Divya Narayanan1, Han Cheng, Rosa A Tang, Laura J Frishman. 1. *PhD †PhD, OD ‡MD, MPH College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas (DN, HC, LJF); and University of Houston, MS Eye CARE Clinic, Houston, Texas (RAT).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate longitudinal changes of visual function in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: Multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP), contrast sensitivity (CS), and Humphrey visual fields (HVFs) were obtained at two visits (mean follow-up, 1.5 [±0.9] years) in both eyes of 57 RRMS patients (53 eyes with optic neuritis [ON]: 14 ON within 6 months of first visit [ON < 6 months] and 39 ON ≥ 6 months; 57 non-ON). Longitudinal changes were assessed using mfVEP amplitude (log signal-to-noise ratio [logSNR]), latency, CS, and HVF mean deviation based on established 95% tolerance limits of test-retest variability. RESULTS: A significant percentage of eyes in the ON < 6 months group exceeded 95% tolerance limits for mfVEP logSNR (21%, p < 0.05), latency (35%, p < 0.01), and CS (31% p < 0.001); more improved than worsened over time (14% vs. 7% for logSNR, 21% vs. 14% for latency, and 31% vs. 0% for CS). Multifocal visual evoked potential latency decreased in 11% of non-ON eyes and in 10% of eyes in the ON ≥ 6 months group, and increased in 21% and 10%, respectively (p < 0.01 for all). Latency changes correlated negatively with baseline latency (r = -0.43 and -0.45 for non-ON and ON ≥ 6 months; p = 0.0008). Although a nonsignificant percentage of non-ON and ON ≥ 6 months eyes exceeded tolerance limits for logSNR, CS, or HVF, logSNR and latency changes correlated, and both measures correlated with changes in CS (r = 0.47 to 0.79, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal visual evoked potential, particularly latency, is potentially useful for assessing neuroprotective and remyelinating strategies in RRMS.
PURPOSE: To evaluate longitudinal changes of visual function in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: Multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP), contrast sensitivity (CS), and Humphrey visual fields (HVFs) were obtained at two visits (mean follow-up, 1.5 [±0.9] years) in both eyes of 57 RRMS patients (53 eyes with optic neuritis [ON]: 14 ON within 6 months of first visit [ON < 6 months] and 39 ON ≥ 6 months; 57 non-ON). Longitudinal changes were assessed using mfVEP amplitude (log signal-to-noise ratio [logSNR]), latency, CS, and HVF mean deviation based on established 95% tolerance limits of test-retest variability. RESULTS: A significant percentage of eyes in the ON < 6 months group exceeded 95% tolerance limits for mfVEP logSNR (21%, p < 0.05), latency (35%, p < 0.01), and CS (31% p < 0.001); more improved than worsened over time (14% vs. 7% for logSNR, 21% vs. 14% for latency, and 31% vs. 0% for CS). Multifocal visual evoked potential latency decreased in 11% of non-ON eyes and in 10% of eyes in the ON ≥ 6 months group, and increased in 21% and 10%, respectively (p < 0.01 for all). Latency changes correlated negatively with baseline latency (r = -0.43 and -0.45 for non-ON and ON ≥ 6 months; p = 0.0008). Although a nonsignificant percentage of non-ON and ON ≥ 6 months eyes exceeded tolerance limits for logSNR, CS, or HVF, logSNR and latency changes correlated, and both measures correlated with changes in CS (r = 0.47 to 0.79, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal visual evoked potential, particularly latency, is potentially useful for assessing neuroprotective and remyelinating strategies in RRMS.
Authors: E Bo Yang; Donald C Hood; Chris Rodarte; Xian Zhang; Jeffrey G Odel; Myles M Behrens Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Alexander Klistorner; Hemamalini Arvind; Raymond Garrick; Stuart L Graham; Mark Paine; Con Yiannikas Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ivana Nikić; Doron Merkler; Catherine Sorbara; Mary Brinkoetter; Mario Kreutzfeldt; Florence M Bareyre; Wolfgang Brück; Derron Bishop; Thomas Misgeld; Martin Kerschensteiner Journal: Nat Med Date: 2011-03-27 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Daniah Alshowaeir; Con Yiannikas; Raymond Garrick; John Parratt; Michael H Barnett; Stuart L Graham; Alexander Klistorner Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Luis de Santiago; E M Sánchez Morla; Miguel Ortiz; Elena López; Carlos Amo Usanos; M C Alonso-Rodríguez; R Barea; Carlo Cavaliere-Ballesta; Alfredo Fernández; Luciano Boquete Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 3.240