Mealy, Maureen A.

Background The specificity of the aquaporin-4 antibody to predict recurrent inflammatory central nervous system disease has led to the design of the 2015 neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder criteria which capture all aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive patients. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare treatment outcomes in aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive patients who met the previous 2006 clinical criteria for neuromyelitis optica with patients who meet the 2015 neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder criteria. Methods The study involved a three-center retrospective chart review of clinical outcomes among aquaporin-4 patients diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Results Hazard ratios of relapse during immunosuppressive therapy, relative to pre-therapy, were not significantly different for patients who met the 2006 criteria of neuromyelitis optica versus the 2015 neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder criteria among those treated with azathioprine ( p = 0.24), mycophenolate mofetil ( p = 0.63), or rituximab ( p = 0.97). Conclusion Reductions in the hazard of relapse during treatment with immunosuppressive therapies, relative to average pre-treatment, were not different for aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive patients categorized using the 2006 criteria of neuromyelitis optica and the 2015 neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder criteria. These therapeutic findings support the design of the 2015 neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder criteria which capture all aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive patients.

Background: Debate exists about whether neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder seronegative disease represents the same immune-mediated attack on astrocytic aquaporin-4 as in seropositive disease. Objective: We investigated whether response to common treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder differed by serostatus, as assessed by change in annualized relapse rate. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of 245 patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder who were treated with either rituximab or mycophenolate mofetil as their first-line immunosuppressive treatment for disease prevention. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 months following treatment initiation. Results: In those started on rituximab, the pre-treatment annualized relapse rates for seropositive and seronegative patients were 1.81 and 1.93, respectively. On-treatment annualized relapse rates significantly declined to 0.32 (seropositive; p < 0.0001) and 0.12 (seronegative; p = 0.0001). In those started on mycophenolate mofetil, the pre-treatment annualized relapse rates for seropositive and seronegative patients were 1.79 and 1.45, respectively. On-treatment annualized relapse rates declined to 0.29 (seropositive; p < 0.0001) and 0.30 (seronegative; p < 0.005). Conclusion: In this international collaboration involving a large number of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder patients, treatment was effective regardless of serostatus. This suggests that treatment should not differ when considering these treatments.