Until 2018, the 2010 McDonald criteria were the most widely used criteria in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), defining dissemination in space (DIS) and time (DIT).1 In the evaluation of DIS and DIT, clinical and MRI findings are taken into account.1 Considering new scientific insights and advances in diagnostic techniques, two adaptations of the 2010 McDonald criteria were published in short sequence: (1) the 2017 McDonald criteria and (2) the 2016 MAGNIMS criteria.2,3 In predicting the conversion from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) to clinically definite MS (CDMS), the 2016 MAGNIMS and 2010 McDonald criteria demonstrated similar sensitivity and specificity.4 In contrast, the 2017 McDonald criteria demonstrated a higher sensitivity but a lower specificity than the 2010 McDonald criteria.5,6 Considering the recency of the publication of the 2017 McDonald criteria, the prediction of conversion to MS and CDMS using this set of criteria has not yet been compared to the 2016 MAGNIMS criteria. Therefore, it is our aim to assess and compare the predictive properties of conversion to MS and CDMS by retrospectively applying the 2017 McDonald and the 2016 MAGNIMS criteria to a single-centre cohort of patients diagnosed with CIS according to the 2010 McDonald criteria. Furthermore, we evaluate the influence of modifications and differences between the 2017 McDonald and the 2016 MAGNIMS criteria on the prediction of conversion to MS and CDMS.
In total, 153 patients who had been diagnosed with CIS according to the 2010 McDonald criteria were retrospectively identified by screening medical records from the neurologic department of the Bern University Hospital (Switzerland) for the diagnosis ‘clinically isolated syndrome’. This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee (ethic registration no. KEK-BE 2017-01369). The committee waived informed consent due to the large sample size and the retrospective nature of the study. Patients who did not convert to MS or CDMS and also had a follow-up duration of less than 3 months were excluded, which resulted in a study cohort of 127 patients. We evaluated whether at the time point of CIS diagnosis patients already fulfilled the following sets of diagnostic criteria: (1) 2017 McDonald criteria; (2) 2017 McDonald criteria including the optic nerve as an additional location for the demonstration of DIS; (3) 2017 McDonald criteria requiring ⩾3 periventricular lesions for the definition of periventricular involvement; (4) 2016 MAGNIMS criteria; and (5) 2016 MAGNIMS criteria including cerebrospinal fluid-specific oligoclonal bands (OCB) as an additional substitute for demonstration of DIT as OCBs are an independent risk factor for an additional clinical episode in patients with CIS.7,8 The MRI protocol is described in the supplement. CIS patients were followed up until conversion to MS and CDMS, or in non-converters for a maximum of 5 years. Conversion to MS was defined either (1) as a relapse lasting more than 24 h and occurring at least 1 month after the first clinical event with evidence of two different lesions; or (2) as a new T2-hyperintense or new Gd-enhancing MRI lesion fulfilling DIS and DIT criteria and being attributable to demyelination.4 In contrast, conversion to CDMS exclusively followed the clinical relapse definition.
Sensitivity and specificity are presented as mean and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and were calculated using VassarStats (Poughkeepsie, NY, USA). To generate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), Cox regression analyses were performed separately for each of the five diagnostic criteria using SPSS 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The setup of the Cox regression analysis consisted of the duration until MS or CDMS conversion as the outcome variable and the following independent variables: the respective set of diagnostic criteria, age, sex, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and immunotherapy.
The baseline characteristics are presented in the supplementary table. In total, 67/127 (52.8%) patients converted to MS after a median of 1.1 years (25th–75th: 0.6–2.1). Conversion to CDMS was less frequent (40/127; 31.5%) and occurred after a median of 0.9 years (25th–75th: 0.5–2.0). From the five different sets of diagnostic criteria, the 2017 McDonald criteria had the highest sensitivity for predicting the conversion to MS and CDMS at 0.89 (95% CI: 0.78–0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69–0.94), respectively (Table 1). Individual modifications did not improve the predictive performance of the 2017 McDonald criteria (Tables 1 and 2). The 2016 MAGNIMS criteria were more specific than the 2017 McDonald criteria. However, specificity of all five sets of criteria was ⩽0.50 regarding the conversion to MS or CDMS (Table 1). The Cox regression analysis, which was adjusted for the influence of age, sex, EDSS score, and immunotherapy, confirmed the predictive value of the 2017 McDonald criteria for the conversion from CIS to MS (aHR: 3.27 (95% CI: 1.42– 7.55), p = 0.005; Table 2). Using Cox regression analysis to assess the prediction of converting to CDMS, resulted in no significant results for all five sets of criteria (Table 2).
Table 1.
Sensitivity and specificity analysis of conversion to MS and CDMS.
| Conversion to MS and CDMS* | Value | 95% CI | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 McDonald → MS | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.89 | 0.78–0.95 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.31 | 0.20–0.44 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald → CDMS | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.85 | 0.69–0.94 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.23 | 0.15–0.33 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald + optic nerve involvement → MS | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.89 | 0.78–0.95 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.26 | 0.16–0.39 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald + optic nerve involvement → CDMS | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.85 | 0.69–0.94 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.20 | 0.12–0.30 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald + ⩾3 periventricular lesions → MS | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.78 | 0.66–0.87 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.35 | 0.24–0.49 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald + ⩾3 periventricular lesions → CDMS | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.70 | 0.53–0.83 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.28 | 0.19–0.38 | 127 |
| 2016 MAGNIMS → MS | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.6 | 0.47–0.72 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.5 | 0.37–0.63 | 127 |
| 2016 MAGNIMS → CDMS | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.55 | 0.39–0.70 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.45 | 0.34–0.56 | 127 |
| 2016 MAGNIMS + OCBs → MS | |||
| Sensitivity |
0.83 | 0.71–0.91 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.27 | 0.17–0.40 | 127 |
| 2016 MAGNIMS + OCBs → CDMS | |||
| Sensitivity |
0.78 | 0.61–0.89 | 127 |
| Specificity | 0.22 | 0.14–0.32 | 127 |
: Conversion to MS was defined using clinical and MRI parameters. Conversion to CDMS was defined using clinical parameters only (see methods section).
95% CI, 95% confidence interval; CDMS, clinically definite multiple sclerosis; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MS, multiple sclerosis; OCB, oligoclonal band.
Table 2.
Cox regression analysis of conversion to MS and CDMS.
| aHR | 95% CI | p value | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cox regression analysis of conversion to MS* | ||||
| 2017 McDonald | 3.27 | 1.42–7.55 | 0.005 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald + optic nerve involvement | 2.89 | 1.24–6.71 | 0.014 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald + ⩾3 periventricular lesions | 2.19 | 1.14–4.18 | 0.005 | 127 |
| 2016 MAGNIMS | 1.45 | 0.87–2.41 | 0.15 | 127 |
| 2016 MAGNIMS + OCBs | 1.78 | 0.89–3.59 | 0.11 | 127 |
| Cox regression analysis of conversion to CDMS* | ||||
| 2017 McDonald | 1.82 | 0.73–4.56 | 0.20 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald + optic nerve involvement | 1.65 | 0.66–4.16 | 0.29 | 127 |
| 2017 McDonald + ⩾3 periventricular lesions | 1.12 | 0.54–2.33 | 0.77 | 127 |
| 2016 MAGNIMS | 1.00 | 0.54–1.89 | 0.98 | 127 |
| 2016 MAGNIMS + OCBs | 1.09 | 0.49–2.41 | 0.84 | 127 |
: Cox regression analysis was adjusted for age, sex, immunotherapy, and EDSS score. 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CDMS, clinically definite multiple sclerosis; EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale; MS, multiple sclerosis; OCB, oligoclonal band.
In a large single-centre cohort of patients diagnosed with CIS according to the 2010 McDonald criteria, we demonstrated that the 2017 McDonald criteria had the highest sensitivity and the highest aHR for predicting the conversion to MS in comparison to the 2016 MAGNIMS and three combined diagnostic criteria (2017 McDonald criteria including optic nerve; 2017 McDonald criteria requiring ⩾3 periventricular lesions; 2016 MAGNIMS criteria including OCBs). Interestingly, when considering the conversion to CDMS, none of the five criteria sets demonstrated significant findings in the Cox regression analyses. This finding may be explained primarily by the lower number of patients converting to CDMS (n = 40) than MS (n = 67), and the rather short median follow-up duration of 2 years in non-CDMS converters. In contrast to the Cox regression analysis, the calculation of sensitivity and specificity was not adjusted for age, sex, EDSS score, and immunotherapy. From these parameters, especially the high number of patients treated with immunotherapy after CIS diagnosis (68/127) might have influenced the analysis. Other weaknesses of our study are the retrospective design, the incomplete spinal cord MRI data and the two different scanners used for MRI acquisition (see supplemental material). In comparison with other recently published studies investigating the diagnostic value of the 2017 McDonald criteria,9–11 which demonstrated more frequent and even earlier diagnosis of MS if the 2017 McDonald criteria were used, our study highlighted differences in diagnostic accuracy between the 2017 McDonald criteria, the 2016 MAGNIMS criteria, and the respective modifications of these criteria. Our research contributes to a better understanding of how different modifications of MS diagnostic criteria affect their diagnostic properties.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material, Therapeutic_advances_CIS_Supplementary_table for Prediction of conversion to multiple sclerosis using the 2017 McDonald and 2016 MAGNIMS criteria in patients with clinically isolated syndrome: a retrospective single-centre study by Andrei Miclea, Anke Salmen, Roland Wiest, Greta Zoehner, Franca Wagner, Andreas Hoepner, Lisa Schrewe, Maria Eleftheria Evangelopoulos, Nicole Kamber, Andrew Chan and Robert Hoepner in Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material, Therapeutic_advances_CIS_Supplementary_text for Prediction of conversion to multiple sclerosis using the 2017 McDonald and 2016 MAGNIMS criteria in patients with clinically isolated syndrome: a retrospective single-centre study by Andrei Miclea, Anke Salmen, Roland Wiest, Greta Zoehner, Franca Wagner, Andreas Hoepner, Lisa Schrewe, Maria Eleftheria Evangelopoulos, Nicole Kamber, Andrew Chan and Robert Hoepner in Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders
Footnotes
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not for-profit sectors.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest in preparing this article.
Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.
ORCID iD: Robert Hoepner 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0115-7021
Contributor Information
Andrei Miclea, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland.
Anke Salmen, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Roland Wiest, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Greta Zoehner, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Franca Wagner, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Andreas Hoepner, Banking & Finance Group, Michael Smurfit, Graduate Business School & UCD Lochlann Quinn School of Business, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Lisa Schrewe, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Maria Eleftheria Evangelopoulos, Department of Neurology, Eginition University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Nicole Kamber, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Andrew Chan, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Robert Hoepner, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
References
- 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. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Filippi M, Rocca MA, Ciccarelli O, et al. MRI criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines. Lancet Neurol 2016; 15: 292–303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17: 162–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Filippi M, Preziosa P, Meani A, et al. Prediction of a multiple sclerosis diagnosis in patients with clinically isolated syndrome using the 2016 MAGNIMS and 2010 McDonald criteria: a retrospective study. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17: 133–142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Van der Vuurst de Vries RM, Mescheriakova JY, Wong YYM, et al. Application of the 2017 revised McDonald criteria for multiple sclerosis to patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome. JAMA Neurol 2018; 75 : 1392–1398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Hyun JW, Kim W, Huh SY, et al. Application of the 2017 McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis in Korean patients with clinically isolated syndrome. Mult Scler J. Epub ahead of print 25 June 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1352458518790702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Kuhle J, Disanto G, Dobson R, et al. Conversion from clinically isolated syndrome to multiple sclerosis: a large multicentre study. Mult Scler 2015; 21: 1013–1024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Tintore M, Rovira A, Rio J, et al. Defining high, medium and low impact prognostic factors for developing multiple sclerosis. Brain 2015; 138: 1863–1874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Lee DH, Peschke M, Utz KS, et al. Diagnostic value of the 2017 McDonald criteria in patients with a first demyelinating event suggestive of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. Epub ahead of print 1 December 2018. DOI: 10.1111/ene.13853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Gaetani L, Peosperini L, Mancini A, et al. 2017 revision of McDonald criteria shorten the time to diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in clinically isolated syndromes. J Neurol 2018; 265: 2684–2687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. van der Vuurst de Vries RM, Mescheriakova JY, Wong YYM, et al. Application of the 2017 revised McDonald criteria for multiple sclerosis to patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome. JAMA Neurology 2018; 75: 1392–1398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental material, Therapeutic_advances_CIS_Supplementary_table for Prediction of conversion to multiple sclerosis using the 2017 McDonald and 2016 MAGNIMS criteria in patients with clinically isolated syndrome: a retrospective single-centre study by Andrei Miclea, Anke Salmen, Roland Wiest, Greta Zoehner, Franca Wagner, Andreas Hoepner, Lisa Schrewe, Maria Eleftheria Evangelopoulos, Nicole Kamber, Andrew Chan and Robert Hoepner in Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders
Supplemental material, Therapeutic_advances_CIS_Supplementary_text for Prediction of conversion to multiple sclerosis using the 2017 McDonald and 2016 MAGNIMS criteria in patients with clinically isolated syndrome: a retrospective single-centre study by Andrei Miclea, Anke Salmen, Roland Wiest, Greta Zoehner, Franca Wagner, Andreas Hoepner, Lisa Schrewe, Maria Eleftheria Evangelopoulos, Nicole Kamber, Andrew Chan and Robert Hoepner in Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders