Consensus for the Early Identification of Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis in Portugal: a Delphi Panel

Authors

  • Maria José Sá Serviço de Neurologia. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João. Porto.
  • Carlos Basílio Serviço de Neurologia. Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Algarve. Faro.
  • Carlos Capela Serviço de Neurologia. Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central. Lisboa.
  • José João Cerqueira Serviço de Neurologia. Hospital de Braga. Braga.
  • Irene Mendes Serviço de Neurologia. Hospital Garcia de Orta. Almada.
  • Armando Morganho Serviço de Neurologia. Hospital Dr. Nélio Mendonça. Funchal.
  • João Correia de Sá Serviço de Neurologia. Hospital de Santa Maria. Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Norte. Lisboa.
  • Vasco Salgado Serviço de Neurologia. Hospital Professor Doutor Fernando Fonseca. Amadora.
  • Ana Martins Silva Serviço de Neurologia. Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto. Porto.
  • José Vale Serviço de Neurologia. Hospital Beatriz Ângelo. Loures.
  • Lívia Sousa Serviço de Neurologia. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra. Coimbra.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.18543

Keywords:

Consensus, Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive/diagnosis, Portugal

Abstract

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis is a disease with a heterogeneous evolution. The early identification of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis is a clinical challenge, which would benefit from the definition of biomarkers and diagnostic tools applicable in the transition phase from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. We aimed to reach a Portuguese national consensus on the monitoring of patients with multiple sclerosis and on the more relevant clinical variables for the early identification of its progression.
Material and Methods: A Delphi panel which included eleven Portuguese Neurologists participated in two rounds of questions between July and August of 2021. In the first round, 39 questions which belonged to the functional, cognitive, imaging, biomarkers and additional evaluations were included. Questions for which no consensus was obtained in the first round (less than 80% of agreement), were appraised by the panel during the second round.
Results: The response rate was 100% in both rounds and consensus was reached for a total of 33 questions (84.6%). Consensus was reached for monitoring time, evaluation scales and clinical variables such as the degree of brain atrophy and mobility reduction, changes suggestive of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Additionally, digital devices were considered tools with potential to identify disease progression. Most questions for which no consensus was obtained referred to the cognitive assessment and the remaining referred to both functional and imaging domains.
Conclusion: Consensus was obtained for the determination of the monitorization interval and for most of the clinical variables. Most questions that did not reach consensus were related with the confirmation of progression taking into account only one test/domain, reinforcing the multifactorial nature of multiple sclerosis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Branco M, Alves I, Martins da Silva A, Pinheiro J, Sá MJ, Correia I, et al. The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in the entre Douro e Vouga region of northern Portugal: a multisource population-based study. BMC Neurol. 2020;20:195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-01755-8

de Sá J, Alcalde-Cabero E, Almazán-Isla J, Sempere A, de Pedro-Cuesta J. Capture-recapture as a potentially useful procedure for assessing prevalence of multiple sclerosis: methodologic exercise using Portuguese data. Neuroepidemiology. 2012;38:209-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000337534

De Sá J, Paulos A, Mendes H, Becho J, Marques J, Roxo J. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the District of Santarém, Portugal. J Neurol. 2006;253:914-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-006-0132-0

Figueiredo J, Silva Â, Cerqueira JJ, Fonseca J, Pereira PA. MS prevalence and patients’ characteristics in the District of Braga, Portugal. Neurol Res Int. 2015;2015:895163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/895163

Lopes P, Martins A, Lopes J. Incidence, prevalence and characteristics of MS in São Miguel, an island in the Atlantic. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;44:102254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2020.102254

Scott LJ. Siponimod: a review in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2020;34:1191-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-020-00771-z

Walton C, King R, Rechtman L, Kaye W, Leray E, Marrie RA, et al. Rising prevalence of multiple sclerosis worldwide: insights from the Atlas of MS, third edition. Mult Scler. 2020;26:1816-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458520970841

Sá MJ, Sequeira L, Ferro D, Marcolino A, Rocha AL, Seabra M, et al. Natural history of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in a long-lasting cohort from a tertiary MS centre in Portugal. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2021;54:103091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2021.103091

Sá MJ. Physiopathology of symptoms and signs in multiple sclerosis. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2012;70:733-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-282X2012000900016

Carlsson H, Abujrais S, Herman S, Khoonsari PE, Åkerfeldt T, Svenningsson A, et al. Targeted metabolomics of CSF in healthy individuals and patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using high-resolution mass spectrometry. Metabolomics. 2020;16:26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-020-1648-5

Inojosa H, Proschmann U, Akgün K, Ziemssen T. A focus on secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS): challenges in diagnosis and definition. J Neurol. 2021;268:1210-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09489-5

Seccia R, Romano S, Salvetti M, Crisanti A, Palagi L, Grassi F. Machine learning use for prognostic purposes in multiple sclerosis. Life. 2021;11:122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life11020122

Oh J, Alikhani K, Bruno T, Devonshire V, Giacomini PS, Giuliani F, et al. Diagnosis and management of secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis: time for change. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2019;9:301-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/nmt-2019-0024

Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:376-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376

Lallana JM, Casanova B, Rodriguez-Antiguedad A, Eichau S, Izquierdo G, Durán C, et al. Consensus on early detection of disease progression in patients with multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol. 2022;13:931014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.931014

Katz Sand I, Krieger S, Farrell C, Miller AE. Diagnostic uncertainty during the transition to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2014;20:1654-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458514521517

Meyer-Moock S, Feng YS, Maeurer M, Dippel FW, Kohlmann T. Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2014;14:58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-14-58

Meca-Lallana V, Berenguer-Ruiz L, Carreres-Polo J, Eichau-Madueño S, Ferrer-Lozano J, Forero L, et al. Deciphering multiple sclerosis progression. Front Neurol. 2021;12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.608491

Lorscheider J, Buzzard K, Jokubaitis V, Spelman T, Havrdova E, Horakova D, et al. Defining secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2016;139:2395-405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww173

Fambiatos A, Jokubaitis V, Horakova D, Kubala Havrdova E, Trojano M, Prat A, et al. Risk of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. Mult Scler. 2020;26:79-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458519868990

Halabchi F, Alizadeh Z, Sahraian MA, Abolhasani M. Exercise prescription for patients with multiple sclerosis; potential benefits and practical recommendations. BMC Neurol. 2017;17:185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-017-0960-9

Macías Islas MÁ, Ciampi E. Assessment and impact of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: an overview. Biomedicines. 2019;7:22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines7010022

DiGiuseppe G, Blair M, Morrow SA. Short report: prevalence of cognitive impairment in newly diagnosed relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2018;20:153-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2017-029

Sumowski JF, Chiaravalloti N, Leavitt VM, Deluca J. Cognitive reserve in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2012;18:1454-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458512440205

Benedict RH, DeLuca J, Phillips G, LaRocca N, Hudson LD, Rudick R. Validity of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test as a cognition performance outcome measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2017;23:721-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458517690821

Koch MW, Mostert J, Repovic P, Bowen JD, Uitdehaag B, Cutter G. Is the Symbol Digit Modalities Test a useful outcome in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis? Eur J Neurol. 2021;28:2115-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.14732

Benedict RH, Tomic D, Cree BA, Fox R, Giovannoni G, Bar-Or A, et al. Siponimod and cognition in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. EXPAND secondary analyses. Neurology. 2021;96:e376-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000011275

Langdon DW, Amato MP, Boringa J, Brochet B, Foley F, Fredrikson S, et al. Recommendations for a Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS). Mult Scler. 2012;18:891-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458511431076

Genovese AV, Hagemeier J, Bergsland N, Jakimovski D, Dwyer MG, Ramasamy DP, et al. Atrophied brain T2 lesion volume at MRI is associated with disability progression and conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Radiology. 2019;293:424-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190306

Ziemssen T, Tolley C, Bennett B, Kilgariff S, Jones E, Pike J, et al. A mixed methods approach towards understanding key disease characteristics associated with the progression from RRMS to SPMS: physicians’ and patients’ views. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;38:101861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2019.101861

Trip SA, Miller DH. Imaging in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:iii11-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.073213

Cantó E, Barro C, Zhao C, Caillier SJ, Michalak Z, Bove R, et al. Association between serum neurofilament light chain levels and long-term disease course among patients with multiple sclerosis followed up for 12 years. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76:1359-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2137

Mattioli F, Bellomi F, Stampatori C, Mariotto S, Ferrari S, Monaco S, et al. Longitudinal serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) concentration relates to cognitive function in multiple sclerosis patients. J Neurol. 2020;267:2245-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-020-09832-1

Leppert D, Kropshofer H, Häring DA, Dahlke F, Patil A, Meinert R, et al. Blood neurofilament light in progressive multiple sclerosis: post hoc analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials. Neurology. 2022;98:e2120-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000200258

Hanson JV, Lukas SC, Pless M, Schippling S. Optical coherence tomography in multiple sclerosis. Semin Neurol. 2016;36:177-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1582226

Sá MJ. Psychological aspects of multiple sclerosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2008;110:868-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2007.10.001

Published

2023-02-03

How to Cite

1.
Sá MJ, Basílio C, Capela C, Cerqueira JJ, Mendes I, Morganho A, Correia de Sá J, Salgado V, Martins Silva A, Vale J, Sousa L. Consensus for the Early Identification of Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis in Portugal: a Delphi Panel. Acta Med Port [Internet]. 2023 Feb. 3 [cited 2024 Jun. 21];36(3):167-73. Available from: https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/18543

Issue

Section

Original