General features of Multiple System Atrophy

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a rare movement disorder and a member of a group of neurodegenerative diseases referred to collectively as the ‘parkinsonian syndromes’. Characteristic of these syndromes is that the patient exhibits symptoms of ‘parkinsonism’, viz., a range of problems involving movement, most typically manifest in Parkinson’s disease (PD) itself1, but also seen in progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and to some extent in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). MSA is a relatively ‘new’ descriptive term and is derived from three previously described diseases, viz., olivopontocerebellar atrophy, striato-nigral degeneration, and Shy-Drager syndrome. The classical symptoms of MSA include parkinsonism, ataxia, and autonomic dysfunction.6 Ataxia describes a gross lack of coordination of muscle movements while autonomic dysfunction involves a variety of systems that regulate unconscious bodily functions such as heart rate, blood pressure, bladder function, and digestion. Although primarily a neurological disorder, patients with MSA may also develop visual signs and symptoms that could be useful in differential diagnosis. The most important visual signs may include oculomotor dysfunction and problems in pupil reactivity but are less likely to involve aspects of primary vision such as visual acuity, colour vision, and visual fields. In addition, the eye-care practitioner can contribute to the management of the visual problems of MSA and therefore, help to improve quality of life of the patient. Hence, this first article in a two-part series describes the general features of MSA including its prevalence, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, pathology, and possible causes.

Visual signs and symptoms of multiple system atrophy

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a rare movement disorder and a member of the 'parkinsonian syndromes', which also include Parkinson's disease (PD), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and corticobasal degeneration (CBD). Multiple system atrophy is a complex syndrome, in which patients exhibit a variety of signs and symptoms, including parkinsonism, ataxia and autonomic dysfunction. It can be difficult to separate MSA from the other parkinsonian syndromes but if ocular signs and symptoms are present, they may aid differential diagnosis. Typical ocular features of MSA include blepharospasm, excessive square-wave jerks, mild to moderate hypometria of saccades, impaired vestibular-ocular reflex (VOR), nystagmus and impaired event-related evoked potentials. Less typical features include slowing of saccadic eye movements, the presence of vertical gaze palsy, visual hallucinations and an impaired electroretinogram (ERG). Aspects of primary vision such as visual acuity, colour vision or visual fields are usually unaffected. Management of the disease to deal with problems of walking, movement, daily tasks and speech problems is important in MSA. Optometrists can work in collaboration with the patient and health-care providers to identify and manage the patient's visual deficits. A more specific role for the optometrist is to correct vision to prevent falls and to monitor the anterior eye to prevent dry eye and control blepharospasm.

Quantitative pathological changes in the cerebellum of multiple system atrophy

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a rare neurodegenerative disorder associated with parkinsonism, ataxia, and autonomic dysfunction. Its pathology is primarily subcortical comprising vacuolation, neuronal loss, gliosis, and α-synuclein-immunoreactive glial cytoplasmic inclusions (GO). To quantify cerebellar pathology in MSA, the density and spatial pattern of the pathological changes were studied in α-synuclein-immunolabelled sections of the cerebellar hemisphere in 10 MSA and 10 control cases. In MSA, densities of Purkinje cells (PC) were decreased and vacuoles in the granule cell layer (GL) increased compared with controls. In six MSA cases, GCI were present in cerebellar white matter. In the molecular layer (ML) and GL of MSA, vacuoles were clustered, the clusters exhibiting a regular distribution parallel to the edge of the folia. Purkinje cells were randomly or regularly distributed with large gaps between surviving cells. Densities of glial cells and surviving neurons in the ML and surviving cells and vacuoles in the GL were negatively correlated consistent with gliosis and vacuolation in response to neuronal loss. Principal components analysis (PCA) suggested vacuole densities in the ML and vacuole density and cell losses in the GL were the main source of neuropathological variation among cases. The data suggest that: (1) cell losses and vacuolation of the GCL and loss of PC were the most significant pathological changes in the cases studied, (2) pathological changes were topographically distributed, and (3) cerebellar pathology could influence cerebral function in MSA via the cerebello-dentato-thalamic tract.

Reply: 'Myopic foveoschisis: An ectatic retinopathy, not a schisis'

Full text: We thank Tsilimbaris et al1 for their comments on the appropriateness of the term ‘myopic foveoschisis’ to describe the condition that is characterized by the separation of neural retina layers associated with high myopia and posterior staphyloma. They have proposed the term ‘myopic ectatic retinopathy’ as a more literal and functionally more accurate descriptor of the condition to avoid the use of the word ‘schisis’, which may be misleading because it is also used to describe other conditions where there is separation of neural retina layers without the presence of staphyloma.2 Using the word ‘ectatic’ for this condition would imply that we are fairly certain about the pathogenesis and mechanistic factors that underlie its development and progression. However, this is not the case, unfortunately, as our review of the literature has shown. There are several theories ranging from vitreous traction to sclerosing changes of retinal vessels to progression of staphylomas as possible etiological factors. Therefore, it is likely to be multifactorial in nature—hence the success reported with different procedures that address either the vitreous traction factor using vitrectomy, peel plus tamponade or the scleral ectasia factor using posterior buckling techniques. In the absence of a good understanding of underlying pathogenesis, it is probably best to use purely descriptive names rather than mechanistic terms. The use of descriptive terms, even though similar, do not necessarily cause confusion as long as they are widely accepted as differentiating terminology, for example, postoperative pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (Irvine–Gass syndrome) vs cystoid macular edema associated with posterior uveitis in a phakic patient. The introduction of too many mechanistic or pathogenetic terms in the absence of clear understating of etiology can in fact cause more confusion, for example, serous chorioretinopathy vs central serous retinopathy vs serous choroidopathy. The confinement to broad descriptive terms can enhance communication and reduce confusion without committing to any presumption about etiology until it is better understood. This approach is probably best illustrated by the recent advances in the understanding of mactel21, a condition initially described and classified, using descriptive nomenclature, by Don Gass as bilateral, idiopathic acquired juxtafoveolar telangiectasis (Group2A) and as distinctly different from unilateral, congenital parafoveolar telangiectasis (Group 1A; Gass,3 pp 504–506 vs 127–128). Finally, it is worthy to note that for myopic foveoschisis associated with a staphyloma that is associated with outer layer macular detachment, Don Gass also descriptively included the additional observation (before the advent of OCT) that the retinal profile was concave rather than convex in shape, thereby differentiating it from rhegmatogenous detachments with recruitment of subretinal fluid that is associated with posteriorly located breaks and macular holes in myopic eyes. References 1.Tsilimbaris MK, Vavvas DG, Bechrakis NE. Myopic foveoschisis: an ectatic retinopathy, not aschisis. Eye 2016; 30: 328–329. 2.Powner MB, Gillies MC, Tretiach M, Scott A, Guymer RH, Hageman GS et al. Perifoveal müller cell depletion in a case of macular telangiectasia type 2. Ophthalmology 2010; 117(12): 2407–2416. 3.Gass DM. Stereoscopic Atlas of Macular Diseases: Diagnosis and Treatment, 4th edn. Mosby-Yearbook: St. Louis, 1997.