Rheumatologists and Ophthalmologists Differ in Treatment Decisions for Ocular Behçet Disease.

BACKGROUND: Ocular involvement in patients with Behçet disease represents a significant clinical morbidity in this disease, and the prevention of visual impairment is an important treatment goal. There are no randomized controlled trials for the treatment of ocular Behçet disease; however, clinicians must still make treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study were to describe the treatment preferences of rheumatologists and ophthalmologists for the treatment of ocular Behçet disease and to identify factors that influence these decisions. METHODS: Eight hundred fifty-two rheumatologists and 934 ophthalmologists were surveyed via e-mail regarding their choice of therapy for a hypothetical patient with ocular Behçet disease. Respondents were asked to select first- and second-choice therapies and then reselect first and second choices assuming there would be no issues with cost or insurance prior authorization. RESULTS: One hundred thirty two physicians (7.4%) who were willing to recommend treatment completed the survey: 68 rheumatologists and 64 ophthalmologists. The most common first-choice therapy for both specialties was a biologic agent. Significantly more rheumatologists than ophthalmologists chose methotrexate (P < 0.025) and azathioprine (P < 0.005) as their first-choice therapy. After assuming there were no concerns with cost or prior authorization, rheumatologists were still more likely to choose azathioprine compared with ophthalmologists (P < 0.02), and ophthalmologists were more likely to choose local steroid implants (P < 0.02). Both rheumatologists and ophthalmologists increased their choice of an anti-tumor necrosis factor agent when cost and prior authorization issues were removed (P < 0.0001 and 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Physician decision making is influenced by medical specialty and concerns regarding cost and prior authorization.

Scleritis and systemic disease association in a community-based referral practice.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between scleritis and systemic disease in a non-university, non-tertiary referral practice and to describe our experience with scleritis treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: The medical records of patients with scleritis between 2001 and 2007 were reviewed for associated systemic disease. RESULTS: In our series of 86 patients with scleritis, 55 patients (64.0%) had isolated scleritis while 31 patients (36.0%) had associated systemic-disease. Twenty-six patients (83.9%) with systemic disease had diagnosed systemic disease at the time of initial scleritis presentation, while 5 patients (16.1%) were diagnosed following systemic work-up. Those diagnosed after systemic work-up were more likely to have systemic vasculitic disease as opposed to a rheumatic or infectious disease. Patients with and without associated systemic disease were likely to require systemic therapy at similar rates (93.5% and 92.7%, respectively). Five patients with steroid-refractory scleritis were treated with infliximab (Remicade; Centocor Inc, Horsham, Pennsylvania, USA) and all responded without evidence of adverse effect. Seven patients were treated with mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept; Roche Laboratories, Nutley, New Jersey, USA), of which three improved. CONCLUSIONS: The association between scleritis and systemic disease in a community-based referral practice may be lower than in tertiary referral or university-based centers. Although thorough systemic disease evaluation is warranted in scleritis patients, most patients with associated systemic disease will have such a diagnosis prior to the development of scleritis. The need to institute aggressive systemic therapy cannot be predicted by the presence of an associated systemic disease. Infliximab and mycophenolate mofetil are useful additions to the scleritis practitioner's armamentarium for steroid-refractory scleritis.