Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)
    • Neurology: Clinical Practice Accelerator
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit New Manuscript
    • Submit Revised Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)
    • Neurology: Clinical Practice Accelerator
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit New Manuscript
    • Submit Revised Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology
Home
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

Share

May 22, 2001; 56 (10) Articles

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: A follow-up study of 40 adult patients

S. Schwarz, A. Mohr, M. Knauth, B. Wildemann, B. Storch–Hagenlocher
First published May 22, 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.56.10.1313
S. Schwarz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Mohr
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Knauth
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Wildemann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Storch–Hagenlocher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: A follow-up study of 40 adult patients
S. Schwarz, A. Mohr, M. Knauth, B. Wildemann, B. Storch–Hagenlocher
Neurology May 2001, 56 (10) 1313-1318; DOI: 10.1212/WNL.56.10.1313

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
4939

Share

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

Abstract

Objectives: To describe the clinical, CSF, and radiologic findings and long-term follow-up in a cohort of patients with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), and to determine possible prognostic factors for progression to MS.

Methods: Forty adults (28 women, mean age 33.5 years) diagnosed with ADEM were analyzed. Clinical symptoms, cranial MRI and CSF findings, and the response to a standardized treatment during the acute phase of the disease were analyzed by chart review. The final diagnosis of ADEM or clinically definite MS was established upon follow-up examination after 8 to 137 months. The patients with ADEM and MS were compared to detect differences between the two groups.

Results: Fifteen patients had a preceding infection (n = 14) or immunization (n = 1). The most frequent clinical signs were motor deficit (80%), followed by sensory deficits, brainstem signs, and ataxia. CSF findings were highly variable; normal results were present in 20% of patients. Oligoclonal bands were positive in 65% of patients. Ninety-five percent of all patients improved during the acute phase of the disease. Upon follow-up, 14 patients had developed clinically definite MS. Of the 26 patients with the final diagnosis of ADEM, two patients had died, nine had minor deficits, three had moderate deficits, and 12 patients had no remaining symptoms. Patients with the final diagnosis of ADEM were older, and more often had a preceding infection, clinical signs of brainstem involvement, a higher CSF albumin fraction, and infratentorial lesions.

Conclusions: Many patients initially diagnosed with ADEM develop clinically definite MS upon long-term follow-up. The authors found no useful diagnostic criteria for the differentiation of a first episode of MS from monophasic ADEM. The term ADEM may still be employed as a description of a clinical syndrome, but should not be used as a distinct entity until reliable diagnostic criteria have been developed.

Among the demyelinating diseases, MS occurs most frequently and is the best defined. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) has been described as an uncommon, acute demyelinating disorder of the CNS, typically occurring after infections or vaccinations.1 Although the pathophysiology of ADEM is not known, an autoimmune response to myelin basic protein triggered by infection or immunization is considered to be a possible etiologic factor. Thus, ADEM may be the clinical counterpart to experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE).1-3⇓⇓ In contrast to MS, ADEM is usually defined as a monophasic disease with a favorable long-term prognosis. The differentiation of ADEM from MS in a patient after a single clinical episode has prognostic and therapeutic implications because early treatment of MS may be advantageous. There are no generally accepted diagnostic criteria for ADEM; thus, distinguishing ADEM from the first episode of MS is often difficult. Moreover, cases of recurrent or multiphasic ADEM have been described.

Until now, only single case reports or small case series of patients with ADEM have been published, and most of these patients were children. Although the monophasic course of ADEM has been repeatedly emphasized, larger follow-up studies have not yet been undertaken.

We describe the presenting clinical, radiologic, and CSF findings and the long-term follow-up of adult patients initially diagnosed with ADEM to develop diagnostic criteria for the differentiation of ADEM from MS.

Patients and methods.

Patients.

Between 1988 and 1999, 42 adult patients diagnosed with ADEM were treated at the University of Heidelberg Neurologic Hospital. For follow-up examination, two patients could not be located; neither was residing in Germany. Of the remaining 40 patients, follow-up of two patients was based on chart review alone: one of these patients had died of colon cancer in the interim, and the second patient had moved after several outpatient clinic visits and could not be located.

Criteria for the initial diagnosis of ADEM.

Generally accepted diagnostic criteria for ADEM have not yet been established. Although various “typical” features have been proposed, until now, reliable clinical or radiologic signs that allow a clear distinction of ADEM from MS or other demyelinating diseases have not been identified.1,4,5⇓⇓ We have, however, defined the following operational criteria for the initial diagnosis of ADEM:

  • Clinical examination—Acute neurologic symptoms without a history of previous, unexplained neurologic symptoms. We excluded patients with transverse myelitis or unilateral optic nerve neuritis6 as the only neurologic deficit.

  • Cranial MRI—One or multiple supra- or infratentorial demyelinating lesions. Absence of “black holes” on T1-weighted MRI as a sign of a previous destructive inflammatory–demyelinating process. Because MRI abnormalities in ADEM are highly variable,4,5,7⇓⇓ more specific radiologic criteria are not available.

  • Lumbar puncture—Exclusion of CNS infection, vasculitis, or other autoimmune disease with CSF analysis, including additional serologic and microbiologic tests.

We were not able to define more specific criteria from the previously published evidence. Therefore, we re-evaluated the initial diagnosis of ADEM at the follow-up examination. The final diagnosis of ADEM was only established if there was no evidence of a second clinical episode of CNS demyelination.

Clinical evaluation at initial presentation.

The findings at initial presentation were collected by chart review. All patients with the initial diagnosis of ADEM were hospitalized. We collected the following information from the clinical evaluation upon first presentation: age, sex, history of prior neurologic disease, duration of symptoms, and history of preceding disease—particularly, infection or immunization within the last 4 weeks. From the neurologic examination, the presence of motor or sensory deficits, ataxia, brainstem symptoms, loss of consciousness, fever, seizures, aphasia, and meningism was noted. Neurologic disability was assessed using the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). In patients who continued to deteriorate after admission, we used the most severe symptoms to describe the deficits at onset of disease. The neurologic examination was repeated upon discharge and the length of hospital stay was documented.

Neuroradiologic examination.

From the study population of 40 patients, 39 were examined with cranial MRI before initiating any treatment. We also included one patient with a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of ADEM in whom a contrast-enhanced CT scan only was available. This patient presented with a fulminating course and died within a few days of admission.

Our study population was collected over a period of 11 years, and many patients referred to our institution had external MRI studies. Therefore, the MRI scans analyzed for this study were performed with various scanners, using different scanning protocols. Standard T1- and T2-weighted images were performed in all patients. In 31 patients, the initial radiologic workup also included images after IV injection of gadolinium–diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA).

We scored the following items from the T2-weighted images: total number of lesions; the presence of supratentorial, periventricular, subcortical, basal ganglia (including internal capsule), thalamus, brainstem, cerebellar, and peduncular lesions; and lesions within the corpus callosum. We analyzed the gadolinium-DTPA–enhanced T1-weighted images for the number of all enhancing lesions and the pattern of enhancement. We also tested whether Paty’s MRI criteria for MS were useful to discriminate between ADEM and MS.8 MRI results were classified as strongly suggestive of MS if 1) four lesions were present (Paty A), or 2) three lesions were present, one periventricular (Paty B).

A short-term follow-up examination during the initial treatment period was performed if a patient progressively deteriorated following admission. Because early follow-up MRI studies were not done systematically, only the first diagnostic MR images were employed for comparative analysis.

CSF examination.

Lumbar puncture was performed immediately after admission in all patients. CSF analysis included leukocyte count and cytology, and determination of total protein, albumin fraction, and levels of immunoglobulin (Ig) G, M, and A. The intrathecal synthesis of these immunoglobulins was determined according to an empirical differentiation scheme.9 Oligoclonal bands of IgG were evaluated by isoelectric focusing. Oligoclonal bands were simultaneously analyzed in serum and CSF and were considered positive if they were absent in the serum. CSF culture and an extensive microbiologic workup for bacterial and viral CNS infection were undertaken in all patients.

Treatment.

We treated all patients according to a standardized institutional protocol. The initial, standard treatment consisted of methylprednisolone 500 mg daily IV for 5 days. In patients who responded well to methylprednisolone clinically, no further therapy was employed. In patients who responded positively to methylprednisolone but in whom moderate to severe deficits persisted after the treatment period of 5 days, methylprednisolone was continued orally and slowly tapered over 4 to 6 weeks. Patients with poor response or no response or who progressively deteriorated during therapy with methylprednisolone were treated with cyclophosphamide (1 g IV, in some patients repeatedly, depending on the clinical course), or immunoglobulin (0.4 g/kg IV daily for 5 days).

Follow-up examination.

At follow-up examination, any neurologic symptom that had developed in the meantime was documented and a clinical examination was performed. Based on history and clinical evaluation, each patient was classified for the final diagnosis of either ADEM or MS. To establish the diagnosis of MS, we employed the criteria of Poser et al.10 for clinically definite MS. In 34 patients cranial MRI examination was repeated. We could not perform a follow-up MRI in six patients owing to death (n = 2), pregnancy (n = 1), and claustrophobia (n = 3).

Statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis was performed on a personal computer, using statistical software (Statview 5.0, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to determine differences between the groups of patients with MS and monophasic ADEM. Continuous variables were tested with the nonparametric Mann–Whitney test to detect differences between the groups. The level of significance (α) chosen was p < 0.05 for all statistical analyses.

The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee. Informed consent for performing additional clinical and MRI examinations and data analysis was obtained from each patient.

Results.

A total of 40 patients, 28 women and 12 men, with a mean age of 33.5 years (15 to 68 years), entered the study. The mean interval between initial presentation and follow-up examination was 38 months (8 to 137 months). At initial presentation, all patients fulfilled our criteria for ADEM. In four patients, a brain biopsy was done to exclude CNS lymphoma. In one patient, the diagnosis was established postmortem. At follow-up examination, 14 patients had experienced a second clinical episode and thus, according to the criteria of Poser et al.,10 were finally diagnosed with MS. In all patients who progressed to MS, the second episode occurred within the first year of initial presentation.

Clinical signs.

The basic patient characteristics, separated for the final diagnosis ADEM or MS, are depicted in table 1. Patients with ADEM had a higher rate of infection before initial presentation (p = 0.04). Of the 14 patients with previous infections, 10 patients had nonspecific upper respiratory tract infections, one patient had pleural empyema after lung surgery, and three patients had systemic signs suggestive of viral infection. The duration of symptoms before admission was shorter in patients with ADEM (p < 0.01), indicating a more abrupt onset of symptoms. One patient, who later progressed to MS, experienced the first symptoms a few days after active immunization against diphtheria and tetanus.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Basic characteristics

Table 2 shows the most frequent clinical findings at onset in both patient groups. The incidence of fever, loss of consciousness, and meningism was low; however, these symptoms were uniformly restricted to patients with ADEM. Many patients (62%) with ADEM presented with brainstem signs, whereas in patients with MS brainstem signs were only infrequently present (p = 0.02). In the patients with ADEM, the most frequent brainstem sign was ocular motor deficit, which present in 7 patients (27%), followed by dysarthria (19%) and various other brainstem signs.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Clinical symptoms at onset

CSF analysis.

The CSF characteristics are shown in table 3. There were no significant differences between the CSF findings in patients with a final diagnosis of ADEM or MS except for the CSF albumin fraction, which was higher in patients with ADEM (p = 0.006), though there was a wide zone of overlapping values. In particular, the presence of oligoclonal bands of IgG did not discriminate ADEM from MS.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

CSF characteristics

Radiologic data.

Table 4 presents the results of the radiologic evaluation. Of all patients, 13 had solitary lesions, eight patients had two or three lesions, and four or more lesions were present in 19 patients. Infratentorial lesions were associated with ADEM (p = 0.045), but there were also four patients with infratentorial lesions who progressed to MS. Patients with MS had a higher rate of periventricular lesions, although this difference did not reach significance.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Radiologic data from the initial examination

In 31 patients, imaging was performed after IV administration of gadolinium-DTPA. Of the 21 patients with ADEM in whom gadolinium-DTPA was administered, enhancement of all lesions was present in 15 patients (71%); in six patients, (24%) enhancement was present in at least one, but not in all lesions; and one patient had no enhancing lesion. Ring enhancement was present in seven patients (35%). There were no differences in the frequency or pattern of contrast enhancement after gadolinium-DTPA between the patients with the final diagnosis of ADEM or MS. Of the 10 patients with MS in whom gadolinium-DTPA was administered, six patients showed enhancement of all lesions; in two patients, enhancement was present in some but not all lesions; and two patients had no enhancement at all. Ring enhancement was seen in four patients (44%) with MS.

A short-term follow-up MRI during the acute phase was performed in 13 patients who progressively deteriorated following admission. New lesions were seen in six of these patients, and in nine patients, an extension of pre-existing lesions was present.

At follow-up examination, a cranial MRI was performed in 34 patients. The MRI showed new lesions in 13 of 14 patients with definite MS. One patient with MS had developed transient symptoms typical for MS in the interim without radiologic evidence of new lesions. Follow-up MRI was performed in 20 of 26 patients with the final diagnosis of ADEM. In six of these patients, the MRI findings were completely normal. In 11 patients, partially resolved lesions were still present. Three patients with ADEM had new lesions but no new clinical symptoms, therefore not fulfilling the criteria for clinically definite MS. Because we did not systematically perform short-term follow-up MRI examinations during the acute phase of the disease, we could not determine whether the new lesions on follow-up MRI in these three patients still originated from the initial phase or from a subsequent, subclinical episode.

Treatment and clinical course.

Most patients had a favorable outcome. All patients except for one woman who had minor symptoms resolving spontaneously were treated with IV methylprednisolone. In 22 patients who responded well to methylprednisolone but in whom moderate to severe deficits were still present after 5 days, methylprednisolone was continued orally and slowly tapered over the course of several weeks. In seven patients with a poor response to methylprednisolone or progressive deterioration, cyclophosphamide pulse therapy was initiated, and one patient received immunoglobulin. With this treatment regimen, comparing the worst clinical state with the findings at discharge, 31 patients had significantly improved, seven were without any remaining symptoms, one remained unchanged, and one patient died. Patients with a final diagnosis of ADEM tended to have more severe initial symptoms. However, patients with the final diagnosis of ADEM seemed to respond better to the treatment; in patients with ADEM, the median reduction of the EDSS from the worst clinical state to discharge was 3 points (range, 0 to 9.5 points), whereas the mean reduction of the EDSS in patients with MS was 1.5 points (range, 1.5 to 3.5 points). At follow-up examination, 12 (46%) patients with ADEM did not have any symptoms; 9 (35%) had residual, minor, and nondisabling symptoms; and 3 (12%) had moderate deficits. Among patients with MS, only 2 (14%) had no clinical symptoms; 6 (43%) had minor, nondisabling symptoms; and 6 (43%) had disabling, moderate to severe deficits (median EDSS score 2; range, 0 to 6.5 points).

Discussion.

In our population of 40 adults, we found that 35% of all patients initially diagnosed with ADEM developed clinically definite MS over a mean observation period of 38 months. There are several reasons for our findings. Until now, there have been only case reports or small case series of adult patients with ADEM, and follow-up examinations were not performed in most studies. However, 17 of 121 children initially diagnosed with ADEM later developed various categories of MS.11 In our study, preceding infection or immunization was not a prerequisite for the diagnosis of ADEM. This also could have affected the high rate of patients progressing to MS. In patients with ADEM, a preceding infection was present significantly more often than in patients with MS. In two small case series, no patient with postinfectious ADEM developed MS over the observation period.4,12⇓ Nevertheless, most authors agree that infection or immunization is not a prerequisite for the diagnosis of ADEM.7,13,14⇓⇓ In elderly patients in particular, the rate of prior infection could possibly be lower than in children.15 In our patients, the restriction to patients with postinfectious or postvaccinal ADEM would not have changed our main results: two of 14 patients with the final diagnosis of MS had an infection before the first presentation, and the only patient with postvaccinal ADEM eventually progressed to MS. Fever and infection are well-known trigger factors for MS attacks,16,17⇓ and therefore, the presence of prior infection cannot be expected to reliably distinguish a first episode of MS from monophasic ADEM.

ADEM seems to occur more frequently in children, and most previous studies were conducted in the pediatric population. The development of MS in small children is rare, and therefore, the greater rate of progression to MS in our adult patient population could be partly explained by this age difference. In a large cohort study of patients with bilateral optic neuritis, only the adult patients presented a certain risk of developing MS.18

To further complicate the diagnosis of ADEM, many authors have described patients with epi-sodes of “recurrent ADEM,” usually triggered by infections.13,19-23⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓ However, criteria for the differentiation between recurrent ADEM and multiple episodes of MS have not yet been developed. In our study, patients with recurrent ADEM would have fulfilled the criteria of Poser et al.10 for clinically definite MS.

Our study has its limitations owing to the different length of follow-up and, in some patients, the relatively short observation period. Although all patients who progressed to MS experienced the second clinical episode within 1 year, an even higher rate of conversion to MS might be possible with a longer observation period.

There were some significant differences between the patients with ADEM and those with MS. Patients with ADEM were younger, had a more acute onset of symptoms, frequently had a preceding infection, more often had a disturbed blood–brain barrier, and presented more often with clinical and radiologic signs of infratentorial lesions. However, there was a wide zone of overlap for all of these factors, and we found no radiologic, clinical, or CSF symptoms that clearly indicated the final diagnosis. In general, patients with ADEM tended to present with a more acute, widespread CNS disturbance, causing loss of consciousness and multifocal neurologic signs. Fever, loss of consciousness, and meningism were infrequently observed, but were seen only in patients with the final diagnosis of ADEM. These symptoms are rare in patients with MS. In our patient population, motor deficit was the most frequent symptom upon presentation. Our results confirm the findings of a study in pediatric patients with ADEM in whom motor deficits were present in 89% of 79 children.13 Bilateral optic neuritis, which has been described as a common finding in ADEM,12,14⇓ was only found in one of our patients.

No CSF result satisfactorily predicted the final diagnosis. It has been proposed that the presence of CNS-specific oligoclonal bands predicts MS.7 Our findings, as well as several case reports of patients with ADEM in whom oligoclonal bands were positive,24-27⇓⇓⇓ do not confirm this point of view.

MRI findings in ADEM have been the subject of several studies.4,7,12,14,28-31⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓ Various “typical” signs for ADEM have been advocated, including the involvement of the basal ganglia and thalamus,14,29,31⇓⇓ presence of cortical lesions,5,7,14,31⇓⇓⇓ and predominant brainstem involvement.32 In our study, none of the MRI findings had a high specificity for either disease, and we agree with the results from previous studies, which indicate that in the individual patient, the MRI pattern may be indistinguishable and cannot predict the further course.4,5⇓ Cortical involvement or lesions in the basal ganglia were exclusively present in patients with the final diagnosis of ADEM; however, these findings were uncommon.

Demyelinating lesions in ADEM evolve over a short period of time. It has been speculated that after administration of gadolinium, “all lesions should enhance since all lesions should be active.”32,p 801 However, this hypothesis has been contradicted by newer studies, which demonstrated that lesions in ADEM may evolve over several weeks. There may be enhancement of some of the lesions without enhancement of others, or there may also be no enhancement at all.5,14,29⇓⇓ Our results confirm these findings: In 29% of our patients with confirmed ADEM, some of the lesions showed no enhancement. With conventional MRI techniques, the age of nonenhancing lesions cannot be determined with certainty except for “black holes” on T1-weighted images, indicating a previous destructive inflammatory–demyelinating process. New MRI techniques may allow determination of the age of demyelinating lesions with greater reliability; thus, previously clinically silent episodes of CNS demyelination may be detected in patients presenting with a first clinical episode.

Treatment of ADEM has not been systematically studied, and spontaneous improvement has been repeatedly noted.11,28⇓ With our therapeutic regimen of methylprednisolone as the first-line treatment and cyclophosphamide or Ig in patients who did not respond to methylprednisolone, nearly all patients improved during the acute phase. Response to steroid therapy has been reported by most authors.11,15,33,34⇓⇓⇓ Ig, plasmapheresis, and cytostatic drugs are alternative treatment options in patients who do not respond to steroid therapy.27,35-39⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓ Except for its fulminant form, the acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalomyelitis (Hurst syndrome), the prognosis of ADEM has been uniformly reported as favorable. However, nearly half of our patients with ADEM had remaining symptoms at follow-up.

Footnotes

  • See also pages 1257 and 1308

  • Received August 10, 2000.
  • Accepted December 2, 2000.

References

  1. ↵
    Storch–Hagenlocher B, Griffin D. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (parainfectious and postvaccinal encephalitis). In: Hacke W, Hanley D, Bleck T, Diringer M, eds. Neurocritical care. Berlin: Springer, 1994: 493–499.
  2. ↵
    Pohl–Koppe A, Burchett SK, Thiele EA, Hafler DA. Myelin basic protein reactive Th2 T cells are found in acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. J Neuroimmunol . 1998; 91: 19–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Jorens PG, VanderBorght A, Ceulemans B, et al. Enceph-alomyelitis-associated antimyelin autoreactivity induced by streptococcal exotoxins. Neurology . 2000; 54: 1433–1441.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Kesselring J, Miller DH, Robb SA, et al. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. MRI findings and the distinction from multiple sclerosis. Brain . 1990; 113: 291–302.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Singh S, Alexander M, Korah IP. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: MR imaging features. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 1999; 173: 1101–1107.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    Poser S, Lüer W, Bruhn H, Frahm J, Brück Y, Felgenheuer K. Acute demyelinating disease. Classification and non-invasive diagnosis. Acta Neurol Scand . 1992; 86: 579–585.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Kornberg AJ, Hynson JL, Coleman LT, Shield LK, Kean MJ. Clinical and neuroradiological features of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) in childhood. Neurology . 2000; 54 (suppl 3): A432.Abstract.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    Paty DW, Oger JJF, Kastrukoff LF, et al. MRI in the diagnosis of MS: a prospective study with comparison of clinical evaluation, evoked potentials, oligoclonal banding, and CT. Neurology . 1988; 38: 180–185.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Reiber HH, Felgenhauer K. Protein transfer and the blood cerebrospinal fluid barrier and the quantification of the humoral immune response within the central nervous system. Clin Chim Acta . 1987; 163: 319–328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol . 1983; 13: 227–231.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Rust RS, Dodson W, Prensky A, et al. Classification and outcome of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. Ann Neurol . 1997; 42: 491.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    O’Riordan JI, Gomez–Anson B, Moseley IF, Miller DH. Long term MRI follow-up of patients with post infectious encephalomyelitis: evidence for a monophasic disease. J Neurol Sci . 1999; 167: 132–136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Tenembaum SN, Segura M, Chamoles N, Fejerman N. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). Prospective study in 79 pediatric patients. Neurology . 2000; 54 (suppl 3): A247.Abstract.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    Caldemeyer KS, Smith RR, Harris TM, Edwards MK. MRI in acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. Neuroradiology . 1994; 36: 216–220.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Wang PN, Fuh JL, Liu HC, Wang SJ. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis in middle-aged or elderly patients. Eur Neurol . 1996; 36: 219–223.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    Sibley W, Bamford C, Clark K. Clinical viral infections and multiple sclerosis. Lancet . 1985; 1: 1313–1315.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    Marrie RA, Wolfson C, Sturkenboom MCJM, et al. Multiple sclerosis and antecedent infections. Neurology . 2000; 54: 2307–2310.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Parkin PJ, Hierons R, McDonald WI. Bilateral optic neuritis. A long term follow-up. Brain . 1984; 107: 951–964.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    Alcock NS, Hoffman HL. Recurrent encephalomyelitis in childhood. Arch Dis Child . 1961; 37: 40–44.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    Khan S, Yaqub BA, Poser CM, al Deeb SM, Bohlega S. Multiphasic disseminated encephalomyelitis presenting as alternating hemiplegia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1995; 58: 467–470.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Mancini J, Chabrol B, Moulene E, Pinsard N. Relapsing acute encephalopathy: a complication of diphtheria–tetanus–poliomyelitis immunization in a young boy. Eur J Pediatr . 1996; 155: 136–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Shoji H, Kusuhara T, Honda Y, et al. Relapsing acute disseminated encephalomyelitis associated with chronic Epstein–Barr virus infection: MRI findings. Neuroradiology . 1992; 34: 340–342.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Suwa K, Yamagata T, Momoi MY, et al. Acute relapsing encephalopathy mimicking acute necrotizing encephalopathy in a 4-year-old boy. Brain Dev . 1999; 21: 554–558.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Poser CM. Magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic disseminated vasculomyelinopathy. J Neurol Sci . 1989; 94: 69–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Shah AK, Tselis A, Mason B. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis in a pregnant woman treated with plasmapheresis. J Neurol Sci . 2000; 174: 147–151.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Spieker S, Petersen D, Rolfs A, et al. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis following Pontiac fever. Eur Neurol . 1998; 40: 169–172.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Stricker RB, Miller RG, Kiprov DD. Role of plasmapheresis in acute disseminated (postinfectious) encephalomyelitis. J Clin Apheresis . 1992; 7: 173–179.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    Kimura S, Nezu A, Ohtsuki N, Kobayashi T, Osaka H, Uehara S. Serial magnetic resonance imaging in children with postinfectious encephalitis. Brain Dev . 1996; 18: 461–465.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Baum PA, Barkovich AJ, Koch TK, Berg BO. Deep gray matter involvement in children with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol . 1994; 15: 1275–1283.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Mader I, Stock KW, Ettlin T, Probst A. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: MR and CT features. Am J Neuroradiol . 1996; 17: 104–109.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  31. ↵
    Murthy JM, Yangala R, Meena AK, Jaganmohan Reddy J. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: clinical and MRI study from South India. J Neurol Sci . 1999; 165: 133–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Atlas SW, Grossman RI, Goldberg HI, Hackney DB, Bilaniuk LT, Zimmerman RA. MR diagnosis of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. J Comput Assist Tomogr . 1986; 10: 798–801.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. ↵
    Hahn CD, O’Hare B, Heurter H, MacGregor DL, Ford–Jones EL. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: Clinical features, response to steroid therapy and associated infectious pathogens in 15 children. Neurology . 2000; 54 (suppl 3): A431–432. Abstract.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    Apak RA, Köse G, Anlar B, Turanli G, Topaloglu H, Ozdirim E. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis in childhood: report of 10 cases. J Child Neurol . 1999; 14: 198–201.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    Markus R, Brew BJ. Successful outcome with aggressive treatment of acute haemorrhagic leukoencephalitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1997; 63: 551–552.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Seales D, Greer M. Acute hemorrhagic leukencephalitis. Arch Neurol . 1991; 48: 1086–1088.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Pradhan S, Gupta RP, Shashank S, Pandey N. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. J Neurol Sci . 1999; 165: 56–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Sahlas DJ, Miller SP, Guerin M, Veilleux M, Francis G. Treatment of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis with intravenous immunoglobulin. Neurology . 2000; 54: 1370–1372.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    Rodriguez M, Karnes WE, Bartleson JD, Pineda AA. Plasmapheresis in acute episodes of fulminant CNS inflammatory demyelination. Neurology . 1993; 43: 1100–1104.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract

Letters: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and methods.
    • Results.
    • Discussion.
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

Cutaneous α-Synuclein Signatures in Patients With Multiple System Atrophy and Parkinson Disease

Dr. Rizwan S. Akhtar and Dr. Sarah Brooker

► Watch

Related Articles

  • ADEMDistinct disease or part of the MS spectrum?
  • Clinical and neuroradiologic features of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis in children

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published

Recommended articles

  • Articles
    Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
    Silvia Tenembaum, Tanuja Chitnis, Jayne Ness et al.
    Neurology, April 16, 2007
  • Articles
    Consensus definitions proposed for pediatric multiple sclerosis and related disorders
    Lauren B. Krupp, Brenda Banwell, Silvia Tenembaum et al.
    Neurology, April 16, 2007
  • Articles
    Role of MRI in the differentiation of ADEM from MS in children
    D.J.A. Callen, M. M. Shroff, H. M. Branson et al.
    Neurology, November 26, 2008
  • Article
    Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
    Updates on an inflammatory CNS syndrome
    Daniela Pohl, Gulay Alper, Keith Van Haren et al.
    Neurology, August 29, 2016
Neurology: 100 (22)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles
  • Translations

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Education
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology | Print ISSN:0028-3878
Online ISSN:1526-632X

© 2023 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise