Search

Background and Purpose Methods Results Conclusions This study was undertaken to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the 2010 European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society (EFNS/PNS) diagnostic criteria for multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) with those of the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AAEM).Sensitivity and specificity of the two sets of criteria were retrospectively evaluated in 53 patients with MMN and 280 controls with axonal peripheral neuropathy, inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Comparison of the utility of nerve conduction studies with different numbers of nerves examined was also assessed.The 2010 EFNS/PNS criteria had a sensitivity of 47% for definite MMN and 57% for probable/definite MMN, whereas the AAEM criteria had a sensitivity of 28% for definite MMN and 53% for probable/definite MMN. The sensitivity of the AAEM criteria was higher when utilizing area compared to amplitude reduction to define conduction block. Using supportive criteria, the sensitivity of the 2010 EFNS/PNS criteria for probable/definite MMN increased to 64%, and an additional 36% patients fulfilled the criteria (possible MMN). Specificity values for definite and probable/definite MMN were slightly higher with the AAEM criteria (100%) compared to the EFNS/PNS criteria (98.5% and 97%). Extended nerve conduction studies yielded slightly increased diagnostic sensitivity for both sets of criteria without significantly affecting specificity.In our patient populations, the 2010 EFNS/PNS criteria demonstrated higher sensitivity but slightly lower specificity compared to the AAEM criteria. Extended nerve conduction studies are advised to achieve slightly higher sensitivity while maintaining very high specificity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: There are different criteria for the diagnosis of different variants of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). The 2021 European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society (EAN/PNS) guidelines provide specific clinical criteria for each CIDP variant even if their therapeutical impact has not been investigated. Methods: We applied the clinical criteria for CIDP variants of the 2021 EAN/PNS guidelines to 369 patients included in the Italian CIDP database who fulfilled the 2021 EAN/PNS electrodiagnostic criteria for CIDP. Results: According to the 2021 EAN/PNS clinical criteria, 245 patients achieved a clinical diagnosis of typical CIDP or CIDP variant (66%). We identified 106 patients with typical CIDP (29%), 62 distal CIDP (17%), 28 multifocal or focal CIDP (7%), four sensory CIDP (1%), 27 sensory‐predominant CIDP (7%), 10 motor CIDP (3%), and eight motor‐predominant CIDP (2%). Patients with multifocal, distal, and sensory CIDP had milder impairment and symptoms. Patients with multifocal CIDP had less frequently reduced conduction velocity and prolonged F‐wave latency and had lower levels of cerebrospinal fluid protein. Patients with distal CIDP more frequently had reduced distal compound muscle action potentials. Patients with motor CIDP did not improve after steroid therapy, whereas those with motor‐predominant CIDP did. None of the patients with sensory CIDP responded to steroids, whereas most of those with sensory‐predominant CIDP did. Conclusions: The 2021 EAN/PNS criteria for CIDP allow a better characterization of CIDP variants, permitting their distinction from typical CIDP and more appropriate treatment for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: The aim was to evaluate the risk of relapse after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) vaccination, and its safety and tolerability, in patients with chronic inflammatory neuropathies. Methods: In this multicenter, cohort and case‐crossover study, the risk of relapse associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination was assessed by comparing the frequency of relapse in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) patients who underwent or did not undergo vaccination. Frequency of relapse in the 3 months prior to and after vaccination, and safety and tolerability of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination, were also assessed. Results: In all, 336 patients were included (278 CIDP, 58 MMN). Three hundred and seven (91%) patients underwent SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination. Twenty‐nine patients (9%) did not undergo vaccination. Mild and transient relapses were observed in 16 (5%) patients (13 CIDP, 3 MMN) after SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination and in none of the patients who did not undergo vaccination (relative risk [RR] 3.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19–52.25). There was no increase in the specific risk of relapse associated with type of vaccine or diagnosis. Comparison with the 3‐month control period preceding vaccination revealed an increased risk of relapse after vaccination (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.35–11.82), which was restricted to CIDP patients (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.07–9.84). The safety profile of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination was characterized by short‐term, mild‐to‐moderate local and systemic adverse events. Conclusions: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) vaccination in CIDP and MMN patients does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of relapse at the primary end‐point, although a slightly increased risk in CIDP patients was found compared to the 3 months before vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]