Andrew Solomon on the Misdiagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis

Image result for Andrew Solomon on the Misdiagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis


Andrew Solomon is a neurologist at the University of Vermont Medical Center and an Associate Professor and Division Chief of Multiple Sclerosis in the Department of Neurological Sciences at the Larner College of Medicine at UMV. In addition to providing care for patients with MS, his research has focused on the valuation of novel methods to improve MS diagnosis.

His present projects include the investigation of novel MRI techniques and blood biomarkers for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, in collaboration with the Translational Neuroradiology Section at NINDS, Cleveland Clinic, University of Pennsylvania, Michigan State University, and Vanderbilt University.

Study of multiple sclerosis patients shows 18 percent misdiagnosed

At the doctor's office - doctor and patient
At the doctor’s office – doctor and patient


A recent study found that nearly 18 percent of patients diagnosed with multiple sclerosis before being referred to two major Los Angeles medical centers for treatment actually had been misdiagnosed with the autoimmune disease.

The retrospective study, led by investigator Marwa Kaisey, MD, along with Nancy Sicotte, MD, interim chair of Neurology and director of the Cedars-Sinai Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology Center, and researchers from UCLA and the University of Vermont, analyzed the cases of 241 patients who had been diagnosed by other physicians and then referred to the Cedars-Sinai or UCLA MS clinics over the course of a year.

Investigators sought to determine how many patients were misdiagnosed with MS, and identify common characteristics among those who had been misdiagnosed.

“The diagnosis of MS is tricky. Both the symptoms and MRI testing results can look like other conditions, such as stroke, migraines and vitamin B12 deficiency,” Kaisey said. “You have to rule out any other diagnoses, and it’s not a perfect science.”

The investigators found that many patients who came to the medical centers with a previous diagnosis of MS did not fulfill the criteria for that diagnosis. The patients spent an average of four years being treated for MS before receiving a correct diagnosis.

“When we see a patient like that, even though they come to us with an established diagnosis, we just start from the beginning,” Sicotte said.

The most common correct diagnosis was migrane (16 percent), followed by radiologically isolated syndrome, a condition in which patients do not experience symptoms of MS even though their imaging tests look similar to those of MS patients. Other correct diagnoses included spondylopathy (a disorder of the vertebrae) and neuropathy (nerve damage).

Among those misdiagnosed, 72 percent had been prescribed MS treatments. Forty-eight percent of these patients received therapies that carry a known risk of developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, a serious disease in the white matter of the brain, caused by viral infection.

“I’ve seen patients suffering side effects from the medication they were taking for a disease they didn’t have,” Kaisey said. “Meanwhile, they weren’t getting treatment for what they did have. The cost to the patient is huge–medically, psychologically, financially.”

Investigators estimated that the unnecessary treatments identified in this study alone cost almost $10 million.

The investigators hope that the results of this study, which will be published in May’s issue of the peer-reviewed journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, along with recently funded research into new biomarkers and improved imaging techniques, will help improve diagnostic procedures and help prevent future MS misdiagnoses.

Funding for the new research includes $60,000 from Cedars-Sinai Precision Health, a partnership among scientists, clinicians and industry designed to advance personalized medicine. Kaisey said that she hopes these studies will also lead to better availability of treatment for patients who do have the disease.

“The first step, which is what we’ve done here, is to identify the problem, so now we’re working on potential solutions,” she said.

Are most patients with fibromyalgia misdiagnosed?




Misdiagnosed with fibro

Misdiagnosed with fibro




Recent studies have suggested that most people who have been diagnosed with fibromyalgia by physicians may not actually have the condition. A new Arthritis Care & Research study found that overall agreement between clinicians’ diagnosis of fibromyalgia and diagnosis by published criteria is only fair.

For the study, 497 patients visiting a rheumatology clinic completed a health assessment questionnaire as well as a questionnaire that assessed fibromyalgia diagnostic variables used by the American College of Rheumatology. Patients were also evaluated and diagnosed by rheumatology clinicians.

Of the 497 patients, 121 (24.3 percent) satisfied fibromyalgia criteria while 104 (20.9 percent) received a clinician’s diagnosis of fibromyalgia. The agreement between clinicians and criteria was 79.2 percent; however, agreement beyond chance was only fair. Physicians failed to identify 60 (49.6 percent) of criteria-positive patients and incorrectly identified 43 (11.4 percent) of criteria-negative patients.




“We have recently studied the same issue in 3,000 primary care patients and found about the same results. Therefore, our conclusions are secure,” said lead author Dr. Frederick Wolfe, of the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases.

In an accompanying editorial Dr. Don Goldenberg, of Oregon Health & Science University, noted that to conclude that expert physicians often misdiagnose fibromyalgia implies that published criteria are superior to expert clinical judgement for the diagnosis of individual patients. He stressed that this fails to account for many of the variables present in clinical encounters, including time spent in evaluating and categorizing each patient’s multiple symptoms. “The diagnostic gold standard for fibromyalgia will continue to be the rheumatologist’s expert opinion, not classification criteria, no matter how well-refined and intentioned,” he wrote. “This is the only way to capture the variability and severity of inter-related symptoms as they play out over time.”