The Movement Disorder Society Criteria: Its Clinical Usefulness in Multiple System Atrophy

• Published in: Internal Medicine Vol. 63; no. 21; pp. 3275-23 - 2912
• Main Authors: Tarisawa, Monami, Matsushima, Masaaki, Kudo, Akihiko, Sakushima, Ken, Kanatani, Yasuhiro, Nishimoto, Naoki, Sawada, Jun, Matsuoka, Takeshi, Hisahara, Shin, Uesugi, Haruo, Minami, Naoya, Sako, Kazuya, Takei, Asako, Tamakoshi, Akiko, Sato, Norihiro, Sasaki, Hidenao, Yabe, Ichiro, group, HoRC-MSA study
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Japan The Japanese Society of Internal Medicine 01.11.2024
• Subjects: clinical assessment; Multiple System Atrophy; Second consensus statement; The Movement Disorder Society Criteria; usefulness; utility; usefulness; The Movement Disorder Society Criteria; utility; clinical assessment; Multiple System Atrophy; Second consensus statement
• ISSN: 0918-2918; 1349-7235; 1349-7235
• DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.3275-23

Objective In 2022, Wenning et al. proposed the Movement Disorder Society Criteria (MDS Criteria) for the Diagnosis of Multiple System Atrophy (MSA). These criteria were expected to provide useful alternatives to the second consensus statement. We examined trends in these diagnostic criteria. Methods We used patient data registered with the Hokkaido Rare Disease Consortium for Multiple System Atrophy, which has been recruiting patients with MSA through medical facilities in Hokkaido since November 2014. Patients were evaluated according to the MDS criteria based on neurological examinations and imaging findings at three separate times: the first evaluation, the time of enrollment (diagnosis), and the most recent evaluation (final evaluation). Results The MDS criteria were examined in 68 of 244 patients enrolled between November 2014 and July 2022. At the initial evaluation, the classifications were as follows: clinically established (n=27; 39.7%); clinically probable (n=13; 19.1%); possible prodromal (n=12; 17.6%); and negative (did not meet criteria (n=16; 23.5%). At the time of diagnosis, the classifications were as follows: clinically established (n=45; 66.2%); clinically probable (n=12; 17.6%); possible prodromal (n=4; 5.9%); and negative (n=7; 10.3%). At the final evaluation, the classifications were as follows: clinically established (n=52; 76.5%); clinically probable (n=9; 13.2%); possible prodromal (n=2; 2.9%); and negative (n=5; 7.4%). Conclusions We were able to clarify the changes in the criteria values and transition of patients due to the clarification of imaging and supportive findings in the MDS criteria.