folder

Barriers to care for people with unclear visual loss - data from a tertiary-level-of-care neuroinflammation center

Authors

  • Murat Delikaya
  • Charlotte Bereuter
  • Jan Schroeter
  • Elisa Nowak
  • Eva-Maria Dorsch
  • Lidia Kilinska
  • Joseph Kuchling
  • Nadja Siebert
  • Janina Behrens
  • Friedemann Paul
  • Judith Bellmann-Strobl
  • Tanja Schmitz-Hübsch
  • Frederike Cosima Oertel

Journal

  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal Experimental Translational and Clinical

Citation

  • Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 11 (4): 1-11

Abstract

  • BACKGROUND: Visual symptoms are common in people with multiple sclerosis. The revised 2024 McDonald criteria include the optic nerve as a fifth anatomical region, underscoring the need for specific diagnostics. Although optical coherence tomography (OCT) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) are available, the extent of their routine pre-referral use is insufficiently documented. We evaluated pre-referral utilization and hypothesized that specific diagnostics are used less often than non-specific diagnostics and that differences are not explained by demographics alone. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of 305 patients referred for visual symptoms to a tertiary neuroimmunology clinic in Germany. Analyses focused on people with multiple sclerosis (n = 112) and disease controls with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-associated disease (pwNM; n = 36). RESULTS: In people with multiple sclerosis, only 6.2% received OCT and 33% VEP for their visual complaints, compared to unspecific diagnostics such as cranial magnetic resonance imaging (58%) and lumbar puncture (42%) – independent of demographic factors. CONCLUSION: The pre-referral use of specific neurovisual tests in people with multiple sclerosis with visual symptoms was low relative to non-specific procedures. This suggests heterogeneous integration of neurovisual testing across care levels. In light of the revised McDonald Criteria 2024, prospective multicenter studies should examine implementation and clinical impact.


DOI

doi:10.1177/20552173251397772