Impact of systemic treatments on the course of HLA-B27-associated uveitis: A retrospective study of 101 patients

International audiencePURPOSE:To investigate the efficacy and tolerance of systemic treatments for the prevention of HLA-B27-associated acute uveitis (AU) recurrence.METHODS:Retrospective review of patients with HLA-B27-associated uveitis followed in our tertiary center over a 15-year period. Systemic treatments were prescribed to patients with frequent (more than 2 flares per year) or severe uveitis, according to a step-up strategy.RESULTS:101 patients (51.5% of men, 88.1% of white Europeans) with a median age of 37 years. AU was mostly recurrent (68.3%) and associated with spondyloarthritis (60.4%). After a median follow-up duration of 22 months (3-73), 37.6% of the patients have received systemic treatment. 88.5% of the patients have been treated with sulfasalazine (SSZ) for ophthalmologic purposes (23/26). Methotrexate (MTX) and anti-TNFα agents have been initiated for a rheumatologic indication in 81.8% (9/11) and 100% of the patients (13/13), respectively. The annual uveitis relapse rate significantly decreased on SSZ (0.37 recurrences/year versus baseline 2.46 recurrences/year; p<0.001) and MTX (1.54 recurrences/year versus 4.17/year; p = 0.008). Patients under ADA for ophthalmologic purposes (n = 2) did not experience any recurrence.CONCLUSION:We report an open-label strategy to prevent the recurrences of HLA-B27-associated AU. First-line sulfasalazine reduced uveitis relapses. The use of anti-TNFα agents for ophthalmologic purposes was unnecessary with rare exceptions

A Comparative Study of Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients with Proved and Suggested Sarcoid Uveitis Occurring after Ophthalmic Procedure

Purpose. To describe patients with new onset sarcoid uveitis occurring after an ophthalmic procedure and compare them with patients with sarcoid uveitis without ocular procedure. Methods. Retrospective analysis of case records from patients with postophthalmic procedure sarcoid uveitis seen at our institution between April 2004 and October 2016. Patients with a previous history of uveitis were not included. Each patient was randomly matched with four controls from our incident cohort of new onset sarcoid uveitis without ophthalmic procedure. Results. We identified 11 patients (8.5%) from our incident cohort of sarcoid uveitis (n=130), who were all women, with a postophthalmic procedure uveitis (mostly after cataract surgery (36%)). These patients were older (69.7 vs 52.7 years) and presented more synechiae than controls. After a mean follow-up of 30 (3–60) months, there was no significant difference between the postprocedure and the control group with regard to demography, clinical presentation, disease course, treatment, and outcome. Conclusions. Sarcoid uveitis has similar characteristics in patients with new onset sarcoid uveitis after or without ophthalmic procedure. As a consequence, ophthalmic intervention should be seen as a potential trigger of latent sarcoidosis

Evaluating the cost-consequence of a standardized strategy for the etiological diagnosis of uveitis (ULISSE study)

International audienceMAIN OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the cost-consequence of a standardized diagnostic strategy as to compared to an open one for the etiological diagnosis of uveitis. DESIGN: This was a prospective, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We included all consecutive patients with uveitis who had visited at least one of the Departments of Ophthalmology. In the standardized group, patients had a minimal work-up regardless of the type of uveitis (including evaluation of the CBC, ESR, C-reactive protein, tuberculin skin test, syphilis serology and chest X-ray). Depending on ophthalmological findings, further investigations could be performed. In the open strategy, ophthalmologists were free to order any kind of investigation. The main outcome was the mean cost per patient of each strategy. RESULTS: 903 uveitis patients were included from January, 2010 to May, 2013. The mean cost per patient of the standardized strategy was 182.97 euros [CI 95% (173.14; 192.80)], and the mean cost per patient of the open strategy was 251.75 euros [CI 95% (229.24; 274.25)]. Therefore, the mean cost per patient of the standardized strategy was significantly lower than the mean cost per patient of the open strategy (p<0.001). There were significantly fewer visits (p<0.001), fewer radiological procedures (p<0.004) and fewer laboratory investigations (p<0.001) in the standardized group. CONCLUSION: A standardized strategy is a cost-saving approach for the etiological diagnosis of uveitis

Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating a Standardized Strategy for Uveitis Etiologic Diagnosis (ULISSE) REPLY

Refers to: Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating a Standardized Strategy for Uveitis Etiologic Diagnosis (ULISSE). Volume 178, June 2017, Pages 176-185.International audienceWe thank Leffler and associates for their Letter to the Editor and their interest in our work.1 They expressed concerns regarding the importance of HIV testing in patients with uveitis. In the ULISSE study, patients were not routinely tested for HIV, but patients with a known HIV infection were excluded (n = 1). During the clinical evaluation, 45 patients aged 18–64 were tested for HIV, and of the 38 patients for whom the result was reported, none was positive.

Randomized controlled trial evaluating a standardized strategy for uveitis etiologic diagnosis (ULISSE)

PURPOSE:To prospectively assess the efficiency of a standardized diagnostic approach, compared to an open strategy, for the etiologic diagnosis of uveitis.DESIGN: Noninferiority, prospective, multicenter, clustered randomized controlled trial.METHODS: Consecutive patients with uveitis, who visited 1 of the participating departments of ophthalmology, were included. In the standardized group, all patients had a minimal evaluation regardless of the type of uveitis (complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, tuberculin skin test, syphilis serology, and chest radiograph) followed by more complex investigations according to ophthalmologic findings. In the open group, the ophthalmologist could order any type of investigation. Main outcome was the percentage of etiologic diagnoses at 6 months.RESULTS: Nine hundred and three patients with uveitis were included from January 2010 to May 2013 and the per-protocol population comprised 676 patients (open 373; standardized 303). Mean age at diagnosis was 46 years. Anatomic distribution of uveitis was as follows: anterior (60.8% and 72.3%, P [ .0017), intermediate (11.7% and 12.3%, P [ .8028), posterior (17.8% and 8.2%, P [ .0004), and panuveitis (15.3% and 15.2%, P [ .9596). An etiologic diagnosis was established in 54.4% of cases in the open group and 49.5% in the standardized group (P [ .2029). The difference between both strategies (standardized minus open) was L4.9% (95% CI [L12.5%; 2.6%]). There were more investigations in the open group than in the standardized group (5371 vs 3759, P<.0001).CONCLUSION: The standardized strategy appears to be an efficient diagnostic approach for the etiologic diagnosis of uveitis, although its noninferiority cannot be proved. (Am J Ophthalmol 2017;178:176–185. _ 2017

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)

International audience[u]PURPOSE:[/u] 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. [u]METHODS:[/u] 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. [u]RESULTS:[/u] 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(R) (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. [u]CONCLUSION:[/u] 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