MOG-IgG in NMO and related disorders: a multicenter study of 50 patients. Part 4: Afferent visual system damage after optic neuritis in MOG-IgG-seropositive versus AQP4-IgG-seropositive patients

Florence Pache, Hanna Zimmermann, Janine Mikolajczak, Sophie Schumacher, Anna Lacheta, Frederike C. Oertel, Judith Bellmann-Strobl, Sven Jarius, Brigitte Wildemann, Markus Reindl, Amy Waldman, Kerstin Soelberg, Nasrin Asgari, Marius Ringelstein, Orhan Aktas, Nikolai Gross, Mathias Buttmann, Thomas Ach, Klemens Ruprecht, Friedemann PaulAlexander U Brandt, in cooperation with the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS)

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

335 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG-IgG) have been reported in patients with aquaporin-4 antibody (AQP4-IgG)-negative neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). The objective of this study was to describe optic neuritis (ON)-induced neuro-axonal damage in the retina of MOG-IgG-positive patients in comparison with AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD patients.

METHODS: Afferent visual system damage following ON was bilaterally assessed in 16 MOG-IgG-positive patients with a history of ON and compared with that in 16 AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD patients. In addition, 16 healthy controls matched for age, sex, and disease duration were analyzed. Study data included ON history, retinal optical coherence tomography, visual acuity, and visual evoked potentials.

RESULTS: Eight MOG-IgG-positive patients had a previous diagnosis of AQP4-IgG-negative NMOSD with ON and myelitis, and eight of (mainly recurrent) ON. Twenty-nine of the 32 eyes of the MOG-IgG-positive patients had been affected by at least one episode of ON. Peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (pRNFL) and ganglion cell and inner plexiform layer volume (GCIP) were significantly reduced in ON eyes of MOG-IgG-positive patients (pRNFL = 59 ± 23 μm; GCIP = 1.50 ± 0.34 mm(3)) compared with healthy controls (pRNFL = 99 ± 6 μm, p < 0.001; GCIP = 1.97 ± 0.11 mm(3), p < 0.001). Visual acuity was impaired in eyes after ON in MOG-IgG-positive patients (0.35 ± 0.88 logMAR). There were no significant differences in any structural or functional visual parameters between MOG-IgG-positive and AQP4-IgG-positive patients (pRNFL: 59 ± 21 μm; GCIP: 1.41 ± 0.27 mm(3); Visual acuity = 0.72 ± 1.09 logMAR). Importantly, MOG-IgG-positive patients had a significantly higher annual ON relapse rate than AQP4-IgG-positive patients (median 0.69 vs. 0.29 attacks/year, p = 0.004), meaning that on average a single ON episode caused less damage in MOG-IgG-positive than in AQP4-IgG-positive patients. pRNFL and GCIP loss correlated with the number of ON episodes in MOG-IgG-positive patients (p < 0.001), but not in AQP4-IgG-positive patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Retinal neuro-axonal damage and visual impairment after ON in MOG-IgG-positive patients are as severe as in AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD patients. In MOG-IgG-positive patients, damage accrual may be driven by higher relapse rates, whereas AQP4-IgG-positive patients showed fewer but more severe episodes of ON. Given the marked damage in some of our MOG-IgG-positive patients, early diagnosis and timely initiation and close monitoring of immunosuppressive therapy are important.

Original languageEnglish
Article number282
JournalJournal of Neuroinflammation
Volume13
Number of pages10
ISSN1742-2094
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1. Nov 2016

Keywords

  • Aquaporin-4 antibodies (AQP4-IgG)
  • Devic syndrome
  • Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibodies (MOG-IgG)
  • NMO-IgG
  • Neuromyelitis optica
  • Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD)
  • Optic neuritis
  • Optical coherence tomography
  • Retinal neuro-axonal damage
  • Visual acuity
  • Visual evoked potentials

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'MOG-IgG in NMO and related disorders: a multicenter study of 50 patients. Part 4: Afferent visual system damage after optic neuritis in MOG-IgG-seropositive versus AQP4-IgG-seropositive patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this