Visual evoked and event-related brain potentials in HIV-infected adults: a longitudinal study over 2.5 years
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
30993574
DOI
10.1007/s10633-019-09697-4
PII: 10.1007/s10633-019-09697-4
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Event-related potentials (ERPs), Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Motion-onset VEP, Pattern-reversal VEP, Visual evoked potentials (VEPs),
- MeSH
- antiretrovirové látky terapeutické užití MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- elektroretinografie MeSH
- evokované potenciály fyziologie MeSH
- HIV infekce farmakoterapie patofyziologie MeSH
- kognice fyziologie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- longitudinální studie MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- počet CD4 lymfocytů MeSH
- průřezové studie MeSH
- reakční čas fyziologie MeSH
- vnímání pohybu fyziologie MeSH
- zraková ostrost fyziologie MeSH
- zrakové evokované potenciály fyziologie MeSH
- zrakové korové centrum fyziologie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Názvy látek
- antiretrovirové látky MeSH
PURPOSE: The aim of this neurophysiological study was to monitor changes in the visual and cognitive function of HIV-infected patients treated with combination antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: Eleven adult Czech HIV+ patients, with a mean age of 35 years and CD4 cell count ≥ 230 × 106 cells/L of blood at the time of enrollment, underwent four to six examinations over the course of 2.5 years to evaluate pattern-reversal and motion-onset visual evoked potentials (P-VEPs and M-VEPs), visually driven oddball event-related potentials (ERPs) and Montreal Cognitive Assessments. In addition to evaluating the intraindividual change in the observed parameters, we also compared patient data to data from eleven age- and gender-matched controls. RESULTS: We did not find any significant differences in P-VEPs between the patients and controls or in the paired comparison of the first and last visit. The only significant finding for P-VEPs was a linear trend in prolongation of the 20' P-VEP P100 peak time. In M-VEPs, we found a significant intergroup difference in the N160 peak time recorded during the first visit for peripheral M-VEPs only. During the last visit, all N160 peak times for patients differed significantly from those of the control group. The only intervisit difference close to the level of significance was for peripheral M-VEPs, which confirmed the trend analysis. No significant differences between patients and controls were found in the ERPs, but the P300 peak time showed a significant difference between the first and last visits, as confirmed by the trend. Patient reaction time was not significantly delayed at the first visit; however, it was prolonged with time, as confirmed by the trend. CONCLUSION: Our aim was to evaluate whether antiretroviral treatment in HIV+ patients is sufficient to preserve brain visual function. The optic nerve and primary visual cortex function tested by the P-VEPs seem to be preserved. The prolongation of the M-VEPs suggests an individually detectable decline in CNS function, but these changes did not show a progression during the follow-up. From a longitudinal perspective, the trends in peak time prolongation of the 20' P-VEP, peripheral M-VEP, ERP and reaction time suggest a faster decline than that caused by aging in healthy populations, as previously described in a cross-sectional study.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
J Neurol. 2011 Jun;258(6):1066-75 PubMed
Vision Res. 2012 Jun 1;62:9-16 PubMed
EEG EMG Z Elektroenzephalogr Elektromyogr Verwandte Geb. 1989 Dec;20(4):257-66 PubMed
J Neurovirol. 2009 Jul;15(4):324-33 PubMed
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1995;93:623-83 PubMed
Neuropsychol Rev. 2009 Jun;19(2):169-85 PubMed
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007 May;101(5):517-22 PubMed
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Oct;23(5):416-20 PubMed
J Infect Dis. 2008 May 15;197 Suppl 3:S294-306 PubMed
JAMA. 2008 Aug 6;300(5):555-70 PubMed
J Neurol Sci. 1995 May;130(1):82-7 PubMed
Nat Rev Immunol. 2005 Jan;5(1):69-81 PubMed
Vision Res. 2007 Jan;47(2):189-202 PubMed
J Neurovirol. 2011 Feb;17(1):3-16 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 2004 Sep;109(2):169-75 PubMed
Top HIV Med. 2008 Jun-Jul;16(2):94-8 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 2017 Feb;134(1):45-55 PubMed
Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011 Mar;8(1):54-61 PubMed
AIDS. 2011 Mar 13;25(5):561-75 PubMed
AIDS. 2014 Jan 2;28(1):67-72 PubMed
Int J Psychophysiol. 2000 Oct;38(1):97-108 PubMed
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1990;41:355-69 PubMed
Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 Jul;115(7):1583-91 PubMed
Hum Brain Mapp. 2015 Mar;36(3):897-910 PubMed
Neuropsychol Rev. 2015 Dec;25(4):424-38 PubMed
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Nov;88(11):1455-9 PubMed
Eur J Neurol. 2006 Mar;13(3):283-91 PubMed
Pro Fono. 2007 Oct-Dec;19(4):352-6 PubMed
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 25;102(43):15647-52 PubMed
Top Antivir Med. 2011 Dec;19(5):175-80 PubMed
Neurophysiol Clin. 1992 Nov;22(5):369-84 PubMed
Lancet Infect Dis. 2013 Nov;13(11):976-86 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Nov 13;67(11):1697-1704 PubMed
J Infect Dis. 2010 Feb 1;201(3):336-40 PubMed
Acta Neurol Belg. 1993;93(2):78-87 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 1992;80(1):83-9 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 2010 Aug;121(1):37-49 PubMed
Clin Electroencephalogr. 2002 Jul;33(3):97-101 PubMed
J Psychosom Res. 2016 Jan;80:53-7 PubMed
VEP examination with new portable device
