Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: The 2013 revisions

Accurate clinical course descriptions (phenotypes) of multiple sclerosis (MS) are important for communication, prognostication, design and recruitment of clinical trials, and treatment decision-making. Standardized descriptions published in 1996 based on a survey of international MS experts provided...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurology 2014-07, Vol.83 (3), p.278-286
Hauptverfasser: Lublin, Fred D, Reingold, Stephen C, Cohen, Jeffrey A, Cutter, Gary R, Sørensen, Per Soelberg, Thompson, Alan J, Wolinsky, Jerry S, Balcer, Laura J, Banwell, Brenda, Barkhof, Frederik, Bebo, Bruce, Calabresi, Peter A, Clanet, Michel, Comi, Giancarlo, Fox, Robert J, Freedman, Mark S, Goodman, Andrew D, Inglese, Matilde, Kappos, Ludwig, Kieseier, Bernd C, Lincoln, John A, Lubetzki, Catherine, Miller, Aaron E, Montalban, Xavier, OʼConnor, Paul W, Petkau, John, Pozzilli, Carlo, Rudick, Richard A, Sormani, Maria Pia, Stüve, Olaf, Waubant, Emmanuelle, Polman, Chris H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Accurate clinical course descriptions (phenotypes) of multiple sclerosis (MS) are important for communication, prognostication, design and recruitment of clinical trials, and treatment decision-making. Standardized descriptions published in 1996 based on a survey of international MS experts provided purely clinical phenotypes based on data and consensus at that time, but imaging and biological correlates were lacking. Increased understanding of MS and its pathology, coupled with general concern that the original descriptors may not adequately reflect more recently identified clinical aspects of the disease, prompted a re-examination of MS disease phenotypes by the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of MS. While imaging and biological markers that might provide objective criteria for separating clinical phenotypes are lacking, we propose refined descriptors that include consideration of disease activity (based on clinical relapse rate and imaging findings) and disease progression. Strategies for future research to better define phenotypes are also outlined.
ISSN:0028-3878
1526-632X
DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560