Evoked potentials in neuromyelitis optica and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disroders

Česká verzia

Authors: G. Timárová ¹; P. Havránková ²; I. Menkyová ^1,2
Authors place of work: II. neurologická klinika LF UK a UN, Bratislava, Slovensko ¹; Neurologická klinika a Centrum, klinických neurověd, 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze, Česká republika ²
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2020; 83/116(supplementum 1): 44-50
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2020S44

Summary

Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) have been recognized in the last 15 years according to its clinical and laboratory findings, MRI and anti-aquaporin-4-IgG antibodies discovery, as a separate nosological entity, different from multiple sclerosis. Electrophysiological examination including evoked potentials (EPs) is not a part of formal NMO/NMOSD criteria. In the past ten years, multiple studies appeared, analyzing the contribution of EPs in the diagnostics, disease monitoring, and prognosis in NMO/NMOSD. The actual survey focuses on the most important one. Most of the studies, though retrospective and cross-sectional, show that the findings are more homogenous in the Aphro-American and Asian population than in the Caucasian one. The most often seen abnormality was the absence of EPs, amplitude reduction of VEP in optic neuritis, and MEP and/or SEP in longitudinal extension transverse myelitis. These findings reflect more severe axonal loss than demyelination in NMO/NMOSD. In the Caucasian population, the findings in EPs might be more heterogeneous, with a higher frequency of mild latency increase of EPs and less amplitude reduction or EP absence. The data from many studies point to a high correlation of the abnormity pattern in the case of the first attack of optic neuritis and/or longitudinal extension transverse myelitis and the next rebound of the disease. Although the multimodal EPs are not a part of formal NMO/NMOSD diagnostic criteria, their role in the diagnostics, monitoring disease course and prognosis of the NMO/NMOSD, is indubitable. Most of the published studies are cross-sectional, opened and retrospective, and therefore new prospective, randomized, and multicentre studies are invited.

Keywords:

neuromyelitis optica – evoked potentials – visual evoked potentials – motor evoked potentials – somatosenzoric evoked potentials – brainstem auditory evoked potentials

Zdroje

1. Wingerchuk DM, Lennon VA, Lucchinetti CF et al. The spectrum of neuromyelitis optica. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6 (9): 805–815. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422 (07) 70216-8.

2. Wingerchuk DM, Lennon VA, Pittock SJ et al. Revised diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica. Neurology 2006; 66 (10): 1485–1489. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000216139.44259.74.

3. Nytrová P, Kleinová P, Preiningerová Lízrová J et al. Neuromyelitis optica a poruchy jejího širšího spektra – retrospektivní analýza klinických a paraklinických nálezů. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2015; 78/111 (1): 72–77. doi: 10.14735/amcsnn201572.

4. Marrie RA and Gryba C. The incidence and prevalence of neuromyelitis optica: a systematic review. Int J MS Care 2013; 15 (3): 113–118. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2012-048.

5. Pandit L, Asgari N, Apiwattanakul M et al. Demographic and clinical features of neuromyelitis optica: a review. Mult Scler 2015; 21 (7): 845–853. doi: 10.1177/135245851 5572406.

6. Jarius S, Wildemann B. AQP4 antibodies in neuromyelitis optica: diagnostic and pathogenetic relevans. Nat Rev Neurol 2010; 6 (7): 383–392. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2010.72.

7. Sellner J, Boggild M, Clanet M et al. EFNS Guidelines on diagnosis and management of neuromyelitis optica. Eur J Neurol 2010; 17 (8): 1019–1032. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03066.x.

8. Bot JC, Barkhof F, Polman CH et al. Spinal cord abnormalities in recently diagnosed MS patients added value of spinal MRI examination. Neurology 2004; 62 (2): 226–233. doi: 10.1212/wnl.62.2.226.

9. Lee DH, Metz I, Berthele A et al. Supraspinal demyelinating lesions in neuromyelitis optica display a typical astrocyte pathology. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 2010; 36 (7): 685–687. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2990.2010.01105.x.

10. Trebst C, Jarius S, Berthele A et al. Update on the diag-nosis and treatment of neuromyelitis optica: recommendations on the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS). J Neurol 2014; 261 (1): 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s00415-013-7169-7.

11. Wingerchuk DM, Banwell B, Bennett JL et al. International Panel for NMOSD. International consensus diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurology 2015; 85 (2): 177–189. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001729.

12. Leoncani L, Guerrieri S, Comi G. Visual evoked potentials as a biomarker in multiple sclerosis and associated optic neuritis. J Neuro Ophtalmology 2018; 38 (3): 350–357. doi: 10.1097/WNO.0000000000000704.

13. Cabrera-Gomez JA, Kurtzke JF, Gonzalez-Quevedo A et al. An epidemiological study of neuromyelitis optica in Cuba. J Neurol 2009; 256 (1): 35–44. doi: 10.1007/s00415-009-0009-0.

14. Kanzaki M, Mochizuki H, Ogawa G et al. Clinical features of opticospinal multiple sclerosis with anti-aquaporin 4 antibody. Eur Neurol 2008; 60 (1): 37–42. doi: 10.1159/000127978.

15. Cigánek L. Zrakové evokované potenciály vyvolané zábleskom. In: Cigánek L (ed). Evokované potenciály a ich využitie v klinickej praxi. 1st ed. Bratislava: Osveta 1991: 22–51.

16. Halliday AM, McDonald WI et al. Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Br Med J 1973; 4 (5893): 661–664. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4.5893.661.

17. Holder GE, Celesia GG, Miyake Y et al. International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology: recommendations for visual system testing. Clin Neurophysiol 2010; 121 (9): 1393–1409. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.010.

18. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M et al. International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update). Doc Ophthalmol 2016; 133 (1): 1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10633-016-9553-y.

19. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA et al. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 90 (1): 65–81. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694 (94) 90114-7.

20. Hradílek P, Vlček F, Zapletalová O et al. Vyšetření vizuálních evokovaných potenciálů a sonografické vyhodnocení orbitální hemodynamiky u akutní unilaterální optické neuritidy. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2007; 70/103 (1): 78–83.

21. Ratchford JN, Quigg ME, Conger A et al. Optical coherence tomography helps differentiate neuromyelitis optica and MS optic neuropathies. Neurology 2009; 73 (4): 302–308. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181af78b8.

22. Bennett JL, de Seze J, Lana-Peixoto M et al. Neuromyelitis optica and multiple sclerosis seeing differences through optical coherence tomography. Mult Scler 2015; 21 (6): 678–688. doi: 10.1177/1352458514567216

23. Oertel FC, Kuchling J, Zimmermann H et al. Microstructural visual system changes in AQP4-antibody-seropositive NMOSD. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2017; 4 (3): e334. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000334.

24. Frederiksen JL, Petrera J. Serial visual evoked potentials in 90 untreated patients with acute optic neuritis. Surv Ophthalmol 1999; 44 (Suppl 1): S54–S62. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6257 (99) 00095-8.

25. Naismith RT, Tutlam NT, Xu J et al. Optical coherence tomography is less sensitive than visual evoked potentials in optic neuritis. Neurology 2009; 73 (1): 46–52. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181aaea32.

26. Davidson AW, Scott RF, Mitchell KW. The effect of contrast reduction on pattern-reversal VEPs in suspected multiple sclerosis and optic neuritis. Docum Ophthalmol 2004; 109 (2): 157–161. doi: 10.1007/s10633-004-3831-9.

27. Watanabe A, Matsushita T, Doi H et al. Multimodality-evoked potential study of anti-aquaporin-4 antibody-positive and -negative multiple sclerosis patients. J Neurol Sci 2009; 281 (1–2): 34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2009.02.371.

28. Neto SP, Alvarenga RM, Vasconcelos CC et al. Evaluation of pattern-reversal visual evoked potential in patients with neuromyelitis optica. Mult Scler 2013; 19 (2): 173–178. doi: 10.1177/1352458512447597.

29. Ringelstein M, Kleiter I, Ayzenberg I et al. Visual evoked potentials in neuromyelitis optica and its spectrum disorders. Mult Scler 2014; 20 (5): 617–620. doi: 10.1177/1352458513503053.

30. Zhou H, Zhao S, Yin D et al. Optic neuritis: a 5-year follow-up study of Chinese patients based on aquaporin-4 antibody status and ages. J Neurol 2016; 263 (7): 1382–1389. doi: 10.1007/s00415-016-8155-7.

31. Ringelstein M, Harmel J, Zimmermann H et al. Longitudinal optic neuritis-unrelated visual evoked potential changes in NMO spectrum disorders. Neurology 2020; 94 (4): e407–e418. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008684.

32. Ohnari K, Okada K, Takahashi T et al. Evoked potentials are usefull for diagnosis of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. J Neuro Sci 2016; 364: 97–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2016.02.060.

33. Shen T, You Y, Arunachalam S et al. Differing structural and functional patterns of optic nerve damage in multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Ophthalmology 2019; 126 (3): 445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.06.022.

34. Pache F, Zimmermann H, Mikolajczak J et al. 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. J Neuroinflam 2016; 13 (1): 282. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.08.022.

35. Kim N, Kim J, Park C et al. Optical coherence tomography versus visual evoked potentials for detecting visual pathway abnormalities in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. J Clin Neurol 2018; 14 (2): 200–205. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2018.14.2.200.

36. Vabanesi M, Pisa M, Guerrieri S et al. In vivo structural and functional assessment of optic nerve damage in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders and multiple sclerosis. Sci Reports 2019; 9 (1): 10371. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46251-3.

37. Sartucci F, Murri L, Orsini C et al. Equiluminant red-green and blue-yellow VEPs in multiple sclerosis. J Clin Neurophysiol 2001; 18 (6): 583–591. doi: 10.1097/00004691-200111000-00010.

38. Norcia AM, Appelbaum LG, Ales JM et al. The steady-state visual evoked potential in vision research: a review. J Vis 2015; 15 (6): 4. doi: 10.1167/15.6.4.

39. Frohman AR, Schnurman Z, Conger A et al. Multifocal visual evoked potentials are influenced by variable contrast stimulation in MS. Neurology 2012; 79 (8): 797–801. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182661edc.

40. Cabrera-Gomez JA, Kurtzke JF, Gonzales-Quevedo A et al. An epidemiological study of neuromyelitis optica in Cuba. J Neurol 2009; 256 (1): 35–44. doi: 10.1007/s00415-009-0009-0.

41. Tsao WC, Lyu RK, Ro LS et al. Clinical correlations of motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in neuromyelitis optica. PLOS 2014; 9 (11): e113631. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113631.

42. Demura Y, Kinoshita M, Fukuda O et al. Imbalance in multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica: association with deep sensation disturbance. Neurol Sci 2016; 37 (12): 1961–1968. doi: 10.1007/s10072-016-2697-4.

43. Lee DN, Lishman JR. Visual proprioceptive control of stance. J Hum Move Stud 1975; 1 (2): 87–95.

44. Kim HJ, Paul F, Lana-Peixoto MA et al. MRI characteristics of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder an international update. Neurology 2015; 84 (11): 1165–1173. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001367.

45. Rivero RL, Oliveira EM, Bichuetti DB et al. Diffusion tensor imaging of the cervical spinal cord of patients with neuromyelitis optica. Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 32 (5): 457–463. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2014.01.023.

46. Qian W, Chan Q, Mak H et al. Quantitative assessment of the cervical spinal cord damage in neuromyelitis optica using diffusion tensor imaging at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33 (6): 1312–1320. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22575.

47. Takanashi Y, Misu T, Oda K et al. Audiological evidence of therapeutic effect of steroid treatment in neuromyelitis optica with hearing loss. J Clin Neurosci 2014; 21 (12): 2249–2251. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2014.04.019.