Expert Panel Consensus

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

Expert Panel Consensus

Postby dignan » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:28 pm

Sounds very authoritative: "expert panel consensus". However, as is typical with all things MS, the consensus includes the old proviso, "more study required".

The role of optical coherence tomography in multiple sclerosis: Expert panel consensus.

J Neurol Sci. 2007 Jul 26
Sergott RC, Frohman E, Glanzman R, Al-Sabbagh A; on behalf of the OCT in MS Expert Panel.
Thomas Jefferson University, Wills Eye Hospital, Neuro-Ophthalmology Service, 840 Walnut Street, Suite 930, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.

Optic neuritis (ON), a common manifestation of multiple sclerosis (MS), often occurs as the initial manifestation of central nervous system demyelination or develops during the course of this disease. Since the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) is composed only of unmyelinated axons, measuring RNFL thickness represents a viable method of monitoring axonal loss in these patients. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a noninvasive, noncontact, accurate, and reproducible technique that quantitates the thickness of the peripapillary RNFL, fovea, and macula. Because of its potential role in defining axonal loss in ON and in assessing longitudinal changes in the RNFL before and after MS treatment, a multidisciplinary expert panel was charged with the following tasks: assess the current capabilities of OCT; review the current data about OCT, ON, and MS; and determine whether OCT could be a primary or secondary outcome measure in future MS clinical trials.

The panel concluded that:

[1] OCT is valid and reproducible;

[2] OCT has yielded some important limited data concerning cross-sectional studies with ON and MS;

[3] more studies are required to correlate OCT results with other measures of MS disease activity;

[4] after correlation with these other measures and upon agreement of standardized technical and statistical methods, OCT may evolve into a important primary or secondary outcome metric for MS clinical trials and patient care.

Pubmed link
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1608
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:00 pm


Postby gwa » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:26 pm

In the meantime, tick-tock, tick-tock......

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:00 pm

Postby speedbird » Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:52 am

Tick, tock indeed gwa,...and for those who have been labelled as "progressive"... have no ON involvement.... are not offered "treatment" anyway... :roll:

Still, it keeps some people busy and in work I suppose :wink:
Progressive MS dx. 12/06. Currently on CAP for CPN: Wheldon protocol. LDN 4.5ml.
User avatar
Getting to Know You...
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: UK

Postby syckbastid » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:29 am

I find it troubling for any panel to be considered "expert" regarding MS. Expert alludes to an uncommon knowledge of constants related to a particular subject matter. With MS, everything seems to be a variable.

This medication may work for 30%, but we're not sure why; maybe it's a viral/bacterial infection, but only if certain environmental factors precipate the perfect storm; genes absolutely play a role, but which ones and how big a role, we're not sure... Magically all variables to become constants in 2010, but we're not sure how...

The only constants in MS are pain, fatigue, uncertainty, and non-stop urination. The only experts are us, the afflicted.

Pardon the rant, I'm bored at work.
Family Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:00 pm

Return to General Discussion


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service