Jonathan A Gernert1, Rebecca Wicklein2,3, Benjamin Knier2,3, Joachim Havla4,5, Bernhard Hemmer2,3,6, Tania Kümpfel1,3. 1. Institute of Clinical Neuroimmunology, LMU Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Data Integration for Future Medicine (DIFUTURE) Consortium, Munich, Germany. 4. Institute of Clinical Neuroimmunology, LMU Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany. joachim.havla@med.uni-muenchen.de. 5. Data Integration for Future Medicine (DIFUTURE) Consortium, Munich, Germany. joachim.havla@med.uni-muenchen.de. 6. Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy), Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripapillary hyperreflective ovoid mass-like structures (PHOMS) have recently been described as new optical coherence tomography (OCT) marker. It is not yet clear whether the occurrence of PHOMS is disease-specific or disease-spanning. PHOMS have been described in 16-18% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Currently, no data on the prevalence of PHOMS in other demyelinating diseases including aquaporine-4-IgG-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disease (AQP4 + NMOSD) or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-IgG-associated disease (MOGAD) are reported. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional, retrospective spectral domain OCT study evaluating the frequency of PHOMS in AQP4 + NMOSD (n = 47) and MOGAD (n = 44) patients. To test the association with retinal neuroaxonal damage, we compared demographic and clinical data as well as retinal layer thicknesses between eyes with vs. eyes without PHOMS. RESULTS: PHOMS were detected in 17% of AQP4 + NMOSD and 14% of MOGAD patients. Intra-cohort analysis revealed that AQP4 + NMOSD patients with PHOMS were significantly older [mean (years): 57.5 vs. 50.0; p value = 0.04]. We found no association of PHOMS with retinal neuroaxonal degeneration. In addition, in subjects with only one eye affected by PHOMS compared with the unaffected fellow eye, no differences in retinal parameters were observed (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, we found PHOMS in 17% of AQP4 + NMOSD and 14% of MOGAD patients. This is comparable to the prevalence of published MS PHOMS data. Therefore, a disease-specific occurrence of PHOMS is unlikely. Interestingly, PHOMS do not seem to depend on retinal neuroaxonal degeneration.
BACKGROUND: Peripapillary hyperreflective ovoid mass-like structures (PHOMS) have recently been described as new optical coherence tomography (OCT) marker. It is not yet clear whether the occurrence of PHOMS is disease-specific or disease-spanning. PHOMS have been described in 16-18% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Currently, no data on the prevalence of PHOMS in other demyelinating diseases including aquaporine-4-IgG-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disease (AQP4 + NMOSD) or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-IgG-associated disease (MOGAD) are reported. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional, retrospective spectral domain OCT study evaluating the frequency of PHOMS in AQP4 + NMOSD (n = 47) and MOGAD (n = 44) patients. To test the association with retinal neuroaxonal damage, we compared demographic and clinical data as well as retinal layer thicknesses between eyes with vs. eyes without PHOMS. RESULTS: PHOMS were detected in 17% of AQP4 + NMOSD and 14% of MOGAD patients. Intra-cohort analysis revealed that AQP4 + NMOSD patients with PHOMS were significantly older [mean (years): 57.5 vs. 50.0; p value = 0.04]. We found no association of PHOMS with retinal neuroaxonal degeneration. In addition, in subjects with only one eye affected by PHOMS compared with the unaffected fellow eye, no differences in retinal parameters were observed (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, we found PHOMS in 17% of AQP4 + NMOSD and 14% of MOGAD patients. This is comparable to the prevalence of published MS PHOMS data. Therefore, a disease-specific occurrence of PHOMS is unlikely. Interestingly, PHOMS do not seem to depend on retinal neuroaxonal degeneration.
Authors: L Aly; J Havla; G Lepennetier; T F M Andlauer; C Sie; E-M Strauß; M-M Hoshi; T Kümpfel; M Hiltensperger; M Mitsdoerffer; M Mühlau; C Zimmer; B Hemmer; T Korn; B Knier Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2020-07-19 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Joachim Havla; T Kümpfel; R Schinner; M Spadaro; E Schuh; E Meinl; R Hohlfeld; O Outteryck Journal: J Neurol Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Dean M Wingerchuk; Brenda Banwell; Jeffrey L Bennett; Philippe Cabre; William Carroll; Tanuja Chitnis; Jérôme de Seze; Kazuo Fujihara; Benjamin Greenberg; Anu Jacob; Sven Jarius; Marco Lana-Peixoto; Michael Levy; Jack H Simon; Silvia Tenembaum; Anthony L Traboulsee; Patrick Waters; Kay E Wellik; Brian G Weinshenker Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Axel Petzold; Danko Coric; Lisanne J Balk; Steffen Hamann; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Alastair K Denniston; Pearse A Keane; David P Crabb Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 10.422