Marc H Levin1, Maxwell Pistilli1, Ebenezer Daniel1, Sapna S Gangaputra2, Robert B Nussenblatt3, James T Rosenbaum4, Eric B Suhler5, Jennifer E Thorne6, C Stephen Foster7, Douglas A Jabs8, Grace A Levy-Clarke3, John H Kempen9. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. The Fundus Photograph Reading Center, Department of Ophthalmology, the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Laboratory of Immunology, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; Portland Veterans' Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Oregon. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Epidemiology, the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. The Massachusetts Eye Research and Surgery Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Epidemiology, the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; Departments of Ophthalmology and Medicine, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 9. Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: john.kempen@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Among cases of visually significant uveitic macular edema (ME), to estimate the incidence of visual improvement and identify predictive factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes with uveitis, seen at 5 academic ocular inflammation centers in the United States, for which ME was documented to be currently present and the principal cause of reduced visual acuity (<20/40). METHODS: Data were obtained by standardized chart review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Decrease of ≥ 0.2 base 10 logarithm of visual acuity decimal fraction-equivalent; risk factors for such visual improvement. RESULTS: We identified 1510 eyes (of 1077 patients) with visual impairment to a level <20/40 attributed to ME. Most patients were female (67%) and white (76%), and had bilateral uveitis (82%). The estimated 6-month incidence of ≥ 2 lines of visual acuity improvement in affected eyes was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49%-55%). Vision reduced by ME was more likely to improve by 2 lines in eyes initially with poor visual acuity (≤ 20/200; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7), active uveitis (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5), and anterior uveitis as opposed to intermediate (HR, 1.2), posterior (HR, 1.3), or panuveitis (HR, 1.4; overall P = 0.02). During follow-up, reductions in anterior chamber or vitreous cellular activity or in vitreous haze each led to significant improvements in visual outcome (P <0.001 for each). Conversely, snowbanking (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-0.99), posterior synechiae (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9), and hypotony (HR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.06-0.5) each were associated with lower incidence of visual improvement with respect to eyes lacking each of these attributes at a given visit. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that many, but not all, patients with ME causing low vision in a tertiary care setting will enjoy meaningful visual recovery in response to treatment. Evidence of significant ocular damage from inflammation (posterior synechiae and hypotony) portends a lower incidence of visual recovery. Better control of anterior chamber or vitreous activity is associated with a greater incidence of visual improvement, supporting an aggressive anti-inflammatory treatment approach for ME cases with active inflammation.
PURPOSE: Among cases of visually significant uveitic macular edema (ME), to estimate the incidence of visual improvement and identify predictive factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes with uveitis, seen at 5 academic ocular inflammation centers in the United States, for which ME was documented to be currently present and the principal cause of reduced visual acuity (<20/40). METHODS: Data were obtained by standardized chart review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Decrease of ≥ 0.2 base 10 logarithm of visual acuity decimal fraction-equivalent; risk factors for such visual improvement. RESULTS: We identified 1510 eyes (of 1077 patients) with visual impairment to a level <20/40 attributed to ME. Most patients were female (67%) and white (76%), and had bilateral uveitis (82%). The estimated 6-month incidence of ≥ 2 lines of visual acuity improvement in affected eyes was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49%-55%). Vision reduced by ME was more likely to improve by 2 lines in eyes initially with poor visual acuity (≤ 20/200; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7), active uveitis (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5), and anterior uveitis as opposed to intermediate (HR, 1.2), posterior (HR, 1.3), or panuveitis (HR, 1.4; overall P = 0.02). During follow-up, reductions in anterior chamber or vitreous cellular activity or in vitreous haze each led to significant improvements in visual outcome (P <0.001 for each). Conversely, snowbanking (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-0.99), posterior synechiae (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9), and hypotony (HR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.06-0.5) each were associated with lower incidence of visual improvement with respect to eyes lacking each of these attributes at a given visit. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that many, but not all, patients with ME causing low vision in a tertiary care setting will enjoy meaningful visual recovery in response to treatment. Evidence of significant ocular damage from inflammation (posterior synechiae and hypotony) portends a lower incidence of visual recovery. Better control of anterior chamber or vitreous activity is associated with a greater incidence of visual improvement, supporting an aggressive anti-inflammatory treatment approach for ME cases with active inflammation.
Authors: Jennifer E Thorne; Ebenezer Daniel; Douglas A Jabs; Sanjay R Kedhar; George B Peters; James P Dunn Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Lili Grunwald; Craig W Newcomb; Ebenezer Daniel; R Oktay Kaçmaz; Douglas A Jabs; Grace A Levy-Clarke; Robert B Nussenblatt; James T Rosenbaum; Eric B Suhler; Jennifer E Thorne; C Stephen Foster; John H Kempen Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Paris G Tranos; Konstantinos T Tsaousis; Athanasios N Vakalis; Solon Asteriades; Carlos E Pavesio Journal: Retina Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Joshua D Udoetuk; Yang Dai; Gui-Shuang Ying; Ebenezer Daniel; Sapna Gangaputra; James T Rosenbaum; Eric B Suhler; Jennifer E Thorne; C Stephen Foster; Douglas A Jabs; Grace A Levy-Clarke; Robert B Nussenblatt; John H Kempen Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: John H Kempen; Ebenezer Daniel; Sapna Gangaputra; Kurt Dreger; Douglas A Jabs; R Oktay Kaçmaz; Siddharth S Pujari; Fahd Anzaar; C Stephen Foster; Kathy J Helzlsouer; Grace A Levy-Clarke; Robert B Nussenblatt; Teresa Liesegang; James T Rosenbaum; Eric B Suhler Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Simon R J Taylor; Susan L Lightman; Elizabeth A Sugar; Glen J Jaffe; William R Freeman; Michael M Altaweel; Igor Kozak; Janet T Holbrook; Douglas A Jabs; John H Kempen Journal: Ocul Immunol Inflamm Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 3.070
Authors: R S Grajewski; A C Boelke; W Adler; S Meyer; A Caramoy; B Kirchhof; C Cursiefen; L M Heindl Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Oren Tomkins-Netzer; Susan Lightman; Lea Drye; John Kempen; Gary N Holland; Narsing A Rao; Richard J Stawell; Albert Vitale; Douglas A Jabs Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: John H Kempen; Mark L Van Natta; Michael M Altaweel; James P Dunn; Douglas A Jabs; Susan L Lightman; Jennifer E Thorne; Janet T Holbrook Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Robert J Barry; Mohammad O Tallouzi; Nick Bucknall; Jonathan M Mathers; Philip I Murray; Melanie J Calvert; David J Moore; Alastair K Denniston Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-18
Authors: Paolo Tortorella; Enzo D'Ambrosio; Ludovico Iannetti; Federica De Marco; Maurizio La Cava Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Jessica Matas; Victor Llorenç; Alex Fonollosa; Cristina Esquinas; David Diaz-Valle; Barbara Berasategui; Marina Mesquida; Joseba Artaraz; Jose Rios; Alfredo Adan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohammad O Tallouzi; David J Moore; Melanie Calvert; Philip I Murray; Nicholas Bucknall; Alastair K Denniston Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2016-02-13