Evaluation of Retinal Structure and Optic Nerve Function Changes in Multiple Sclerosis: Longitudinal Study with 1-Year Follow-Up

Background. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation and demyelination of the central nervous system which often involves the optic nerve even though only 20% of the patients experience optic neuritis (ON). Objective. This study aims to compare the retinal structure and optic nerve function between patients with MS and healthy controls (HCs), evaluate optic nerve alterations in MS over 1-year follow-up, and analyze its correlations with disease duration, number of relapses, degree of disability, and different subtypes. Methods. This is a prospective cohort study involving 58 eyes of MS patients. Optic nerve function was evaluated with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, and P100 latency, while the retinal structure was evaluated from the GCIPL and RNFL thickness measured with optical coherence tomography (OCT) and fundus photography. Results. The MS group had lower BCVA (p=0.001), contrast sensitivity (p<0.001), mean GCIPL thickness (p<0.001), and mean RNFL thickness (p<0.001) than HC. At 6 and 12 months of observations, GCIPL and RNFL (nasal quadrant) of MS patients decreased significantly (p=0.007 and p=0.004, respectively). Disease duration and the number of relapses correlated with delayed P100 latency (r = −0.61, p<0.001 and r = −0.46, p=0.02). GCIPL and RNFL in the SPMS subtype were thinner than in RRMS. Conclusions. The retinal structure and optic nerve function of MS patients are worse than those of normal individuals. GCIPL and RNFL thinning occurs at 6 and 12 months but do not correlate with disease duration, the number of relapses, and degree of disability

Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy and Corticosteroids for Vestibular Neuritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives: Besides corticosteroids, clinicians found that vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) has a potential effect on vestibular neuritis (VN) improvement. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of both corticosteroid therapy (CT) compared to VRT, and each group compared to their combination (CT vs. (CT+VRT) and VRT vs. (CT + VRT). Materials and Methods: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the administration of at least CT and VRT for VN. The outcome of interest was VN’s subjective and objective improvement parameters. Results: Four RCTs involving a total of 182 patients with VN were eligible for systematic review and meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference (WMD) of canal paresis (objective parameter) in the CT group is significantly lower than in the VRT group after a 1 month follow-up (8.31; 95% CI: 0.29, −16.32; p = 0.04; fixed effect). Meanwhile, the WMD of Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) (subjective parameter) in the VRT group is significantly lower than in the CT group after a 1 month follow-up (−3.95; 95% CI: −7.69, −0.21; p = 0.04; fixed effect). Similarly, the WMD of DHI in the combination group (CT+VRT) is significantly lower than in the CT group after a 3 month follow-up (3.15; 95% CI: 1.50, 4.80; p = 0.0002; fixed effect). However, there is no significant difference in all outcomes after 12 months of follow-ups in all groups (CT vs. VRT, CT vs. combination, and VRT vs. combination). Conclusions: This study indicates that CT enhances the earlier canal paresis improvement, as the objective parameter, while VRT gives the earlier DHI score improvement, as the subjective parameter. However, their long-term efficacy does not appear to be different. VRT has to be offered as the primary option for patients with VN, and corticosteroids can be added to provide better recovery in the absence of its contraindication. However, whether to choose VRT, CT, or its combination should be tailored to the patient’s condition. Future studies are still needed to revisit this issue, due to the small number of trials in this field

Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy and Corticosteroids for Vestibular Neuritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives: Besides corticosteroids, clinicians found that vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) has a potential effect on vestibular neuritis (VN) improvement. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of both corticosteroid therapy (CT) compared to VRT, and each group compared to their combination (CT vs. (CT+VRT) and VRT vs. (CT + VRT). Materials and Methods: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the administration of at least CT and VRT for VN. The outcome of interest was VN’s subjective and objective improvement parameters. Results: Four RCTs involving a total of 182 patients with VN were eligible for systematic review and meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference (WMD) of canal paresis (objective parameter) in the CT group is significantly lower than in the VRT group after a 1 month follow-up (8.31; 95% CI: 0.29, −16.32; p = 0.04; fixed effect). Meanwhile, the WMD of Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) (subjective parameter) in the VRT group is significantly lower than in the CT group after a 1 month follow-up (−3.95; 95% CI: −7.69, −0.21; p = 0.04; fixed effect). Similarly, the WMD of DHI in the combination group (CT+VRT) is significantly lower than in the CT group after a 3 month follow-up (3.15; 95% CI: 1.50, 4.80; p = 0.0002; fixed effect). However, there is no significant difference in all outcomes after 12 months of follow-ups in all groups (CT vs. VRT, CT vs. combination, and VRT vs. combination). Conclusions: This study indicates that CT enhances the earlier canal paresis improvement, as the objective parameter, while VRT gives the earlier DHI score improvement, as the subjective parameter. However, their long-term efficacy does not appear to be different. VRT has to be offered as the primary option for patients with VN, and corticosteroids can be added to provide better recovery in the absence of its contraindication. However, whether to choose VRT, CT, or its combination should be tailored to the patient’s condition. Future studies are still needed to revisit this issue, due to the small number of trials in this field. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021220615)