4.7 Article

Clinical usefulness of prognostic biomarkers in optic neuritis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 614-618

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.13553

关键词

antibodies; demyelinating diseases; multiple sclerosis; optic neuritis

资金

  1. Fondo para la Investigacion Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Spain [PI15/00513, RD16/0015/0001]
  2. FEDER [PI15/00513, RD16/0015/0001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purposeDifferent biological and radiological biomarkers predict clinical conversion to multiple sclerosis (MS) after a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). The aim was to explore their role in predicting the outcome of patients with optic neuritis (ON), a CIS considered to have a benign prognosis. MethodsSixty-eight consecutive ON patients were followed prospectively. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cerebrospinal fluid studies including oligoclonal immunoglobulin G (IgG) bands (OCGBs), lipid-specific oligoclonal IgM bands (LS-OCMBs) and neurofilament light chain quantification were performed at disease onset. Conversion to clinically definite MS (CDMS) was monitored. ResultsThe mean time of follow-up of our series was 46.4months. Twenty-five patients (36.7%) developed CDMS during follow-up. Neurofilament light chain levels did not predict clinical conversion. By contrast, an abnormal MRI increased the risk of CDMS [hazard ratio (HR)12.5, P=0.013]. The clearest association was found in patients with more than three T2 lesions. OCGBs also predicted the onset of CDMS (HR21.3, P=0.003) and LS-OCMBs were associated with a shorter time to CDMS (HR=116.6, P<0.001). ConclusionsMagnetic resonance imaging and OCGBs predicted conversion to CDMS after an ON episode. In addition, LS-OCMBs identified the ON patients more likely to develop MS early. These results, applicable to the everyday clinical setting, may be of interest for therapeutic decisions. Click for the corresponding questions to this CME article.

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