4.7 Article

Altered pupillary light responses are associated with the severity of autonomic symptoms in patients with Fabry disease

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-87589-x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that abnormal pupillary responses to white light stimulation in patients with Fabry disease are associated with the severity of autonomic symptoms.
Symptoms of autonomic dysfunction are common in Fabry disease. In this study we aimed to evaluate alterations in the pupillary response to white light stimulation in patients with Fabry disease and their association with the severity of autonomic symptoms. Fourteen consecutive patients with Fabry disease and 14 healthy control participants were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. The Mainz Severity Score Index (MSSI) was used to measure the severity of Fabry disease and the Composite Autonomic Symptom Scale 31 (COMPASS 31) questionnaire was used to evaluate the severity of autonomic symptoms. The pupil light responses were assessed with an infrared dynamic pupillometry unit. There were significant reductions in the amplitude (P=0.048) and duration (P=0.048) of pupil contraction, and the latency of pupil dilation (P=0.048) in patients with Fabry disease compared to control subjects. The total weighted COMPASS 31 score correlated with MSSI (r=0.592; P=0.026) and the duration of pupil dilation (rho =0.561; P=0.037). The pupillomotor weighted sub-score of the COMPASS 31 correlated inversely with the duration of pupil contraction (r=-0.600; P=0.023) and latency of pupil dilation (rho=-0.541; P=0.046), and directly with the duration of pupil dilation (rho =0.877; P<0.001) and MSSI (r=0.533; P=0.049). In conclusion, abnormal pupillary function is demonstrated in patients with Fabry disease, which is associated with the severity of autonomic symptoms.

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