CYSTOID MACULAR EDEMA IN BIRDSHOT RETINOCHOROÏDITIS: Long-Term Treatment Study in 142 Patients.

PURPOSE: To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of treatments for cystoid macular edema in birdshot retinochoroïditis. METHODS: Observational retrospective study of 142 HLA-A29-positive patients with cystoid macular edema; the main outcome was the optical coherence tomography intraretinal cysts resolution. RESULTS: During the mean follow-up of 75 months (12-178), 61.3% of patients were successfully treated using 1 to 3 treatment steps, while the others needed more steps. At 6 months, there were no significant effects on ME for anti-TNF (tumor necrosis factor) and IVIg (immunoglobulin) in contrast to antimetabolites (OR 1.98), systemic GCS (glucocorticosteroids), CsA (cyclosporine A) and tocilizumab (odds ratio closed to 2.7), intraocular injected GCS (odds ratio of 4.2), and interferon (odds ratio of 4.4). The percentages of therapeutic success trend to decrease from the initial three treatment steps to the subsequent treatment steps, for systemic GCS (84% to 70%), for anti-TNF (42% to 33%), and for CsA (71% to 33%); the success percentages did not decrease for injected GCS (83% to 89%). Macular edema recurrence occurred with the highest percentage for injected GCS (86.8%, P = 0.01) and the lowest for tocilizumab (10.5%, P = 0.001). Interferons-α and tocilizumab were associated with the lowest prednisone daily doses. CONCLUSION: The classical uveitic cystoid macular edema therapeutic algorithm could be adapted to birdshot retinochoroïditis.

First-line management of necrotizing herpetic retinitis by prioritizing the investigation of immune status and prognostic factors for poor visual outcomes.

PURPOSE: To review management, treatment, and outcomes of patients with necrotizing herpetic retinitis (NHR) to propose an algorithm for first-line management of NHR. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of a series of patients with NHR at our tertiary center between 2012 and 2021 using demographic, clinical, ophthalmologic, virological, therapeutic, and prognostic characteristics was performed. Patients were classified by NHR type: acute retinal necrosis (ARN), progressive outer retinal necrosis (PORN), cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis. RESULTS: Forty-one patients with NHR were included: 59% with ARN, 7% with PORN, and 34% with CMV retinitis. All patients with CMV retinitis and PORN were immunocompromised versus 21% of patients with ARN. CMV infection was found in 14 (34%) patients, varicella zoster virus infection in 14 (34%) patients, herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in 8 (20%) and type 1 infection in 5 (12%) patients. Intravenous antiviral therapy was received by 98% of patients and intravitreal antiviral injections by 90% of patients. The overall complication rate during follow-up was 83% of eyes. Most frequent complications were retinal detachment (33% eyes) and retinal break (29% eyes). Prognostic factors for poor visual outcomes were pre-existing monocular vision loss in contralateral eye among 17% of patients, bilateral NHR in 17% of patients, posterior pole involvement in 46% of eyes, and involvement > 2 retinal quadrants in 46% of eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The visual prognosis of patients with NHR remains poor. Prompt investigation of immune status and presence of factors justifying intravitreal antiviral injections must be prioritized to initiate and adapt management while awaiting causative virus confirmation.

Methotrexate versus conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in the treatment of non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis.

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of methotrexate (MTX), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) in non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis. METHODS: Retrospective study including non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis according to the revised International Workshop on Ocular Sarcoidosis criteria. The primary outcome was defined as the median time to relapse or occurrence of serious adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: 58 patients with non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis (MTX (n=33), MMF (n=16) and AZA (n=9)) were included. The time to treatment failure (ie, primary outcome) after adjustment for corticosteroids dose and the presence of vasculitis was significantly higher with MTX (median time of 34.5 months with MTX (IQR: 11.8 -not reached) vs 8.4 months (3.1-22.9) with MMF and 16.8 months (8.0-90.1) with AZA (p=0.020)). The risk of relapse at 12 months was more than twice lower in MTX as compared with MMF (p=0.046). Low visual acuity at the last visit was significantly lower with MTX (4% vs 9% in MMF vs 57% in AZA group (p=0.008)). Regarding all 75 lines of treatment (MTX (n=39), MMF (n=24) and AZA (n=12)), MTX was more effective than MMF and AZA to obtain treatment response at 3 months (OR 10.85; 95% CI 1.13 to 104.6; p=0.039). Significant corticosteroid-sparing effect at 12 months (p=0.035) was only observed under MTX. Serious adverse events were observed in 6/39 (15%), 5/24 (21%) and 2/12 (17%) with MTX, MMF and AZA, respectively. CONCLUSION: In non-anterior sarcoidosis-associated uveitis, MTX seems to be more efficient compared with AZA and MMF and with an acceptable safety profile.

Expert opinion on the management and follow-up of uveitis patients during SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.

INTRODUCTION: Routine medical and ophthalmic care is being drastically curtailed in the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Uveitis patients require particular attention because of their theoretical risk of viral infection, in the context of therapeutic immunosuppression. AREAS COVERED: This collaborative work proposes practical management and follow-up criteria for uveitis patients in the context of the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. EXPERT OPINION: Management should proceed as usual when access to health care possible in patients who do not belong to a group at high risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and in uncontrolled uveitis cases. In case of reduced access to eye clinics or high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients' management should be stratified based on their clinical presentation. In non-severe uveitis cases, the use of systemic steroids should be avoided, and local steroids preferred whenever possible. In uncontrolled situations where there is real risk of permanent visual loss, high-dose intravenous steroids and/or systemic immunosuppressants and/or biotherapies can be administered depending on the severity of eye disease. Immunosuppressive therapy should not be withheld, unless the patient develops SARS-CoV2 infection.

Transepithelial photorefractive intrastromal corneal crosslinking versus photorefractive keratectomy in low myopia.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of transepithelial photorefractive intrastromal corneal crosslinking (CXL) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in eyes with low myopia. SETTING: Purpan Hospital, Toulouse, France. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Myopic patients with a manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -1.00 to -2.50 diopters (D) and a cylindrical component of plano to -0.75 D were included. The dominant eye had PRK (PRK eyes). The nondominant eye had transepithelial photorefractive intrastromal CXL with riboflavin (ParaCel Part 1 and 2), 30 mW/cm2 pulsed ultraviolet-A irradiation centered on the pupil (Mosaic System) for 16 minutes and 40 seconds, and a supplemental oxygen delivery mask (CXL eyes). The primary outcome measure was the change in the MRSE. Other outcome measures were the uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, mean keratometry, and endothelial cell count (ECC) over a 6-month follow-up. Adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included. By 6 months, the mean MRSE had decreased by 0.72 D ± 0.42 (SD) in CXL eyes and by 1.35 ± 0.46 D in PRK eyes (P < .001). The mean change in UDVA was -0.35 ± 0.21 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) in CXL eyes and -0.66 ± 0.19 logMAR in PRK eyes (P < .001). No complications were reported. The change in the ECC and CDVA was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Photorefractive keratectomy provided better visual and refractive outcomes than transepithelial photorefractive intrastromal CXL. Transepithelial photorefractive intrastromal CXL, however, showed the potential refractive effect of CXL but with a limited magnitude of myopic correction.