Optical Coherence Tomography Advanced Parameters in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: Ophthalmological and Neurological Assessments

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: To evaluate ophthalmological, neurological, radiological, and laboratory data in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and to identify new ophthalmological factors that could be helpful as biomarkers of the disease, potentially leading to an earlier prediction of disease course and disability progression. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional-study. METHODS: Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ophthalmological biomicroscopy of the anterior segment and fundus, structural optical coherence tomography (OCT) with retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex (GCC), and OCT angiography (OCTA) with vascular density (VD) were performed. The following clinical and neuro-radiological features were assessed: MS phenotype, disease duration, clinical severity, type of treatment, and T2-weighted lesion and T1-weighted Gd+ enhancing lesion number on the brain and spinal cord MRI. RESULTS: One hundred and six patients (212 eyes) were analyzed. Sixty-six of them (62.2%) had MS and 40 (37.8%) were matched healthy controls (HCs). patients with MS showed lower RNFL, GCC, and VD in the radial peripapillary capillary plexus than controls in both eyes (P < .05). By Performing a logistic regression with a distinct MS outcome for both eyes, we were able to demonstrate that the value that was most predictive of MS was the average GCC thickness (P = .009). Regression analysis demonstrated that patients with a higher T2-weighted lesions showed a lower RNFL thickness value and reduced GCC and VD values than those with a low lesion load (P < .01 and P < .05, respectively). Similarly, relapsing MS patients showed lower RNFL values (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Several OCT and OCTA-optic nerve parameters could be useful prognostic biomarkers for the MS disease course in clinical practice. However, it is necessary to do additional research with larger sample sizes in order to validate these findings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.