Advertisement

Clinical features and prognosis of late-onset neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders in a Latin American cohort

  • Edgar Carnero ContenttiEmail author
  • Vanessa Daccach Marques
  • Ibis Soto de Castillo
  • Verónica Tkachuk
  • Bustos Ariel
  • Maria C. Castillo
  • Edgardo Cristiano
  • Gabriel Braga Diégues Serva
  • Antonio Carlos dos Santos
  • Ana Mariel Finkelsteyn
  • Pablo A. López
  • Liliana Patrucco
  • Omaira Molina
  • Juan Pablo Pettinicchi
  • Vanesa Toneguzzo
  • Alejandro Caride
  • Juan Ignacio Rojas
Original Communication
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Background

We aimed to assess the clinical, paraclinical, imaging and prognostic features of patients with late-onset neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (LO-NMOSD; ≥ 50 years at disease onset) LO-NMOSD, compared with early onset-NMOSD (EO-NMOSD, ≤ 49 years at disease onset), in Latin American (LATAM).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with NMOSD, as defined using the 2015 validated diagnostic criteria. We included patients from Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. They were divided into: LO-NMOSD and EO-NMOSD and comparison among the groups were performed.

Results

Among these 140 NMOSD patients, 24 (17.1%) were LO-NMOSD; 64% were positive for aquaporin-4 antibodies; and 41.5% of this population cohort was non-Caucasian. Severe disability [expanded disability status scale (EDSS) ≥ 6] at the last follow-up and presence of comorbidities were significantly associated with LO-NMOSD, compared with EO-NMOSD. LO-NMOSD patients had a shorter median time to EDSS ≥ 4 than EO-NMOSD patients (46 vs. 60 months; log-rank test p = 0.0006). Furthermore, we observed a positive correlation between age at onset and EDSS score at the last follow-up (Spearman r = 0.34, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

LO-NMOSD patients from LATAM developed early severe disability, compared with EO-NMOSD. Therefore, age at onset could have important implications for the long-term prognosis of NMOSD patients.

Keywords

Late-onset NMOSD Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder Prognosis Disability Latin america 

Notes

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors have any potential financial conflict of interest relating to this manuscript.

Ethical standards

This study was approved by the local ethics committee of each participating center.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Supplementary material

415_2020_9699_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 12 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wingerchuk DM, Lennon VA, Lucchinetti CF et al (2007) The spectrum of neuromyelitis optica. Lancet Neurol 6:805–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnero Contentti E, De Virgiliis M, Hryb JP et al (2019) Aquaporin-4 serostatus and visual outcomes in clinically isolated acute optic neuritis. J Neuroophthalmol 39(2):165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akman-Demir G, Tüzün E, Waters P et al (2011) Prognostic implications of aquaporin-4 antibody status in neuromyelitis optica patients. J Neurol 258(3):464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wingerchuk D, Banwell B, Bennett J et al (2015) International consensus diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurology 85:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lennon V, Wingerchuk D, Kryzer T et al (2004) A serum autoantibody marker of neuromyelitis optica: distinction from multiple sclerosis. Lancet 364:2106–2112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sepulveda M, Armangue T, Sola-Valls N et al (2016) Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Comparison according to the phenotype and serostatus. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 3:e225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Waters P, McKeon A, Leite MI et al (2012) Serological diagnosis of NMO: a multicenter comparison of aquaporin-4-IgG assays. Neurology 78:665–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kitley J, Woodhall M, Waters P et al (2012) Myelin-oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibodies in adults with a neuromyelitis optica phenotype. Neurology 79:1273–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamid SHM, Whittam D, Mutch K et al (2017) What proportion of AQP4-IgG-negative NMO spectrum disorder patients are MOG-IgG positive? A cross sectional study of 132 patients. J Neurol 264:2088–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palace J, Lin DY, Zeng D et al (2019) Outcome prediction models in AQP4-IgG positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Brain 142:1310–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitley J, Leite MI, Nakashima I et al (2012) Prognostic factors and disease course in aquaporin-4 antibody-positive patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder from the United Kingdom and Japan. Brain 135:1834–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collongues N, Marignier R, Zephir H et al (2010) Neuromyelitis optica in France: a multicenter study of 125 patients. Neurology 74:736–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nagaishi A, Takagi M, Umemura A et al (2011) Clinical features of neuromyelitis optica in a large Japanese cohort: comparison between phenotypes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 82:1360–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Collongues N, Marignier R, Jacob A et al (2014) Characterization of neuromyelitis optica and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder patients with a late onset. Mult Scler 20:1086–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fragoso YD, Ruocco HH, Dias RM et al (2019) Late onset of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurol Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-019-0143-2(Epub ahead of print) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang LJ, Yang LN, Li T et al (2017) Distinctive characteristics of early-onset and late-onset neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Int J Neurosci 127(4):334–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mao Z, Yin J, Zhong X et al (2015) Late-onset neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in AQP4-seropositive patients in a Chinese population. BMC Neurol 15:160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seok JM, Cho HJ, Ahn SW et al (2017) Clinical characteristics of late-onset neuromyelitis optica spectrum. Mult Scler 23(13):1748–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sepulveda M, Delgado-García G, Blanco Y et al (2019) Late-onset neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: the importance of autoantibody serostatus. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 6(6):e607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33:1444–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bedoya G, Montoya P, García J et al (2006) Admixture dynamics in Hispanics: a shift in the nuclear genetic ancestry of a South American population isolate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:7234–7239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carnero Contentti E, Daccach Marques V, Soto de Castillo I et al (2018) Frequency of brain MRI abnormalities in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder at presentation: a cohort of Latin American patients. Mult Scler Relat Disord 19:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carnero Contentti E, Soto de Castillo I, Daccach Marques V et al (2018) Application of the 2015 diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders in a cohort of Latin American patients. Mult Scler Relat Disord 20:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mealy MA, Mossburg SE, Kim SH et al (2018) Long-term disability in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder with a history of myelitis is associated with age at onset, delay in diagnosis/preventive treatment, MRI lesion length and presence of symptomatic brain lesions. Mult Scler Relat Disord 28:64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wingerchuk DM, Pittock SJ, Lucchinetti CF et al (2007) A secondary progressive clinical course is uncommon in neuromyelitis optica. Neurology 68:603–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krumbholz M, Hofstadt-van Oy U, Angstwurm K et al (2015) Very late-onset neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder beyond the age of 75. J Neurol 262:1379–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marrie RA (2019) Comorbidity in multiple sclerosis: past, present and future. Clin Investig Med 42(1):E5–E12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edgar Carnero Contentti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vanessa Daccach Marques
    • 2
  • Ibis Soto de Castillo
    • 3
  • Verónica Tkachuk
    • 4
  • Bustos Ariel
    • 4
  • Maria C. Castillo
    • 3
  • Edgardo Cristiano
    • 5
  • Gabriel Braga Diégues Serva
    • 2
  • Antonio Carlos dos Santos
    • 2
  • Ana Mariel Finkelsteyn
    • 4
  • Pablo A. López
    • 1
  • Liliana Patrucco
    • 5
  • Omaira Molina
    • 3
  • Juan Pablo Pettinicchi
    • 1
  • Vanesa Toneguzzo
    • 4
  • Alejandro Caride
    • 1
  • Juan Ignacio Rojas
    • 5
  1. 1.Neuroimmunology Unit, Department of NeuroscienceHospital AlemánBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Department of Neurosciences and Behavioral Sciences, Hospital das Clínicas, Ribeirão Preto Medical SchoolUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Neurology DepartmentHospital Universitario de MaracaiboMaracaiboBolivarian Republic of Venezuela
  4. 4.Seccion de Neuroinmunologia y Enfermedades Desmielinizantes, Servicio de NeurologíaHospital de Clínicas José de San MartinBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Centro de Esclerosis Múltiple de Buenos AiresHospital Italiano de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations