MOG-associated optic neuritis masquerading as NAION in an elderly woman: a case report

Applying the 2022 optic neuritis criteria to noninflammatory optic neuropathies with optic nerve T2-hyperintensity: an observational study

INTRODUCTION

Recent diagnostic criteria for optic neuritis include T2-hyperintensity of the optic nerve (ON), even without associated contrast enhancement. However, isolated ON-T2-hyperintensity is a nonspecific finding found in any optic neuropathy or severe retinopathy. We applied the 2022 optic neuritis diagnostic criteria to a cohort of patients with noninflammatory optic neuropathy and ON-T2-hyperintensity in at least one eye, to assess the rate of optic neuritis misdiagnosis using these criteria.

METHODS

Retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent brain/orbit MRI with/without contrast between 07/01/2019 and 06/30/2022. Patients with ON-T2-hyperintensity in at least one eye were included. The 2022 optic neuritis diagnostic criteria were applied to patients with noninflammatory optic neuropathies who had an ophthalmologic examination available for review.

RESULTS

Of 150 patients included, 85/150 had compressive optic neuropathy; 32/150 had glaucoma; 12/150 had papilledema; 8/150 had hereditary (3), radiation-induced (3), nutritional (1), traumatic (1) optic neuropathies (none fulfilled the criteria); 13/150 had ischemic optic neuropathy and 4 fulfilled the criteria as definite optic neuritis due to contrast enhancement of the ON head. Seven additional patients would have satisfied the diagnostic criteria if red flags for alternative diagnoses had been overlooked.

DISCUSSION

The application of the 2022 optic neuritis diagnostic criteria in patients with noninflammatory optic neuropathy and ON-T2-hyperintensity in at least one ON resulted in misdiagnosis of optic neuritis in only 4 patients because of ON head enhancement, all with nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Neuro-ophthalmologic evaluation and exclusion of the ON head as a location in the MRI criteria would have prevented optic neuritis misdiagnosis in our study.

Acute Optic Neuropathy in Older Adults: Differentiating Between MOGAD Optic Neuritis and Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease optic neuritis (MOGAD-ON) and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) can cause acute optic neuropathy in older adults but have different managements. We aimed to determine differentiating factors between MOGAD-ON and NAION and the frequency of serum MOG-IgG false positivity among patients with NAION.

METHODS

In this international, multicenter, case-control study at tertiary neuro-ophthalmology centers, patients with MOGAD presenting with unilateral optic neuritis as their first attack at age 45 years or older and age-matched and sex-matched patients with NAION were included. Comorbidities, clinical presentations, acute optic disc findings, optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings, and outcomes were compared between MOGAD-ON and NAION. Multivariate analysis was performed to find statistically significant predictors of MOGAD-ON. A separate review of consecutive NAION patients seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, from 2018 to 2022, was conducted to estimate the frequency of false-positive MOG-IgG in this population.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients with unilateral MOGAD-ON were compared with 64 patients with NAION. Among patients with MOGAD-ON, the median age at onset was 56 (interquartile range [IQR] 50-61) years, 70% were female, and 78% were White. Multivariate analysis showed that eye pain was strongly associated with MOGAD-ON (OR 32.905; 95% CI 2.299-473.181), while crowded optic disc (OR 0.033; 95% CI 0.002-0.492) and altitudinal visual field defect (OR 0.028; 95% CI 0.002-0.521) were strongly associated with NAION. On OCT, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness in unilateral MOGAD-ON was lower than in NAION (median 114 vs 201 μm, p < 0.001; median pRNFL thickening 25 vs 102 μm, p < 0.001). MOGAD-ON had more severe vision loss at nadir (median logMAR 1.0 vs 0.3, p < 0.001), but better recovery (median logMAR 0.1 vs 0.3, p = 0.002). In the cohort of consecutive NAION patients, 66/212 (31%) patients with NAION were tested for MOG-IgG and 8% (95% CI 1%-14%) of those had false-positive serum MOG-IgG at low titers.

DISCUSSION

Acute unilateral optic neuropathy with optic disc edema in older adults can be caused by either MOGAD-ON or NAION. Detailed history, the degree of pRNFL swelling on OCT, and visual outcomes can help differentiate the entities and prevent indiscriminate serum MOG-IgG testing in all patients with acute optic neuropathy.

Bilateral Simultaneous Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy: Demographics, Risk Factors, and Visual Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy is a well-known cause of vision loss, it typically presents unilaterally. Simultaneous, bilateral nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (sNAION) is rare and poorly studied in comparison. This study seeks to characterize the clinical features and risk factors of patients with sNAION compared with unilateral NAION (uNAION).

METHODS

In this retrospective case-control study, we reviewed 76 eyes (38 patients) with sNAION and 38 eyes (38 patients) with uNAION (controls) from 4 academic institutions examined between 2009 and 2020. Demographic information, medical history, medication use, symptom course, paraclinical evaluation, and visual outcomes were collected for all patients.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in demographics, comorbidities and their treatments, and medication usage between sNAION and uNAION patients. sNAION patients were more likely to undergo an investigative work-up with erythrocyte sedimentation rate measurement ( P = 0.0061), temporal artery biopsy ( P = 0.013), lumbar puncture ( P = 0.013), and MRI ( P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for visual acuity, mean visual field deviation, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, or ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness at presentation, nor at final visit for those with ≥3 months of follow-up. The sNAION eyes with ≥3 months of follow-up had a smaller cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) at final visit ( P = 0.033). Ten patients presented with incipient NAION, of which 9 suffered vision loss by final visit.

CONCLUSION

Aside from CDR differences, the risk factor profile and visual outcomes of sNAION patients seem similar to those of uNAION patients, suggesting similar pathophysiology.

Diagnosis of Optic Disc Oedema: Fundus Features, Ocular Imaging Findings, and Artificial Intelligence

Optic disc swelling is a manifestation of a broad range of processes affecting the optic nerve head and/or the anterior segment of the optic nerve. Accurately diagnosing optic disc oedema, grading its severity, and recognising its cause, is crucial in order to treat patients in a timely manner and limit vision loss. Some ocular fundus features, in light of a patient's history and visual symptoms, may suggest a specific mechanism or aetiology of the visible disc oedema, but current criteria can at most enable an educated guess as to the most likely cause. In many cases only the clinical evolution and ancillary testing can inform the exact diagnosis. The development of ocular fundus imaging, including colour fundus photography, fluorescein angiography, optical coherence tomography, and multimodal imaging, has provided assistance in quantifying swelling, distinguishing true optic disc oedema from pseudo-optic disc oedema, and differentiating among the numerous causes of acute optic disc oedema. However, the diagnosis of disc oedema is often delayed or not made in busy emergency departments and outpatient neurology clinics. Indeed, most non-eye care providers are not able to accurately perform ocular fundus examination, increasing the risk of diagnostic errors in acute neurological settings. The implementation of non-mydriatic fundus photography and artificial intelligence technology in the diagnostic process addresses these important gaps in clinical practice.