4.2 Article

Plasma exchange: an effective add-on treatment of optic neuritis in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders

期刊

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 39, 期 11, 页码 2477-2483

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-019-01090-z

关键词

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder; Optic neuritis; Steroid pulse therapy; Plasma exchange

资金

  1. Southwest Hospital [SWH2016ZDCX3029, SWH2016YSCXYB-09]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation [31071202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To evaluate the efficiency of plasma exchange (PE) add-on on optic neuritis (ON) in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). Methods Our ambispective, nonrandomized study was performed in Southwest Hospital, Southwest Eye Hospital, Army Medical University. We studied 31 consecutive NMOSD patients characterized by ON and hospitalized from September 2015 to May 2018. Their clinical features were assessed, and efficiency of PE add-on treatment in ON of NMOSD was evaluated. Correlation was assessed between the effect of steroid pulse therapy (SPT) and the number of ON episodes in NMOSD. Results All 31 NMOSD patients accepted SPT; 15 patients of them accepted SPT and PE add-on. In these 15 patients, after PE add-on treatment, the patients' visual acuity was further significantly improved (P = 0.000, N = 23), including 3 no light perception (NLP) patients. After the treatment, the visual function recovered quickly in the first 2 months and then gradually slowed down; the visual function remained stable about 6 months later. The correlation coefficient between visual acuity improvement of SPT and the number of ON episodes was - 0.311 (P = 0.030, N = 49). Conclusion One clinical feature of NMOSD can be repeated vision impairment. In NMOSD patients characterized by ON, efficacy of SPT is limited as the number of episodes increased, and PE add-on is more effective. Even though the visual acuity of NMOSD patients decreases to NLP during episodes, there is still a chance to restore vision by PE add-on treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据