Background and purpose: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic criteria, ancillary investigations and treatment response using real-life data in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) patients. Methods: Clinical and laboratory data were collected from 110 patients enrolled in the Italian MMN database through a structured questionnaire. Twenty-six patients were excluded due to the unavailability of nerve conduction studies or the presence of clinical signs and symptoms and electrodiagnostic abnormalities inconsistent with the MMN diagnosis. Analyses were conducted on 73 patients with a confirmed MMN diagnosis and 11 patients who did not meet the diagnostic criteria. Results: The European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society (EFNS/PNS) diagnostic criteria were variably applied. AUTHOR:When applying the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine criteria, an additional 17% of patients fulfilled the criteria for probable/definite diagnosis whilst a further 9.5% missed the diagnosis. In 17% of the patients only compound muscle action potential amplitude, but not area, was measured and subsequently recorded in the database by the treating physician. Additional investigations, including anti-GM1 immunoglobulin M antibodies, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, nerve ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, supported the diagnosis in 46%–83% of the patients. Anti-GM1 immunoglobulin M antibodies and nerve ultrasound demonstrated the highest sensitivity. Additional tests were frequently performed outside the EFNS/PNS guideline recommendations. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the real-world diagnostic and management strategies for MMN, highlighting the challenges in applying diagnostic criteria.
Assessment of diagnostic criteria for multifocal motor neuropathy in patients included in the Italian database
Filosto M.;
2024-01-01
Abstract
Background and purpose: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic criteria, ancillary investigations and treatment response using real-life data in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) patients. Methods: Clinical and laboratory data were collected from 110 patients enrolled in the Italian MMN database through a structured questionnaire. Twenty-six patients were excluded due to the unavailability of nerve conduction studies or the presence of clinical signs and symptoms and electrodiagnostic abnormalities inconsistent with the MMN diagnosis. Analyses were conducted on 73 patients with a confirmed MMN diagnosis and 11 patients who did not meet the diagnostic criteria. Results: The European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society (EFNS/PNS) diagnostic criteria were variably applied. AUTHOR:When applying the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine criteria, an additional 17% of patients fulfilled the criteria for probable/definite diagnosis whilst a further 9.5% missed the diagnosis. In 17% of the patients only compound muscle action potential amplitude, but not area, was measured and subsequently recorded in the database by the treating physician. Additional investigations, including anti-GM1 immunoglobulin M antibodies, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, nerve ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, supported the diagnosis in 46%–83% of the patients. Anti-GM1 immunoglobulin M antibodies and nerve ultrasound demonstrated the highest sensitivity. Additional tests were frequently performed outside the EFNS/PNS guideline recommendations. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the real-world diagnostic and management strategies for MMN, highlighting the challenges in applying diagnostic criteria.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
