J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2012 May;53(5):694-699.

Visual Function Test for Early Detection of Ethambutol-Induced Ocular Toxicity

• Chung JK
• Park YB
• Park SP

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of the present study was to investigate various visual function tests for early detection of ethambutol-induced ocular toxicity.
METHODS
A prospective study of 20 eyes of 10 patients being treated with ethambutol was conducted. Visual acuity, visual field, color vision, fundus examination, contrast sensitivity, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and pattern-visual evoked potential (VEP) were assessed. Examinations were performed prior to therapy and every month for 5 months after treatment. VEP was performed every other month. The mean values of each parameter at each month were compared with the baseline examination and a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. In addition, a greater than 2 standard deviation (SD) change in each parameter from the mean values at baseline was considered as an ocular toxicity induced change in each individual eye.
RESULTS
On OCT, a significant increase of the average retinal nerve fiber layer thickness was detected after 4 months of therapy. VEP showed an increased mean latency of the P100 wave after 2 and 4 months of therapy. However, a greater than 2 SD change from the mean values of the baseline was not observed on OCT, while 30% (6/20) of the eyes showed more than a 2 SD increase in VEP latency. Visual acuity, color vision, fundus, contrast sensitivity, and visual field were not affected in any patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors of the present study consider VEP as a sensitive test to detect early toxicity of ethambutol. VEP can be helpful in identifying subclinical ocular toxicity, especially in the high-risk patients.

Keyword

Early detection; Ethambutol; Ocular toxicity; Visual evoked potential

MeSH Terms

Color Vision
Contrast Sensitivity
Ethambutol
Evoked Potentials
Evoked Potentials, Visual
Eye
Humans
Nerve Fibers
Prospective Studies
Retinaldehyde
Tomography, Optical Coherence
Visual Acuity
Visual Fields
Ethambutol
Retinaldehyde

Reference

1. Kim U, Hwang JM. Early stage ethambutol optic neuropathy: Retinal nerve fiber layer and optical coherence tomography. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009. 19:466–469.

2. Chai SJ, Foroozan R. Decreased retinal nerve fibre layer thickness detected by optical coherence tomography in patients with ethambutol-induced optic neuropathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007. 91:895–897.

3. Zoumalan CI, Agarwal M, Sadun AA. Optical coherence tomography can measure axonal loss in patients with ethambutol-induced optic neuropathy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005. 243:410–416.

4. Chan RY, Kwok AK. Ocular toxicity of ethambutol. Hong Kong Med J. 2006. 12:56–60.

5. Fraunfelder FW, Sadun AA, Wood T. Update on ethambutol optic neuropathy. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2006. 5:615–618.

6. Lee EJ, Kim SJ, Choung HK, et al. Incidence and clinical features of ethambutol-induced optic neuropathy in korea. J Neuroophthalmol. 2008. 28:269–277.

7. Tsai RK, Lee YH. Reversibility of ethambutol optic neuropathy. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 1997. 13:473–477.

8. Kumar A, Sandramouli S, Verma L, et al. Ocular ethambutol toxicity: Is it reversible? J Clin Neuroophthalmol. 1993. 13:15–17.

9. Menon V, Jain D, Saxena R, Sood R. Prospective evaluation of visual function for early detection of ethambutol toxicity. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009. 93:1251–1254.

10. Kim YK, Hwang JM. Serial retinal nerve fiber layer changes in patients with toxic optic neuropathy associated with antituberculosis pharmacotherapy. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2009. 25:531–535.

11. Mantyjarvi M, Laitinen T. Normal values for the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001. 27:261–266.

12. Choi SY, Hwang JM. Optic neuropathy associated with ethambutol in koreans. Korean J Ophthalmol. 1997. 11:106–110.

13. Salmon JF, Carmichael TR, Welsh NH. Use of contrast sensitivity measurement in the detection of subclinical ethambutol toxic optic neuropathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 1987. 71:192–196.

14. Yiannikas C, Walsh JC, McLeod JG. Visual evoked potentials in the detection of subclinical optic toxic effects secondary to ethambutol. Arch Neurol. 1983. 40:645–648.

15. Kardon RH, Morrisey MC, Lee AG. Abnormal multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) in ethambutol toxicity. Semin Ophthalmol. 2006. 21:215–222.

16. Hennekes R. Clinical ERG findings in ethambutol intoxication. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1982. 218:319–321.

17. Zoumalan CI, Sadun AA. Optical coherence tomography can monitor reversible nerve-fibre layer changes in a patient with ethambutol-induced optic neuropathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007. 91:839–840.

18. Kim BK, Ahn M. The use of optical coherence tomography in patients with ethambutol-induced optic neuropathy. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010. 51:1107–1112.

19. Sokol S. Pattern visual evoked potentials: Their use in pediatric ophthalmology. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1980. 20:251–268.

20. Oken BS, Chiappa KH, Gill E. Normal temporal variability of the P100. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987. 68:153–156.

21. Matsuoka Y, Takayanagi T, Sobue I. Experimental ethambutol neuropathy in rats. morphometric and teased-fiber studies. J Neurol Sci. 1981. 51:89–99.

22. Tateishi J, Kuroda S, Otsuki S. Experimental myelo-optico-neuropathy due to ethambutol. Folia Psychiatr Neurol Jpn. 1974. 28:233–242.

23. Talbert Estlin KA, Sadun AA. Risk factors for ethambutol optic toxicity. Int Ophthalmol. 2010. 30:63–72.