| Literature DB >> 31720823 |
Wouter J C van Ballegoij1,2, Sander C Kuijpers3, Irene C Huffnagel3, Henry C Weinstein4, Bwee Tien Poll-The3, Marc Engelen3, Carlien A M Bennebroek5, Frank D Verbraak5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Progressive myelopathy is the main cause of disability in adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD). Development of therapies is hampered by a lack of quantitative outcome measures. In this study, we investigated whether myelopathy in ALD is associated with retinal neurodegeneration on optical coherence tomography (OCT), which could serve as a surrogate outcome measure.Entities:
Keywords: Myelopathy; Neurodegeneration; Optical coherence tomography; Retinal nerve fiber layer; Spinal cord; X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31720823 PMCID: PMC7035302 DOI: 10.1007/s00415-019-09627-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurol ISSN: 0340-5354 Impact factor: 4.849
Fig. 1Optical coherence tomography output. The left panel shows a macular scan with a the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (EDTRS) grid b the pericentral (yellow) and peripheral (red) ring and c a cross-section of the retina showing the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and ganglion cell layer (GCL). The right panel shows an optic nerve scan with d the 3.5 mm peripapillary ring e the Heidelberg output of the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness and f a cross-section of the periparillary retina with the pRNFL
Differences in retinal layer thickness between patients and controls
| Men | Retinal layer | Region | Patient ( | Control ( | Mean difference (95%CI) | Effect size (Cohen’s | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RNFL | Total grid surfacea | 34.16 (3.98) | 36.68 (3.67) | 2.52 (0.58–4.47) | 0.01 | 0.66 | |
| (macula), µm | Pericentral ring | 27.32 (1.96) | 28.45 (2.26) | 1.13 (0.05–2.22) | 0.04 | 0.53 | |
| Peripheral ring | 36.54 (4.69) | 39.52 (4.23) | 2.98 (0.72–5.25) | 0.01 | 0.67 | ||
| GCL | Total grid surfacea | 35.97 (4.80) | 36.69 (4.17) | 0.73 (− 1.55–3.00) | 0.53 | 0.16 | |
| (macula), µm | Pericentral ring | 53.74 (9.55) | 54.85 (8.79) | 1.11 (− 3.55–5.77) | 0.64 | 0.12 | |
| Peripheral ring | 31.95 (4.14) | 32.59 (3.23) | 0.64 (-1.23–2.51) | 0.40 | 0.17 | ||
| pRNFL | Totalb | 87.36 (12.50) | 91.31 (9.27) | 3.94 (− 1.65–9.54) | 0.16 | 0.36 | |
| (optic nerve), µm | Superior | 106.41 (16.09) | 113.91 (13.62) | 7.49 (-0.12–15.11) | 0.05 | 0.50 | |
| Nasal | 68.69 (15.77) | 66.52 (10.37) | − 2.17 (− 8.95–4.60) | 0.64 | 0.16 | ||
| Inferior | 111.67 (16.59) | 114.80 (16.00) | 3.12 (− 5.2–11.47) | 0.46 | 0.19 | ||
| Temporal | 62.67 (14.84) | 70.00 (12.37) | 7.33 (0.35–14.31) | 0.04 | 0.54 |
Values are summarized as mean (standard deviation). Unpaired t test was used to compare groups
GCL ganglion cell layer, pRNFL peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer, S symptomatic patients, RNFL retinal nerve fiber layer
aMean of the total ETDRS grid surface, followed by the pericentral (inner) and peripheral (outer) rings
bMean of the total peripapillary ring followed and each of the four quadrants
Differences in retinal nerve fiber layer thickness between controls, asymptomatic patients and symptomatic patients
| Men | Retinal layer | Region | Control ( | Asymptomatic ( | Symptomatic ( | Cohen’s | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C vs A | C vs S | A vs S | |||||||
| RNFL, µm | Total grid surfacea | 36.68 (3.67) | 36.93 (2.99) | 32.91 (3.78) | 0.07 | ||||
| Pericentral ring | 28.45 (2.26) | 27.77 (1.46) | 27.12 (2.16) | 0.09 | 0.32 | 0.60 | 0.33 | ||
| Peripheral ring | 39.52 (4.23) | 39.97 (3.57) | 35.99 (4.35) | 0.11 | |||||
| pRNFL, µm | Totalb | 91.30 (9.26) | 93.13 (8.51) | 84.77 (13.30) | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.60 | 0.69 | |
| Superior | 113.91 (13.62) | 114.56 (12.50) | 102.75 (16.44) | 0.05 | 0.77 | ||||
| Nasal | 66.52 (10.37) | 67.94 (10.54) | 69.02 (13.14) | 0.80 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.09 | ||
| Inferior | 114.80 (16.00) | 117.89 (10.55) | 108.88 (18.22) | 0.29 | 0.21 | 0.35 | 0.55 | ||
| Temporal | 70.00 (13.99) | 72.11 (15.31) | 58.42 (12.83) | 0.14 | |||||
Values are summarized as mean (standard deviation). ANOVA with Tukey correction for post hoc comparisons was used to compare groups. Effect sizes for post hoc comparisons are displayed and bold if statistically significant
A asymptomatic patients, C controls, GCL ganglion cell layer, pRNFL peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer, S symptomatic patients, RNFL retinal nerve fiber layer
aMean of the total ETDRS grid surface, followed by the pericentral (inner) and peripheral (outer) rings
bMean of the total peripapillary ring followed and each of the four quadrants
Correlations between severity of myelopathy and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in men with ALD
| RNFL (total grid) | RNFL (peripheral ring) | pRNFL (total) | pRNFL (superior) | pRNFL (temporal) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDSS ( | |||||
| Spearman’s rho | − 0.47 | − 0.48 | − 0.59 | − 0.50 | − 0.39 |
| | 0.01 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.04 |
| SSPROM ( | |||||
| Spearman’s rho | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.32 |
| | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.09 |
| Timed up-and-go (n = 27) | |||||
| Spearman’s rho | − 0.45 | − 0.47 | − 0.48 | − 0.51 | − 0.29 |
| | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.007 | 0.15 |
All correlations were calculated with Spearman’s rank order correlation test. After Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, correlations were considered significant if p < 0.025
EDSS Expanded Disability Status Score, RNFL retinal nerve fiber layer, pRNFL peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer, SSPROM Severity Scoring system for Progressive Myelopathy
Fig. 2Scatter plots of the relationship between clinical parameters of severity of myelopathy (EDSS, SSPROM and Timed up-and-go) and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness. The continuous lines represent simple linear regression lines and the dotted lines the 95% confidence interval