4.7 Article

Racial differences in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 91, Issue 22, Pages E2089-E2099

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006574

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bio & Medical Technology Development Program through the Ministry of Science & ICT, Republic of Korea [M3A9B6069339]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Exc 257)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective We aimed to evaluate racial differences in the clinical features of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Methods This retrospective review included 603 patients (304 Asian, 207 Caucasian, and 92 Afro-American/Afro-European), who were seropositive for anti-aquaporin-4 antibody, from 6 centers in Denmark, Germany, South Korea, United Kingdom, United States, and Thailand. Results Median disease duration at last follow-up was 8 years (range 0.3-38.4 years). Asian and Afro-American/Afro-European patients had a younger onset age than Caucasian patients (mean 36, 33, and 44 years, respectively; p < 0.001). During the disease course, Caucasian patients (23%) had a lower incidence of brain/brainstem involvement than Asian (42%) and Afro-American/Afro-European patients (38%) (p < 0.001). Severe attacks (visual acuity <= 0.1 in at least one eye or Expanded Disability Status Scale score >= 6.0 at nadir) at onset occurred more frequently in Afro-American/Afro-European (58%) than in Asian (46%) and Caucasian (38%) patients (p = 0.005). In the multivariable analysis, older age at onset, higher number of attacks before and after immunosuppressive treatment, but not race, were independent predictors of severe motor disabilities at last follow-up. Conclusion A review of a large international cohort revealed that race affected the clinical phenotype, age at onset, and severity of attacks, but the overall outcome was most dependent on early and effective immunosuppressive treatment.

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