[SOLVING A MEDICAL MYSTERY THROUGH THE EYES OF A YOUNG PATIENT WITH BUDD-CHIARI SYNDROME AND A NEW VISION LOSS].

INTRODUCTION: Budd-Chiari syndrome is a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by venous drainage obstruction of the liver and is extremely rare. The clinical manifestations are usually ascites, varicose veins and in severe cases - hepatic insufficiency. Behcet's disease is a chronic, idiopathic, inflammatory disease that manifests as obstructive vasculitis and affects a variety of organ systems. Ocular involvement occurs in approximately 70% of the patients, and is a major clinical criterion in the diagnosis. Rarely, Behcet's disease can be a cause of Budd-Chiari syndrome. In these cases, the diagnosis has a crucial impact on the treatment and prognosis of the patients since patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome secondary to Behcet's disease, will usually improve under systemic medications with no need for surgery. In addition, in these patients there is a higher chance for developing hepatocellular carcinoma so they need to have a tight and a long follow-up. DISCUSSION: In this article we discuss a case of a young patient with Budd-Chiari syndrome, who was examined due to acute vision loss in his left eye. Left eye examination revealed panuveitis presenting with anterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis and an occlusive retinal vasculitis. The ocular examination raised suspicion that the diagnosis was Behcet's disease. Actually, Budd-Chiari syndrome was part of the presentation of Behcet's disease, which was not diagnosed until he was examined by us. The patient was treated with corticosteroid therapy and biological treatment with adalimumab, an anti-TNF drug. During follow-up, a complete resolution of the intraocular inflammation was achieved, as well as stabilization of its general condition, with the disappearance of the clinical signs indicative of liver failure.

UVEITIS AFTER THE BNT162b2 mRNA VACCINATION AGAINST SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION: A Possible Association.

PURPOSE: To describe uveitis cases after the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective study. Vaccine-related uveitis diagnosis was supported by the classification of the World Health Organization Adverse Drug Terminology and the Naranjo criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (23 eyes) with a mean age of 51.3 years (23-78 years) were included. Eight of the 21 patients had a known history of uveitis. The median time from previous to current attack was 1 year (0.5-15 years). There were 21 anterior uveitis cases, two with bilateral inflammation. Eight cases occurred after the first vaccination and 13 after the second vaccination. All but three presented as mild to moderate disease. Two patients developed multiple evanescent white dot syndrome after the second vaccination. The mean time from vaccination to uveitis onset was 7.5 ± 7.3 days (1-30 days). At final follow-up, complete resolution was achieved in all but two eyes, which showed significant improvement. One case of severe anterior uveitis developed vitritis and macular edema after the second vaccination, which completely resolved after an intravitreal dexamethasone injection. CONCLUSION: Uveitis may develop after the administration of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. The most common complication was mild to moderate anterior uveitis, while multiple evanescent white dot syndrome can also occur less frequently.

Evaluation of Accuracy and Agreement of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Interpretation of Common Retinal Findings and Diagnoses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and agreement of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) interpretation in cases of common retinal findings and diagnoses, and to evaluate the effect of OCT B-scans on OCTA interpretations. METHODS: This is a case series consisting of a questionnaire with 8 cases demonstrating common retinal conditions of normal, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy (DR). Each case included OCTA images, and 58 participants were asked to identify retinal findings and provide a diagnosis. Following OCTA interpretation, the corresponding OCT B-scans were revealed and the participants were asked again to identify retinal findings and provide a diagnosis. The rates of accuracy and agreement for each condition were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall the rates of accurate diagnosis and identification of retinal findings were 37.4 and 61.6%, respectively. Following addition of the OCT B-scans, the rates increased to 61.6 and 79.4%, respectively (p < 0.001 for both). A significant improvement in correct interpretation occurred in the normal and AMD cases, but not in the DR cases. There was no correlation with length of experience or self-reported familiarity with OCTA. DISCUSSION: Considerable variability exists in OCTA interpretation, with mediocre rates of accuracy and agreement between clinicians. Increased familiarity as well as future automation advances will be needed to improve OCTA interpretation accuracy and uniformity.