4.7 Article

Distinction between MOG antibody-positive and AQP4 antibody-positive NMO spectrum disorders

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 6, Pages 474-481

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000101

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. KAKENHI of The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan [22229008]
  2. Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant on Intractable Diseases (Neuroimmunological Diseases) from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22229008] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective:To evaluate clinical features among patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) who have myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies, aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibodies, or seronegativity for both antibodies.Methods:Sera from patients diagnosed with NMOSD in 1 of 3 centers (2 sites in Brazil and 1 site in Japan) were tested for MOG and AQP4 antibodies using cell-based assays with live transfected cells.Results:Among the 215 patients with NMOSD, 7.4% (16/215) were positive for MOG antibodies and 64.7% (139/215) were positive for AQP4 antibodies. No patients were positive for both antibodies. Patients with MOG antibodies represented 21.1% (16/76) of the patients negative for AQP4 antibodies. Compared with patients with AQP4 antibodies or patients who were seronegative, patients with MOG antibodies were more frequently male, had a more restricted phenotype (optic nerve more than spinal cord), more frequently had bilateral simultaneous optic neuritis, more often had a single attack, had spinal cord lesions distributed in the lower portion of the spinal cord, and usually demonstrated better functional recovery after an attack.Conclusions:Patients with NMOSD with MOG antibodies have distinct clinical features, fewer attacks, and better recovery than patients with AQP4 antibodies or patients seronegative for both antibodies.

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