4.7 Article

NMO-IgG predicts the outcome of recurrent optic neuritis

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 23, Pages 2197-2200

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000303817.82134.da

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the prognostic value of neuromyelitis optica (NMO)-immunoglobulin G (IgG) in patients with recurrent optic neuritis (ON). The aquaporin-4-specific serum autoantibody, NMO-IgG, is a biomarker for NMO and relapsing transverse myelitis. Recurrent ON may herald multiple sclerosis ( MS) or NMO, or it may occur as an isolated syndrome. The prognosis and response to therapy differs in each of these contexts. Methods: We evaluated 34 patients who were tested for NMO-IgG between 2000 and 2007 and who had two or more episodes of ON without satisfying a diagnosis of MS or NMO prior to serologic testing. Clinical data were available for 25 Mayo Clinic patients (5 NMO-IgG positive and 20 NMO-IgG negative) and for an additional 9 seropositive patients whose serum was referred to the Mayo Clinic Neuroimmunology laboratory for testing. Results: Twenty percent of the patients with recurrent ON seen at Mayo Clinic were seropositive. All NMO-IgG-positive patients (vs 65% NMO-IgG-negative patients) had at least one attack with visual acuity in the affected eye worse than 20/200 (p = 0.05). In seropositive patients for whom long-term follow-up was possible (median 8.9 years after the initial ON), 6 of 12 (50%) experienced an episode of myelitis and fulfilled criteria for NMO. In contrast, 1 of 15 seronegative patients (6.7%) fulfilled McDonald criteria for MS (p = 0.03). Seropositive patients had a final visual score which was worse than that of seronegative patients (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Neuromyelitis optica (NMO)-immunoglobulin G seropositivity predicts poor visual outcome and development of NMO. Seropositive recurrent optic neuritis is a limited form of NMO.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available