4.4 Article

CHOROIDAL INVOLVEMENT IN HEREDITARY TRANSTHYRETIN AMYLOIDOSIS PATIENTS

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000003378

关键词

transthyretin-related familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy; hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis; optical coherence tomography; enhanced depth imaging; choroidal thickness; choroidal vascular index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparison of choroidal characteristics between patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and those without the disease showed significant differences, which may contribute to better monitoring and evaluation of the condition.
Purpose: To compare the choroidal characteristics between the eyes of patients with and without hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. Methods: Case-control observational study with choroidal thickness and vasculature evaluation by optical coherence tomography with enhanced depth imaging protocol of the macula. Results: The study included 332 eyes: 166 eyes of hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis patients and 166 eyes of healthy patients. Mean age was similar between groups (P = 0.979). For hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis patients, on average, in all sectors analyzed (in the full 5 mm-width image [G] and also in 1-mm-width central [C], nasal [N], and temporal [T] sectors), there was a higher stromal area, a lower choroidal thickness, and a lower choroidal vascularity index, compared with the control group. The linear mixed models revealed no differences according to the systemic treatment groups. Conclusion: Hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis patients showed statistically significant differences in choroidal characteristics, compared with eyes without pathology. These age-related and statistically significant changes compared with the healthy eyes may help in the future to better monitor the systemic hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis disease and complement other systemic evaluations, including on clinical trials to analyze more objectively, the results of new therapies.

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

4.4
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