4.5 Article

Implications of the International Paediatric Multiple Sclerosis Study Group consensus criteria for paediatric acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: a nationwide validation study

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 11, Pages 1123-1131

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13798

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Danish MS Society
  2. Teva
  3. Genzyme
  4. Novartis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimThe International Paediatric Multiple Sclerosis Study Group (IPMSSG) has proposed criteria for acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) not evaluated in clinical practice. Our objective was to assess epidemiological implications of the IPMSSG criteria for ADEM in a cohort study using prospectively collected data. MethodWe identified all diagnosed cases of ADEM in Denmark between 2008 and 2015 from the Danish National Patient Register by International Classification of Diseases 10 codes assigned to acute demyelinating episodes, and we reviewed all medical records to validate ADEM. ResultsWe found 52 children up to the age of 18 years with a verified clinical diagnosis of ADEM (incidence rate 0.54/100000 person-years; all had abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging). Only 18 (35%) fulfilled the IPMSSG criteria regarding encephalopathy and polyfocal neurological deficits. Among all 52 children with ADEM, 33 per cent had clinical sequelae after a median follow-up of 4 years 6 months (range: 10mo-8y 3mo). Surprisingly, none progressed to multiphasic ADEM or multiple sclerosis, but median age at end of follow-up was only 10 years 9 months (range: 2y-24y 3mo). InterpretationAmong 52 children with ADEM, none converted to multiphasic ADEM or multiple sclerosis (median follow-up: 4y 6mo; range: 10mo-8y 3mo). Applying the IPMSSG criteria to all children with a diagnosis of ADEM leaves 65 per cent of the cases without a diagnosis and lowers the incidence rate of paediatric ADEM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available