Contribution of diagnostic tests for the etiological assessment of uveitis, data from the ULISSE study (Uveitis: Clinical and medicoeconomic evaluation of a standardized strategy of the etiological diagnosis).

PURPOSE: ULISSE is the only study that prospectively assessed the efficiency of a standardized strategy, compared to an open strategy for the etiologic diagnosis of uveitis. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of the tests prescribed in the ULISSE study to clarify their relevance. METHODS: ULISSE is a non-inferiority, prospective, multicenter and cluster randomized study. The standardized strategy is a two-steps strategy: in the first step, common standard tests were performed, and in the second step, tests were guided by the clinical and anatomic type of uveitis. We reported the relevance of the diagnostic tests used in the standardized strategy, as well as the profitability of the tests that were prescribed to more than twenty patients in each group. Based on diagnostic criteria, either an ophthalmologist, or an internist, established the profitability of a test by considering whether the test lead to a diagnosis or not. RESULTS: Among the 676 patients included (standardized 303; open 373), a diagnosis was made for 152 (50.4%) in the standardized group and 203 (54.4%) in the open group. The most common entities were HLA-B27 associated uveitis (22%), spondyloarthritis (11%), sarcoidosis (18%), tuberculosis (10.7%) and herpes virus infections (8.5%). Among the first step's systematic tests, tuberculin skin test was the most contributive investigation (17.1%), followed by chest X-ray (8.4%), C reactive protein and ESR (6.6% and 5.1%), complete blood count (2.2%) and VDRL (2.0%). The second step's most often contributive tests were: HLA B27 (56.3%), chest-CT (30.3%) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) (16.5%). HLA B27 and ACE were significantly more contributive in the standardized group than in the open group. Immunological tests were never contributive. Among the free investigations, or among the investigations guided by clinical or paraclinical findings, the most often contributive tests were: Quantiferon® (24%), electrophoresis of serum protein (7.8%) and sacroiliac imagery (46.4%). Intracellular serologies (1.7%), serum calcium (2.1%) and hepatic tests (3.3%) were exceptionally contributive. Among the third intention tests, labial salivary gland biopsies were contributive in 17.9% of cases, but the profitability of other invasive investigations (anterior chamber tap, vitrectomy, bronchoscopy and lumbar puncture) or specialized imagery (18F-FDG PET, Brain MRI) could not be determined since these test were rarely performed. CONCLUSION: Only a few diagnostic tests are useful for the etiological assessment of uveitis. They are often cheap, simple, more often guided by the clinical findings, and lead to an etiological diagnosis in most patients. On the other hand, some tests are never or exceptionally contributive, such as immunological tests or intracellular serologies. Further studies are required to evaluate the profitability of third intention imagery and invasive investigations.

Adult onset Still's disease (AOSD) in the era of biologic therapies: dichotomous view for cytokine and clinical expressions.

Adult onset Still's disease (AOSD) is a rare inflammatory disorder characterized by hectic spiking fever, evanescent rash and joint involvement. Prognosis is highly variable upon disease course and specific involvements, ranging from benign and limited outcome to chronic destructive polyarthritis and/or life-threatening events in case of visceral complications or reactive hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (RHL). AOSD remains a debatable entity at the frontiers of autoimmune diseases and autoinflammatory disorders. The pivotal role of macrophage cell activation leading to a typical Th1 cytokine storm is now well established in AOSD, and confirmed by the benefits using treatments targeting TNF-α, IL-1ß or IL-6 in refractory patients. However, it remains difficult to determine predictive factors of outcome and to draw guidelines for patient management. Herein, reviewing literature and relying on our experience in a series of 8 refractory AOSD patients, we question nosology and postulate that different cytokine patterns could underlie contrasting clinical expressions, as well as responses to targeted therapies. We therefore propose to dichotomize AOSD according to its clinical presentation. On the one hand, 'systemic AOSD' patients, exhibiting the highest inflammation process driven by excessive IL-18, IL-1ß and IL-6 production, would be at risk of life-threatening complications (such as multivisceral involvements and RHL), and would preferentially respond to IL-1ß and IL-6 antagonists. On the other hand, 'rheumatic AOSD' patients, exhibiting pre-eminence of joint involvement driven by IL-8 and IFN-γ production, would be at risk of articular destructions, and would preferentially respond to TNF-α blockers.