| Literature DB >> 36158958 |
Minh N L Nguyen1,2, Chao Zhu1, Scott C Kolbe1, Helmut Butzkueven1,2, Owen B White1,2, Joanne Fielding1, Trevor J Kilpatrick3, Gary F Egan4, Alexander Klistorner5, Anneke van der Walt1,2.
Abstract
Background: Predicting long-term visual outcomes and axonal loss following acute optic neuritis (ON) is critical for choosing treatment. Predictive models including all clinical and paraclinical measures of optic nerve dysfunction following ON are lacking.Entities:
Keywords: Ishihara; MRI; OCT; optic neuritis; prognosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36158958 PMCID: PMC9493016 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.945034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.086
Demographic and baseline clinical visual measures of ON patients.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 35.76 ± 8.99 | - | - |
|
| 11/26 | - | - |
|
| 28 (76) | - | - |
|
| 5.81 ± 3.62 | - | - |
|
| 13 (42) | ||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Baseline | 0.63 ± 0.35 | −0.13 ± 0.07 | |
| 1 month | 0.07 ± 0.27 | −0.14 ± 0.07 | |
| 3 month | −0.01 ± 0.22 | −0.12 ± 0.08 | |
| 6 month | −0.04 ± 0.21 | −0.12 ± 0.08 | |
| 12 month | −0.05 ± 0.18 | −0.11 ± 0.10 | |
|
| |||
| Baseline | 3.84 ± 9.25 | 32.96 ± 8.40 | |
| 1 month | 17.81 ± 13.58 | 34.58 ± 6.95 | |
| 3 month | 21.19 ± 13.38 | 34.43 ± 7.15 | |
| 6 month | 25.71 ± 13.15 | 35.95 ± 7.28 | |
| 12 month | 27.31 ± 14.59 | 35.08 ± 8.46 | |
| Baseline | 13.08 ± 14.16 | 37.97 ± 0.16 | |
| 1 month | 27.44 ± 13.54 | 37.89 ± 0.46 | |
| 3 month | 31.73 ± 10.34 | 37.89 ± 0.39 | |
| 6 month | 34.46 ± 9.02 | 37.91 ± 0.37 | |
| 12 month | 35.70 ± 7.39 | 37.97 ± 0.16 | |
|
| |||
| Baseline | 130.62 ± 41.41 | 105.04 ± 17.81 | |
| 1 month | 110.8 ± 26.18 | 103.28 ± 11.64 | |
| 3 month | 91.92 ± 16.75 | 102.95 ± 13.91 | |
| 6 month | 86.29 ± 16.56 | 103.66 ± 13.63 | |
| 12 month | 84.22 ± 16.32 | 102.78 ± 13.65 | |
|
| |||
| Baseline | 82.53 ± 46.66 | 162.65 ± 45.77 | |
| 1 month | 114.61 ± 53.64 | 184.57 ± 35.97 | |
| 3 month | 123.52 ± 51.16 | 170.54 ± 35.33 | |
| 6 month | 125.23 ± 45.73 | 171.46 ± 43.62 | |
| 12 month | 130.54 ± 43.94 | 173.68 ± 43.46 | |
|
| |||
|
| 7.89 ± 9.05 | - | - |
|
| |||
| Baseline | 1.59 ± 0.26 | 1.80 ± 0.19 | |
| 1 month | 1.65 ± 0.21 | 1.81 ± 0.15 | |
| 3 month | 1.75 ± 0.24 | 1.84 ± 0.22 | |
| 6 month | 1.78 ± 0.15 | 1.78 ± 0.17 | |
| 12 month | 1.82 ± 0.17 | 1.74 ± 0.19 | |
|
| |||
| Baseline | 0.88 ± 0.16 | 0.92 ± 0.20 | |
| 1 month | 0.91 ± 0.17 | 0.93 ± 0.15 | |
| 3 month | 1.00 ± 0.19 | 0.94 ± 0.20 | |
| 6 month | 1.00 ± 0.15 | 0.92 ± 0.18 | |
| 12 month | 1.06 ± 0.17 | 0.91 ± 0.19 | |
|
| |||
| Baseline | 43.17 ± 7.04 | 43.22 ± 6.83 | |
| 1 month | 42.79 ± 7.13 | 44.82 ± 7.57 | |
| 3 month | 41.17 ± 9.77 | 44.94 ± 7.44 | |
| 6 month | 37.71 ± 7.77 | 43.27 ± 6.32 | |
| 12 month | 38.74 ± 7.24 | 42.51 ± 7.20 | |
The mean and standard deviation (Mean ± SD) * are shown if the variable is continuous. In contrast, the number of observations for each level is displayed if the variable is binary. SD, standard deviation; ON, optic neuritis; MS, Multiple sclerosis.
LCLA 2.5% asymmetry.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||||
| MTR | 0.14 (0.28), 0.62 | 0.15 (0.36), 0.68 | - | - | - | - |
| DTI (Radial) | 0.21 (0.41), 0.61 | 0.26 (0.53), 0.63 | - | - | - | - |
| Ishihara |
| 2.11 | 0.39 (0.21), 0.07 | 2.09 | ||
| DTI (Axial) | 0.75 (0.48), 0.13 | 0.44 (0.63), 0.50 | - | - | - | - |
| HCVA (logMAR) | 1.86 |
| 1.82 | |||
|
| ||||||
| MTR |
| 0.69 (0.41), 0.10 | - | - | - | - |
| DTI (Radial) | −0.27 (0.36), 0.47 | −0.70 (0.44), 0.12 | - | - | - | - |
| Ishihara |
| 1.71 | 1.66 | |||
| DTI (Axial) | 0.84 (0.61), 0.18 | 0.21 (0.76), 0.79 | - | - | - | - |
| HCVA (logMAR) | 1.88 | −59.93 (31.66), 0.07 | 1.78 | |||
Low contrast letter acuity 2.5%.
Variance inflation factor.
Age, sex, and corticosteroid are adjusted in the multivariable models as confounders. Those factors with p-values less than 0.1 (p-value < 0.1) in the univariable models are included in the multivariable models. The backward stepwise approach is applied in the model selection.
Predictors of 6 and 12-month RNFL thickness asymmetry.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||||
| MTR | −0.08 (0.12), 0.49 | −0.02 (0.11), 0.89 | - | - | - | - |
| DTI (Radial) | −0.04 (0.17), 0.81 | 0.03 (0.16), 0.88 | - | - | - | - |
| Ishihara | 1.18 | 1.19 | ||||
| DTI (Axial) |
|
| 0.25 (0.17), 0.15 | 1.13 |
| 1.14 |
| HCVA (logMAR) |
| - | - | - | - | |
|
| ||||||
| MTR |
|
| 1.10 | 1.12 | ||
| DTI (Radial) | −0.24 (0.13), 0.07 | −0.15 (0.13), 0.26 |
| 1.30 | −0.21 (0.13), 0.12 | 1.31 |
| Ishihara |
|
|
|
| ||
| DTI (Axial) | 0.39 (0.23), 0.10 |
| 1.35 | 1.35 | ||
| HCVA (logMAR) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retinal nerve fibre layer.
Variance inflation factor.
Age, sex, and corticosteroid are adjusted in the multivariable models as confounders. Those factors with p-values less than 0.1 (p-value < 0.1) in the univariable models are included in the multivariable models. The backward stepwise approach is applied in the model selection.
mfVEP amplitude asymmetry.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||||
| MTR | −0.14 (0.24), 0.55 | −0.08 (0.21), 0.71 | - | - | - | - |
| DTI (Radial) | 0.14 (0.31), 0.66 | 0.20 (0.29), 0.50 | - | - | - | - |
| Ishihara |
|
|
| 1.18 | 1.17 | |
| DTI (Axial) |
| 0.44 (0.31), 0.16 | 1.12 | 1.16 | ||
| HCVA (logMAR) |
| - | - | - | - | |
|
| ||||||
| MTR | 0.44 (0.26), 0.10 | 0.39 (0.23), 0.10 |
| 1.30 | 0.40 (0.21), 0.07 | 1.38 |
| DTI (Radial) | −0.45 (0.25), 0.08 | −0.33 (0.25), 0.20 | - | - | - | - |
| Ishihara |
| 1.36 |
| 1.44 | ||
| DTI (Axial) | 0.43 (0.43), 0.32 | 0.50 (0.38), 0.21 | - | - | - | - |
| HCVA (logMAR) | - | - | - | - | ||
Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential.
Variance inflation factor.
Baseline mfVEP amplitude asymmetry is adjusted in the final model as it is significantly associated with mfVEP amplitude asymmetry at 6 and 12 months.
Age, sex, and corticosteroid are adjusted in the multivariable models as confounders. Those factors with p-values less than 0.1 (p-value < 0.1) in the univariable models are included in the multivariable models. The backward stepwise approach is applied in the model selection.