Utility of demographic and clinical signs as diagnostic predictors for leptospiral uveitis: A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Leptospirosis is a waterborne zoonotic disease prevalent in tropical regions, causing significant morbidity and mortality. It can involve any organ in its primary stage, and uveitis is its late complication. While advanced laboratory diagnosis is available only in tertiary care centers globally, a cost-effective bedside assessment of clinical signs and their scoring could offer a provisional diagnosis. AIM: To analyze the diagnostic potential of demographic and clinical signs in a large cohort of serologically confirmed leptospiral uveitis patients. METHODS: In this retrospective study, demographic and clinical parameters of 876 seropositive leptospiral uveitis patients and 1042 nonleptospiral uveitis controls were studied. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with bootstrap confidence interval (CI) characterized the diagnostic predictors. The performance of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Presence of nongranulomatous uveitis (odds ratio [OR] = 6.9), hypopyon (OR = 4.6), vitreous infiltration with membranous opacities (OR = 4.3), bilateral involvement (OR = 4), panuveitis (OR = 3.3), vasculitis (OR = 1.9), disc hyperemia (OR = 1.6), absence of retinochoroiditis (OR = 15), and absence of cystoid macular edema (OR = 8.9) emerged as predictive parameters. The AUROC value was 0.86 with 95% CI of 0.846-0.874. At a cut-off score of 40, the sensitivity and specificity were 79.5 and 78.4, respectively. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that ocular signs can serve as diagnostic predictors for leptospiral uveitis, enabling primary care ophthalmologists to make bedside diagnosis. This can be further confirmed by laboratory methods available at tertiary care centers.

Why do Doctors Miss the Diagnosis of Leptospiral Uveitis? Emergence of New Serovars and Challenges in Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Leptospirosis is an endemic disease in India and uveitis is its late complication. Several Indian reports showed diversity of serovars, changing patterns and existence of new serovars. Failure to add new serovars in testing panel result in increased false-negativity in serology. AIM: To analyse seroprevalence, changing patterns and to discuss the resulting challenges in diagnosis. METHODS: In this retrospective study covering the period from 1994 to 2020, we analysed data from laboratory records of patients diagnosed with leptospiral uveitis in South India. Microscopic agglutination Test (MAT) and/or Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) were performed on clinically diagnosed leptospiral uveitis cases from our hospital, as well as on systemic leptospirosis patients from government and private hospitals. RESULTS: Out of a total of 87 216 new uveitis cases with varying causes over 27 years, 3,658 (4.1%) were clinically diagnosed as leptospiral uveitis. Among them, 1,268 (34.7%) patients were seropositive. In 1994, 92% of clinically diagnosed leptospirosis patients were seropositive in the MAT performed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. However, the positivity rate gradually declined to 35% over the years. The predominant serovars identified were L. autumnalis, L. icterohaemorrhagiae, and L. australis. There were notable variations in the distribution of serovars over the years. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest a declining sensitivity of MAT and ELISA, possibly due to the emergence of new serovars. Customizing the panel based on local isolates could enhance the performance of MAT. Critical need is the addition of advanced molecular techniques to improve the diagnosis.