4.7 Article

Longitudinal optic neuritis-unrelated visual evoked potential changes in NMO spectrum disorders

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 94, 期 4, 页码 E407-E418

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008684

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) as part of the German Competence Network Multiple Sclerosis (KKNMS) [FKZ 01GI1602C, FKZ 01GI1602B, FKZ 01GI1602A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate if patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) develop subclinical visual pathway impairment independent of acute attacks. Methods A total of 548 longitudinally assessed full-field visual evoked potentials (VEP) of 167 patients with NMOSD from 16 centers were retrospectively evaluated for changes of P100 latencies and P100-N140 amplitudes. Rates of change in latencies (RCL) and amplitudes (RCA) over time were analyzed for each individual eye using linear regression and compared using generalized estimating equation models. Results The rates of change in the absence of optic neuritis (ON) for minimal VEP intervals of >= 3 months between baseline and last follow-up were +1.951 ms/y (n = 101 eyes; SD = 6.274; p = 0.012) for the P100 latencies and -2.149 mu V/y (n = 64 eyes; SD = 5.013; p = 0.005) for the P100-N140 amplitudes. For minimal VEP intervals of >= 12 months, the RCL was +1.768 ms/y (n = 59 eyes; SD = 4.558; p = 0.024) and the RCA was -0.527 mu V/y (n = 44 eyes; SD = 2.123; p = 0.111). The history of a previous ON >6 months before baseline VEP had no influence on RCL and RCA. ONs during the observational period led to mean RCL and RCA of +11.689 ms/y (n = 16 eyes; SD = 17.593; p = 0.003) and -1.238 mu V/y (n = 11 eyes; SD = 3.708; p = 0.308), respectively. Conclusion This first longitudinal VEP study of patients with NMOSD provides evidence of progressive VEP latency delay occurring independently of acute ON. Prospective longitudinal studies are needed to corroborate these findings and help to interpret the clinical relevance.

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

4.7
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