Objective: To compare the driving performance using a driving simulator with physical and cognitive functions as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients suffering from the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Methods: 31 RRMS patients (18 women, 13 men, mean age 35.6 ± 8.3 years, EDSS 2.8 ± 1.4) were compared with 10 healthy controls (8 men, 2 woman, age 45.1 ± 7.8 years). Results: Compared with controls, the accident rate (5.3 ± 3.8 vs. 1.3 ± 1.5, p < 0.001) and concentration faults (21.1 ± 15.5 vs. 7.1 ± 2.6, p < 0.01) of RRMS patients using the driving simulator were increased. While there was no correlation with the EDSS score, the accident rate was correlated with the MSFC (r = –0.5, p < 0.05). Regarding the three dimensions of the MSFC, accidents were related to the number of correct answers and Z-score in the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT) as a measure for cognitive function (r = –0.33, p < 0.05). Conclusion: The current study demonstrates the need to focus also on driving skills in MS patients. The risk of accidents should be evaluated after relapses in particular. However, there are great interindividual differences. In the MSFC, most deficits could be evaluated in the PASAT. As there was a significant correlation between the accident rate in the driving simulator and the PASAT results, accidents seem to be more influenced by cognitive decline than by physical impairment. This indicates that the MSFC is a broader, more dimensional scale than the EDSS and should be preferred in the case of driving assessment. At the present time, the driving simulator seems to be a useful instrument judging driving ability, especially in cases with ambiguous neuropsychological results.

Keywords:
Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, Expanded Disability Status Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite, Driving simulator
1.
Galski T, Bruno RL, Ehle HT: Driving after cerebral damage: A model with implications for evaluation. Am J Occup Ther 1992;46:324–332.
2.
Haikonen S, et al: Neuropsychological correlates of duration of glances at secondary tasks while driving. Appl Neuropsychol 1998;5:24–32.
3.
Schultheis MT, Garay E, DeLuca J: The influence of cognitive impairment on driving performance in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2001;56:1089–1094.
4.
Knecht J: The multiple sclerosis patient as a driver. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1977;107:373–378.
5.
Schanke AK, Grimsmo J, Sundet K: Multiple sclerosis and prerequisites for driver’s license. A retrospective study of 33 patients with multiple sclerosis assessed at Sunnaas hospital. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1995;115:1349–1352.
6.
Whitaker JN, McFarland HF, Rudge P, Reingold SC: Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: A critical analysis. Mult Scler 1995;1:37–47.
7.
Rudick R, Antel J, Confavreux C, Cutter G, et al: Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann Neurol 1997;42:379–382.
8.
Poser CM: New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 1983;13:227–231.
9.
Kaufmann M, Moyer D, Norton J: The significant change for the Timed 25-foot Walk in the multiple sclerosis functional composite. Mult Scler 2000;6:286–290.
10.
Schwid SR, et al: The measurement of ambulatory impairment in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1997;49:1419–1424.
11.
Goodkin DE, Hertsgaard D, Seminary J: Upper extremity function in multiple sclerosis: Improving assessment sensitivity with box-and-block and nine-hole peg tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69:850–854.
12.
Gronwall D: Paced auditory serial addition task: A measure of recovery from concussion. Percept Mot Skills 1977;44:363–373.
13.
Fischer JS, Rudick R, Cutter G, Reingold SC: The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC): An integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. Mult Scler 1999;5:244–250.
14.
Orth M, Leidag M, Kotterba S, Widdig W, de Zeeuw J, Walther JW, Duchna HW, Schäfer D, Schläfke ME, Malin JP, Schultze-Werninghaus G, Rasche K: Abschätzung des Unfallrisikos bei obstruktivem Schlafapnoe-Syndrom (OSAS) durch Fahrsimulation. Pneumologie 2002;56:13–18.
15.
Heaton RK, et al: Neuropsychological findings in relapsing-remitting and chronic-progressive multiple sclerosis. J Consult Clin Psychol 1985;53:103–110.
16.
Rao SM, Leo GJ, Bernardin L, Unverzagt F: Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. 1. Frequency, patterns, and prediction. Neurology 1991;41:685–691.
17.
Beatty W, Goodkin DE, Hertsgaard D, Monson N: Clinical and demographic predictors of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: Do diagnostic type, disease duration, and disability matter? Arch Neurol 1990;47:305–308.
18.
Kalkers NF, et al: MS functional composite: Relation to disease phenotype and disability strata. Neurology 2000;54:1233–1239.
19.
Kotterba S, et al: Comparison of driving simulator performance and neuro-psychological testing in narcolepsy. Sleep 2001;24(suppl 1A):315.
20.
George CF, Boudreau AC, Smiley A: Comparison of simulated driving performance in narcolepsy and sleep apnea patients. Sleep 1996;19:711–717.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.