depression were also investigated. RESULTS: In 721 patients (mean age 47.6 ± 11.4 years), PST scores were significantly correlated with all MRI metrics, including cord atrophy and deep gray matter volumes. Linear regression demonstrated self-reported physical disability, cognitive function, fatigue and social domains (adjusted R2  = 0.44, P < 0.001) as the strongest clinical predictors of PST score, whereas that of MRI variables included T2 lesion volume, whole-brain fraction and cord atrophy (adjusted R2  = 0.42, P < 0.001). An inclusive model identified T2 lesion volume, whole-brain fraction, self-reported upper extremity function, cognition and social participation as the strongest predictors of PST score (adjusted R2  = 0.51, P < 0.001). There was significant effect modification by depression on the relationship between self-reported cognition and PST performance. Employment status was associated with PST scores independent of age and physical disability. CONCLUSION: The PST score correlates with PROMs, MRI measures of focal and diffuse brain injury, and employment. The PST score is a feasible and meaningful measure for routine multiple sclerosis care.

Knowledge of radiation legislation and guidelines amongst foundation doctors is inadequate for safe practice in the current era of radiology.

It is important for safe practice in radiology that junior doctors are aware of the guidelines and legislation surrounding ionising radiation; however, it has been demonstrated over many years that knowledge in these areas is poor with potential impacts on patient safety. As the reliance of the National Health Service (NHS) on radiological imaging increases, it is vital that lasting intervention is implemented to prevent harm. This commentary highlights key issues in this area with results from a recent audit and suggests potential solutions.

A randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial of oral laquinimod for multiple sclerosis.

The phase III placebo-controlled BRAVO study assessed laquinimod effects in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), and descriptively compared laquinimod with interferon beta (IFNß)-1a (Avonex(®) reference arm). RRMS patients age 18-55 years with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 0-5.5 and documented pre-study relapse (≥ 1 in previous year, 2 in previous 2 years, or 1 in previous 1-2 years and ≥ 1 GdE lesion in the previous year) were randomized (1:1:1) to laquinimod 0.6 mg once-daily, matching oral placebo, or IFNß-1a IM 30 µg once-weekly (rater-blinded design), for 24 months. The primary endpoint was annualized relapse rate (ARR); secondary endpoints included percent brain volume change (PBVC) and 3-month confirmed disability worsening. In all, 1,331 patients were randomized: laquinimod (n = 434), placebo (n = 450), and IFNß-1a (n = 447). ARR was not significantly reduced with laquinimod [-18 %, risk ratio (RR) = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.66-1.02; p = 0.075] vs. placebo. Laquinimod significantly reduced PBVC (28 %, p < 0.001). Confirmed disability worsening was infrequent (10 % laquinimod, 13 % placebo). The change in confirmed disability worsening with laquinimod measured using EDSS was -31 % [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, p = 0.063], and using Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) z-score was -77 % (p = 0.150), vs. placebo. IFNß-1a reduced ARR 26 % (RR = 0.74, 95 % CI 0.60-0.92, p = 0.007), showed no effect on PBVC loss (+11 %, p = 0.14), and changes in disability worsening were -26 and -66 % as measured using the EDSS (HR 0.742, p = 0.13) and MSFC (p = 0.208), respectively. Adverse events occurred in 75, 82, and 70 % of laquinimod, IFNß-1a, and placebo patients, respectively. Once-daily oral laquinimod 0.6 mg resulted in statistically nonsignificant reductions in ARR and disability progression, but significant reductions in brain atrophy vs. placebo. Laquinimod was well-tolerated.

Temporal profile of lymphocyte counts and relationship with infections with fingolimod therapy.

BACKGROUND: Reduction in peripheral blood lymphocytes is an expected pharmacodynamic outcome of fingolimod therapy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to evaluate lymphocyte dynamics during and after fingolimod therapy and assess the relationship between lymphocyte counts and infections. METHODS: Lymphocyte counts and their relationship with infections were evaluated in three multiple sclerosis (MS) populations: (Group A) FREEDOMS phase 3 core study group (n = 1272); (Group B) All Studies group (one phase 2 and two phase 3 studies, plus their extensions; n = 2315); and (Group C) Follow-up group (after fingolimod discontinuation; n = 538). RESULTS: Administration of fingolimod 0.5 mg led to reductions in lymphocyte counts to a steady-state of 24%-30% of baseline values within two weeks, which remained stable while on therapy. Following fingolimod discontinuation, average counts exceeded the lower limit of normal range within six to eight weeks, and were 80% of baseline values by three months. In Group A, infection rates per patient-year were 1.4 with placebo and 1.0 in fingolimod-treated patients who had the lowest lymphocyte counts (< 0.2 × 10(9)/l). No evidence was seen for an increase in serious or opportunistic infections. CONCLUSIONS: Fingolimod induces a rapid and reversible reduction in lymphocyte counts without an increase in infections relative to placebo. Because fingolimod reduces blood lymphocyte counts via redistribution in secondary lymphoid organs, peripheral blood lymphocyte counts cannot be utilized to evaluate the lymphocyte subset status of a patient.

Effect of prior treatment status and reasons for discontinuation on the efficacy and safety of fingolimod vs. interferon ß-1a intramuscular: Subgroup analyses of the Trial Assessing Injectable Interferon vs. Fingolimod Oral in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (TRANSFORMS).

BACKGROUND: Fingolimod demonstrated superior efficacy compared with interferon ß-1a intramuscular in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The impact of treatment history on fingolimod efficacy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This post-hoc analysis of phase 3 TRANSFORMS data compared the efficacy and safety of fingolimod and interferon ß-1a intramuscular among patient subgroups defined by prior treatment history. METHODS: Annualized relapse rate and safety of once-daily oral fingolimod 0.5mg, 1.25mg, or once-weekly interferon ß-1a 30µg intramuscular for 12 months were analyzed in 1292 patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis according to prior disease-modifying therapy, reason for prior disease-modifying therapy discontinuation (adverse events or unsatisfactory therapeutic effect), and prior disease-modifying therapy duration. RESULTS: Compared with interferon ß-1a intramuscular, fingolimod 0.5mg significantly reduced annualized relapse rate in patients who were treatment naive, received prior interferon-ß treatment, discontinued prior disease-modifying therapy for unsatisfactory therapeutic effect, or had prior disease-modifying therapy duration of ≥1 year (P≤0.05, all comparisons). Similar trends were observed in patients with prior glatiramer acetate treatment. Significant reductions were also seen with fingolimod 1.25mg for treatment-naive and prior interferon-ß-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates superiority of fingolimod over interferon ß-1a intramuscular regardless of prior (interferon-ß) treatment and prior treatment efficacy and duration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00340834.

Randomized controlled trial of atorvastatin in clinically isolated syndrome: the STAyCIS study.

OBJECTIVE: To test efficacy and safety of atorvastatin in subjects with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). METHODS: Subjects with CIS were enrolled in a phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-center randomized trial testing 80 mg atorvastatin on clinical and brain MRI activity. Brain MRIs were performed quarterly. The primary endpoint (PEP) was development of ≥ 3 new T2 lesions, or one clinical relapse within 12 months. Subjects meeting the PEP were offered additional weekly interferon ß-1a (IFNß-1a). RESULTS: Due to slow recruitment, enrollment was discontinued after 81 of 152 planned subjects with CIS were randomized and initiated study drug. Median (interquartile range) numbers of T2 and gadolinium-enhancing (Gd) lesions were 15.0 (22.0) and 0.0 (0.0) at baseline. A total of 53.1% of atorvastatin recipients (n = 26/49) met PEP compared to 56.3% of placebo recipients (n = 18/32) (p = 0.82). Eleven atorvastatin subjects (22.4%) and 7 placebo subjects (21.9%) met the PEP by clinical criteria. Proportion of subjects who did not develop new T2 lesions up to month 12 or to starting IFNß-1a was 55.3% in the atorvastatin and 27.6% in the placebo group (p = 0.03). Likelihood of remaining free of new T2 lesions was significantly greater in the atorvastatin group compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 4.34, p = 0.01). Likelihood of remaining free of Gd lesions tended to be higher in the atorvastatin group (OR = 2.72, p = 0.11). Overall, atorvastatin was well tolerated. No clear antagonistic effect of atorvastatin plus IFNß-1a was observed on MRI measures. CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin treatment significantly decreased development of new brain MRI T2 lesion activity, although it did not achieve the composite clinical and imaging PEP. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provided Class II evidence that atorvastatin did not reduce the proportion of patients with CIS meeting imaging and clinical criteria for starting immunomodulating therapy after 12 months, compared to placebo. In an analysis of a secondary endpoint (Class III), atorvastatin was associated with a reduced risk for developing new T2 lesions.

The challenge of follow-on biologics for treatment of multiple sclerosis.

Intellectual property protections for biologic medicinals for multiple sclerosis (MS) are beginning to expire, opening the possibility of development, regulatory approval, and marketing of so-called follow-on biologics, biosimilars, or subsequent entry biologics that might be offered at lower price to consumers and third-party payers, as has been the case for generic drugs. Determining the comparability of a follow-on biologic to its innovator product is more difficult than for small-molecule drugs because of the greater complexity of biologics and the possibility that manufacturing differences can introduce differences in biologic activity and immunogenicity that could result in unpredictable differences in safety or efficacy. We provide a perspective on issues surrounding development, regulatory approval, and potential use of follow-on biologics, with an emphasis on disease-modifying agents for MS.

Assessing disability progression with the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite.

BACKGROUND: The initial Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) proposal was a three-part composite of quantitative measures of ambulation, upper extremity function, and cognitive function expressed as a single composite Z-score. However, the clinical meaning of an MSFC Z-score change is not obvious. This study instead used MSFC component data to define a patient-specific disease progression event. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate a new method for analyzing disability progression using the MSFC. METHODS: MSFC progression was defined as worsening from baseline on scores of at least one MSFC component by 20% (MSFC Progression-20) or 15% (MSFC Progression-15), sustained for >or=3 months. Progression rates were determined using data from natalizumab clinical studies (Natalizumab Safety and Efficacy in Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis [AFFIRM] and Safety and Efficacy of Natalizumab in Combination With Interferon Beta-1a in Patients With Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis [SENTINEL]). Correlations between MSFC progression and other clinical measures were determined, as was sensitivity to treatment effects. RESULTS: Substantial numbers of patients met MSFC progression criteria, with MSFC Progression-15 being more sensitive than MSFC Progression-20, at both 1 and 2 years. MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 were related significantly to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score change, relapse rate, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score change. MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 at 1 year were predictive of EDSS progression at 2 years. Both MSFC progression end points demonstrated treatment effects in AFFIRM, and results were replicated in SENTINEL. CONCLUSION: MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 are sensitive measures of disability progression; correlate with EDSS, relapse rates, and SF-36 PCS; and are capable of demonstrating therapeutic effects in randomized, controlled clinical studies.

Practice parameter: the evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: the role of laboratory and genetic testing (an evidence-based review). Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of laboratory and genetic tests for the assessment of DSP. METHODS: A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based upon the level of evidence. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Screening laboratory tests may be considered for all patients with polyneuropathy (Level C). Those tests that provide the highest yield of abnormality are blood glucose, serum B12 with metabolites (methylmalonic acid with or without homocysteine) and serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis (Level C). If there is no definite evidence of diabetes mellitus by routine testing of blood glucose, testing for impaired glucose tolerance may be considered in distal symmetric sensory polyneuropathy (Level C). 2. Genetic testing is established as useful for the accurate diagnosis and classification of hereditary neuropathies (Level A). Genetic testing may be considered in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level C). Initial genetic testing should be guided by the clinical phenotype, inheritance pattern, and electrodiagnostic (EDX) features and should focus on the most common abnormalities which are CMT1A duplication/HNPP deletion, Cx32 (GJB1), and MFN2 mutation screening. There is insufficient evidence to determine the usefulness of routine genetic testing in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who do not exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level U).

Practice parameter: the evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy (an evidence-based review). Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy. METHODS: A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based upon the level of evidence. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Autonomic testing may be considered in the evaluation of patients with polyneuropathy to document autonomic nervous system dysfunction (Level B). Such testing should be considered especially for the evaluation of suspected autonomic neuropathy (Level B) and distal small fiber sensory polyneuropathy (SFSN) (Level C). A battery of validated tests is recommended to achieve the highest diagnostic accuracy (Level B). 2. Nerve biopsy is generally accepted as useful in the evaluation of certain neuropathies as in patients with suspected amyloid neuropathy, mononeuropathy multiplex due to vasculitis, or with atypical forms of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). However, the literature is insufficient to provide a recommendation regarding when a nerve biopsy may be useful in the evaluation of DSP (Level U). 3. Skin biopsy is a validated technique for determining intraepidermal nerve fiber (IENF) density and may be considered for the diagnosis of DSP, particularly SFSN (Level C). There is a need for additional prospective studies to define more exact guidelines for the evaluation of polyneuropathy.

Proof of concept studies for tissue-protective agents in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable interest in tissue-protective treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS AND OBJECTIVES: We convened a group of MS clinical trialists and related researchers to discuss designs for proof of concept studies utilizing currently available data and assessment methods. RESULTS: Our favored design was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of active treatment versus placebo focusing on changes in brain volume from a post-baseline scan (3-6 months after starting treatment) to the final visit 1 year later. Study designs aimed at reducing residual deficits following acute exacerbations are less straightforward, depending greatly on the anticipated rapidity of treatment effect onset. CONCLUSIONS: The next step would be to perform one or more studies of potential tissue-protective agents with these designs in mind, creating the longitudinal data necessary to refine endpoint selection, eligibility criteria, and sample size estimates for future trials.

A phenomenological one-parameter equation of state for osmotic pressures of PEG and other neutral flexible polymers in good solvents.

We present a phenomenological one-parameter scaling equation of state that accurately represents osmotic pressures of neutral flexible polymers in good solvents from the dilute through the semidilute regime. The equation comprises a sum of scaled van't Hoff and des Cloizeaux terms including a fitted parameter alpha, the "crossover index", which encapsulates all chemical specificity and determines the relevant prefactors. Strikingly different values of alpha are found for the two very different systems poly(ethyleneglycol)/water (PEG) and poly(alpha-methylstyrene)/toluene (PAMS). Alpha-dependent rescaling collapses both data sets to a simple one-parameter scaling function. The fact that the anomalous system PEG/water and the canonical system PAMS/toluene can both be described by the same equation of state attests to the robustness of the polymer-scaling concepts introduced by de Gennes.

Results of the Avonex Combination Trial (ACT) in relapsing-remitting MS.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of interferon beta-1a (IFNbeta-1a) combined with methotrexate (MTX), i.v. methylprednisolone (IVMP), or both in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) with continued disease activity on IFNbeta-1a monotherapy. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included RRMS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score 0-5.5, and > or = 1 relapse or gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesion in the prior year on IFNbeta-1a monotherapy. Participants continued weekly IFNbeta-1a 30 microg i.m. and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to adjunctive weekly placebo or MTX 20 mg p.o., with or without bimonthly IVMP 1,000 mg/day for 3 days. The primary endpoint was new or enlarged T2 lesion number at month 12 vs baseline. The study was industry-supported, collaboratively designed, and governed by an investigator Steering Committee with independent Advisory and Data Safety Monitoring committees. Study operations, MRI analyses, and aggregated data were managed by an academic coordinating center. RESULTS: The 313 participants had clinical and MRI characteristics typical of RRMS. Combinations of IFNbeta-1a with MTX or IVMP were generally safe and well tolerated. Although trends suggesting modest benefit were seen for some outcomes for IVMP, the results did not demonstrate significant benefit for either adjunctive therapy. The data suggested IVMP reduced anti-IFNbeta neutralizing antibody titers. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not demonstrate benefit of adding low-dose oral methotrexate or every other month IV methylprednisolone to interferon beta-1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Practice Parameter: evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: role of laboratory and genetic testing (an evidence-based review). Report of the American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of laboratory and genetic tests for the assessment of DSP. METHODS: A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based upon the level of evidence. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Screening laboratory tests may be considered for all patients with polyneuropathy (Level C). Those tests that provide the highest yield of abnormality are blood glucose, serum B12 with metabolites (methylmalonic acid with or without homocysteine), and serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis (Level C). If there is no definite evidence of diabetes mellitus by routine testing of blood glucose, testing for impaired glucose tolerance may be considered in distal symmetric sensory polyneuropathy (Level C). 2) Genetic testing should be conducted for the accurate diagnosis and classification of hereditary neuropathies (Level A). Genetic testing may be considered in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level C). Initial genetic testing should be guided by the clinical phenotype, inheritance pattern, and electrodiagnostic features and should focus on the most common abnormalities which are CMT1A duplication/HNPP deletion, Cx32 (GJB1), and MFN2 mutation screening. There is insufficient evidence to determine the usefulness of routine genetic testing in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who do not exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level U).

Practice Parameter: evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy (an evidence-based review). Report of the American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy. METHODS: A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based upon the level of evidence. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Autonomic testing should be considered in the evaluation of patients with polyneuropathy to document autonomic nervous system dysfunction (Level B). Such testing should be considered especially for the evaluation of suspected autonomic neuropathy (Level B) and distal small fiber sensory polyneuropathy (SFSN) (Level C). A battery of validated tests is recommended to achieve the highest diagnostic accuracy (Level B). 2) Nerve biopsy is generally accepted as useful in the evaluation of certain neuropathies as in patients with suspected amyloid neuropathy, mononeuropathy multiplex due to vasculitis, or with atypical forms of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). However, the literature is insufficient to provide a recommendation regarding when a nerve biopsy may be useful in the evaluation of DSP (Level U). 3) Skin biopsy is a validated technique for determining intraepidermal nerve fiber density and may be considered for the diagnosis of DSP, particularly SFSN (Level C). There is a need for additional prospective studies to define more exact guidelines for the evaluation of polyneuropathy.

Evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: the role of laboratory and genetic testing (an evidence-based review).

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of laboratory and genetic tests for the assessment of DSP. A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based on the level of evidence. (1) Screening laboratory tests may be considered for all patients with polyneuropathy (Level C). Those tests that provide the highest yield of abnormality are blood glucose, serum B(12) with metabolites (methylmalonic acid with or without homocysteine), and serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis (Level C). If there is no definite evidence of diabetes mellitus by routine testing of blood glucose, testing for impaired glucose tolerance may be considered in distal symmetric sensory polyneuropathy (Level C). (2) Genetic testing is established as useful for the accurate diagnosis and classification of hereditary neuropathies (Level A). Genetic testing may be considered in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level C). Initial genetic testing should be guided by the clinical phenotype, inheritance pattern, and electrodiagnostic (EDX) features and should focus on the most common abnormalities, which are CMT1A duplication/HNPP deletion, Cx32 (GJB1), and MFN2 mutation screening. There is insufficient evidence to determine the usefulness of routine genetic testing in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who do not exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level U).

Evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy (an evidence-based review).

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy. A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based on the level of evidence. (1) Autonomic testing may be considered in the evaluation of patients with polyneuropathy to document autonomic nervous system dysfunction (Level B). Such testing should be considered especially for the evaluation of suspected autonomic neuropathy (Level B) and distal small fiber sensory polyneuropathy (SFSN) (Level C). A battery of validated tests is recommended to achieve the highest diagnostic accuracy (Level B). (2) Nerve biopsy is generally accepted as useful in the evaluation of certain neuropathies as in patients with suspected amyloid neuropathy, mononeuropathy multiplex due to vasculitis, or with atypical forms of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). However, the literature is insufficient to provide a recommendation regarding when a nerve biopsy may be useful in the evaluation of DSP (Level U). (3) Skin biopsy is a validated technique for determining intraepidermal nerve fiber (IENF) density and may be considered for the diagnosis of DSP, particularly SFSN (Level C). There is a need for additional prospective studies to define more exact guidelines for the evaluation of polyneuropathy.

Differential diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis: a consensus approach.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) requires exclusion of diseases that could better explain the clinical and paraclinical findings. A systematic process for exclusion of alternative diagnoses has not been defined. An International Panel of MS experts developed consensus perspectives on MS differential diagnosis. METHODS: Using available literature and consensus, we developed guidelines for MS differential diagnosis, focusing on exclusion of potential MS mimics, diagnosis of common initial isolated clinical syndromes, and differentiating between MS and non-MS idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating diseases. RESULTS: We present recommendations for 1) clinical and paraclinical red flags suggesting alternative diagnoses to MS; 2) more precise definition of "clinically isolated syndromes" (CIS), often the first presentations of MS or its alternatives; 3) algorithms for diagnosis of three common CISs related to MS in the optic nerves, brainstem, and spinal cord; and 4) a classification scheme and diagnosis criteria for idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating disorders of the central nervous system. CONCLUSIONS: Differential diagnosis leading to MS or alternatives is complex and a strong evidence base is lacking. Consensus-determined guidelines provide a practical path for diagnosis and will be useful for the non-MS specialist neurologist. Recommendations are made for future research to validate and support these guidelines. Guidance on the differential diagnosis process when MS is under consideration will enhance diagnostic accuracy and precision.

Dose comparison trial of sustained-release fampridine in multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of three different doses of sustained-release fampridine in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHOD: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study recruited 206 participants at 24 centers in the United States and Canada. After a single-blind, 2-week placebo run-in, participants were randomly assigned to receive fampridine (10, 15, or 20 mg twice daily) or placebo for 15 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was percent change in walking speed based on the timed 25-foot walk. RESULTS: Trends for increased walking speed were consistent across dose groups vs placebo, but not significant, on the prospective analysis. An increase from baseline in lower extremity strength during the 12-week stable-dose period was seen in the groups receiving 10- and 15-mg doses, compared with placebo (p = 0.018 and 0.003). There were no significant changes in other secondary assessments. Post hoc analysis revealed subsets of participants in each dose group with walking speeds during the treatment period that were consistently faster than during the nontreatment period. There were significantly more "consistent responders" in the drug-treated groups than in the placebo group (36.7% compared with 8.5%). Consistent responders showed significantly greater improvement in self-assessed ambulation on the 12-Item MS Walking Scale than did nonresponders. Fampridine was generally well tolerated. Severe and serious adverse events were more frequent at the highest dose. CONCLUSIONS: This phase 2 study suggests that a subgroup of patients, when treated with fampridine, experiences a clinically relevant improvement in walking ability, which is sustained for at least 14 weeks.