TOWARD AN IMAGING-CENTRIC DEFINITION OF NONPARANEOPLASTIC AUTOIMMUNE RETINOPATHY.

PURPOSE: To explore characteristic imaging features of nonparaneoplastic autoimmune retinopathy (npAIR) to augment diagnostic criteria. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with npAIR evaluated at the Emory Eye Center between 2013 and 2019. Multimodal fundus images were evaluated to characterize the evolution of the disease. RESULTS: Twenty-one eyes of 12 patients were classified as having npAIR. Five patients (42%) were female, with median (range) age of 59 years (45-85 years). Median baseline visual acuity was 20/30 (20/20 to hand motions). Disease was asymmetric in 11 patients (92%). Common imaging findings included absence of bone spicules (86% of affected eyes), presence of attenuated vessels (86%), and speckled hypoautofluorescence in perimacular and perivenular regions. Three eyes were noted to present early with subtle splotchy fundus autofluorescence abnormality, ultimately developing characteristic speckled perimacular hypoautofluorescence. On optical coherence tomography, 18 eyes (86%) had loss of outer retinal bands with relative foveal sparing and a tapered transition zone. CONCLUSION: Many eyes with npAIR exhibit a subacute, asymmetric, generalized photoreceptor degeneration featuring outer retinal atrophy with relative foveal sparing, retinal vascular attenuation, absence of bone spicules, and speckled hypoautofluorescence often in a perimacular and perivenular distribution. Findings of this study augment diagnostic criteria to improve specificity and accessibility of testing for npAIR.

Visual Morbidity and Outcomes of Scleritis Associated with Intraocular Inflammation Compared to Isolated Scleritis.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes, ocular complications and therapies for patients with scleritis-associated intraocular inflammation (SAI) and patients with isolated scleritis (IS). RESULTS: A total of 52 patients (36 with SAI and 16 with IS) were reviewed. Mean age (standard deviation) at presentation was 48.4 years old (± 15.4) in the SAI group and 53 years old (± 17.1) in the IS group (p = .37). Visual acuity was worse at presentation and last visit for patients with SAI compared to IS (p = .04). Patients in the SAI group developed greater posterior segment complications than in the IS group (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Scleritis with intraocular inflammation was associated with a higher rate of visual morbidity compared to isolated scleritis. More aggressive management strategies may be needed for patients who present with scleritis associated with inflammation.

Outcomes of Infectious Endophthalmitis in Patients with Systemic Antibiotic Allergies to Penicillins, Cephalosporins, or Vancomycin.

PURPOSE: The mainstay empiric treatments of bacterial endophthalmitis are intravitreal vancomycin and ceftazidime. In the United States, up to 10% of the general population has a reported penicillin (PCN) allergy. Despite low cross-reactivity between PCN and later-generation cephalosporins, some providers alter the intravitreal antibiotic choice for endophthalmitis because of concern for allergic reactions. We evaluated the management strategies of infectious endophthalmitis in the setting of self-reported systemic antibiotic allergies and the association with adverse reactions after standard intravitreal antibiotic administration. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with endophthalmitis between 2005 and 2019 and documented PCN, PCN-analog, cephalosporin, or vancomycin allergy who received intravitreal antibiotics on the basis of International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revisions, and Current Procedural Terminology codes. METHODS: Retrospective chart review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Any allergic reaction after intravitreal injection, additional surgical interventions required for treatment, and visual function at last recorded visit. RESULTS: Of the 65 patients included in this cohort, the most common causes of endophthalmitis were postcataract extraction surgery (n = 23, 35.4%) and postintravitreal injection (n = 11, 16.9%). All patients (65/65) received intravitreal vancomycin, and 81.5% (53/65) received intravitreal ceftazidime. Of the 53 patients who received intravitreal ceftazidime, 46 (86.8%) had allergies to PCNs alone, 5 (9.4%) had a cephalosporin allergy alone, and 2 (3.8%) had reported allergies to both PCN and cephalosporin antibiotics. Two patients (3.1%) with a documented vancomycin allergy received intravitreal vancomycin without complication. No patients exhibited any systemic or local allergic reactions or complications after intravitreal injection. CONCLUSIONS: There were no documented allergic reactions in this cohort of patients with systemic antibiotic allergies who were treated for infectious endophthalmitis. Our findings are consistent with previous reports of a low allergic cross-reactivity between PCN and later-generation cephalosporins. Ophthalmologists should use evidence-based practices and a careful informed consent process when choosing intravitreal antibiotics for patients with specific antibiotic allergies. In the routine patient with suspected bacterial endophthalmitis, PCN allergy may not be an absolute contraindication to intravitreal cephalosporin use.

A novel tele-eye protocol for ocular disease detection and access to eye care services.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine can improve access to care, especially for rural patients, and ophthalmology is a field that lends itself readily to telemedicine because interpretation of photographs is a routine part of diagnosing eye disease and patient care. We developed a novel tele-eye protocol based on diabetic teleretinal screening. We performed a feasibility study to see if our tele-eye program was comparable to the gold standard face-to-face eye exam. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two subjects underwent the tele-eye protocol and then received a face-to-face exam. A masked reader reviewed the tele-eye data remotely and developed an impression and plan for the patient. The provider assessments from the face-to-face exams and the tele-eye exams were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, and percentage agreement were calculated for the tele-eye protocol, focusing on the most common age-related eye diseases: cataract, macular degeneration, and glaucoma. The difference between the autorefraction and manifest eyeglass prescription was calculated. RESULTS: The pilot study showed excellent percentage agreement between the screening protocol and the face-to-face exam. The percentage agreement for cataract was 100%, that for macular degeneration was 96%, and that for glaucoma suspect was 87%. The difference between the autorefraction's eyeglass prescription and the final manifest refraction was within American National Standards Institute for lens manufacturing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The initial data suggest that the tele-eye program is feasible to execute and appears fairly accurate when compared with the gold standard face-to-face eye exam. However, the study is significantly limited by the small sample size. This pilot provides justification of a much larger study of a similar design.