International Delphi Survey of Clinical Practice in Stiff Person Syndrome and Related Disorders: Terminology and Diagnosis
Yoji Hoshina1, Ka-Ho Wong2, Sadie McGreer1, Justin Abbatemarco3, Bettina Balint4, Kyle Blackburn5, Stefan Blum6, Adrian Budhram7, Marinos Dalakas8, Josep Dalmau9, Livia Dutra10, Francesc Graus9, Jerome Honnorat11, Takahiro Iizuka12, Sarosh Irani13, Saiju Jacob14, Eric Lancaster15, Jenny Linnoila16, Alfonso Lopez13, Sara Mariotto17, Naoko Matsui18, Andrew McKeon13, Joao Moura19, Scott Newsome20, Orna O'Toole21, Amanda Piquet22, Amy Quek23, Albert Saiz24, Mateus Simabukuro25, Claudia Sommer26, Maarten Titulaer27, Alberto Vogrig28, Yujie Wang29, Tara Zier30, Jacqueline Kraska30, Giovanna Manzano31, Anastasia Zekeridou32, Stacey Clardy33
1University of Utah Health, 2U of U Neurology Clinic, 3Cleveland Clinic, 4University Hospital of Zurich, 5University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 6Princess Alexandra Hospital, 7London Health Sciences Centre, 8Thomas Jefferson University, 9IDIBAPS, 10Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, 11Hospices Civils de Lyon, 12Department of Neurology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 13Mayo Clinic, 14University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, 15The University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Neurology, 16University Neurology Associates, UPMC, 17Neurology Unit, University of Verona, 18Tokushima University, 19Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, 20Johns Hopkins Hospital, 21Mercy University Hospital, 22University of Colorado, 23National University Hospital, 24Hospital Clinico De Barcelona, 25Hospital Das Clinicas, Sao Paulo U Scho of Med, 26Neurologische Klinik der Universitat, 27Erasmus Medical Center, 28University of Udine, 29UW Northwest, 30The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, 31University of California Irvine, 32Neuroimmunology Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, 33University of Utah
Objective:
To establish expert consensus and identify practice variation in terminology and diagnostic approaches for stiff person syndrome (SPS) and related disorders.

Background:
SPS is a rare and clinically heterogeneous condition. Although expert-proposed diagnostic criteria exist, international consensus guidance is lacking, and approaches to terminology and diagnosis vary across centers, countries, and resource settings.
Design/Methods:
Forty international experts in SPS were identified based on peer-reviewed authorship. A modified Delphi survey was designed to evaluate agreement on terminology and diagnosis. Consensus was predefined as greater than 80% agreement.
Results:
Of 40 invited expert clinicians, 33 (83%) from 15 countries participated. Consensus was achieved for the terminology of classic SPS; partial SPS; SPS-plus; progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus (PERM); and glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65)-associated cerebellar ataxia. Consensus was also reached for key diagnostic elements, including core clinical symptoms and signs of classic/partial SPS; supportive features (exaggerated startle responses and coexisting autoimmune comorbidities in GAD65-positive cases); the importance of serologic testing; clinically relevant high-titer GAD65 antibody thresholds according to assay methodology; the diagnostic utility of glycine receptor alpha1 antibody in suspected PERM and GAD65 antibody negative SPS cases; the role of electrophysiology, especially in seronegative cases; definite diagnostic criteria for classic/partial SPS and SPS-plus; diagnostic frameworks for PERM and GAD65-associated cerebellar ataxia; and major exclusion criteria and diagnostic pitfalls. Consensus was not reached after Round 1 for the use of stiff person spectrum disorder as an umbrella term including PERM, epilepsy and cerebellar ataxia phenotypes; probable and possible SPS diagnostic criteria; and the terminology and diagnostic approach for GAD65-associated epilepsy.
Conclusions:

This international Delphi survey helps identify areas of expert agreement and variation in the diagnosis of SPS and related disorders across diverse clinical settings. These findings, supplemented by the round 2 data, may help inform future consensus recommendations.

Generative AI Usage
No, did not use generative AI in the drafting or editing in this abstract.
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.