4.3 Article

Alterations in the retinal vasculature occur in multiple sclerosis and exhibit novel correlations with disability and visual function measures

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages 815-828

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458519845116

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; optical coherence tomography; angiography; retinal vasculature

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS082347] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The retinal vasculature may be altered in multiple sclerosis (MS), potentially acting as a biomarker of disease processes. Objective: To compare retinal vascular plexus densities in people with MS (PwMS) and healthy controls (HCs), and examine correlations with visual function and global disability. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 111 PwMS (201 eyes) and 50 HCs (97 eyes) underwent optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). Macular superficial vascular plexus (SVP) and deep vascular plexus (DVP) densities were quantified, and poor quality images were excluded according to an artifact-rating protocol. Results: Mean SVP density was 24.1% (SD = 5.5) in MS eyes (26.0% (SD = 4.7) in non-optic neuritis (ON) eyes vs. 21.7% (SD = 5.5) in ON eyes,p < 0.001), as compared to 29.2% (SD = 3.3) in HC eyes (p < 0.001 for all MS eyes and multiple sclerosis optic neuritis (MSON) eyes vs. HC eyes,p = 0.03 for MS non-ON eyes vs. HC eyes). DVP density did not differ between groups. In PwMS, lower SVP density was associated with higher levels of disability (expanded disability status scale (EDSS):R-2 = 0.26,p = 0.004; multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC):R-2 = 0.27,p = 0.03) and lower letter acuity scores (100% contrast:R-2 = 0.29; 2.5% contrast:R-2 = 0.40; 1.25% contrast:R-2 = 0.31;p < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: Retinal SVP density measured by OCTA is reduced across MS eyes, and correlates with visual function, EDSS, and MSFC scores.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available