Maxwell Pistilli1,2, Marshall M Joffe3, Sapna S Gangaputra4, Siddharth S Pujari5, Douglas A Jabs6,7,8, Grace A Levy-Clarke9,10, Robert B Nussenblatt8, James T Rosenbaum10,11, H Nida Sen8, Eric B Suhler10,11,12, Jennifer E Thorne6,13, Nirali P Bhatt1, C Stephen Foster14,15, Hosne Begum13, Tonetta D Fitzgerald1, Kurt A Dreger1,13, Michael M Altaweel16,17, Janet T Holbrook6,18, John H Kempen15,19,20. 1. The Scheie Eye Institute, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. The Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. The Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Nashville, TN, USA. 5. Om Eye Care Hospital, Belgaum, India. 6. Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Departments of Ophthalmology and Medicine, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 8. Laboratory of Immunology, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 9. Tampa Bay Uveitis Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 10. Department of Ophthalmology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 11. Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 12. Ophthalmology Service, Portland Veteran's Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA. 13. Department of Ophthalmology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 14. Massachusetts Eye Research and Surgery Institution, Cambridge, MA, USA. 15. Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 16. The Fundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, WI, USA. 17. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, WI, USA. 18. Center for Clinical Trials and Synthesis, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 19. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 20. MCM Eye Unit, MCM General Hospital and MyungSung Medical School, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Abstract
Introduction: We evaluated visual acuity (VA) over 5 years in a subspecialty noninfectious uveitis population. Methods: Retrospective data from 5,530 noninfectious uveitis patients with anterior, intermediate, posterior or panuveitis were abstracted by expert reviewers. Mean VA was calculated using inverse probability of censoring weighting to account for losses to follow-up. Results: Patients were a median of 41 years old, 65% female, and 73% white. Initial mean VA was worse among panuveitis (20/84) than posterior (20/64), intermediate (20/47), and anterior (20/37) uveitides. On average, mean VA improved by 0.62, 0.51, 0.37, and 0.26 logMAR-equivalent lines over 2 years, respectively (each P < .001), then remained stable, except posterior uveitis mean VA worsened to initial levels. Conclusion: Mean VA of uveitic eyes improved and, typically, improvement was sustained under uveitis subspecialty care. Because VA tends to improve under tertiary care, mean VA change appears a better outcome for clinical studies than time-to-loss of VA.
Introduction: We evaluated visual acuity (VA) over 5 years in a subspecialty noninfectious uveitis population. Methods: Retrospective data from 5,530 noninfectious uveitis patients with anterior, intermediate, posterior or panuveitis were abstracted by expert reviewers. Mean VA was calculated using inverse probability of censoring weighting to account for losses to follow-up. Results: Patients were a median of 41 years old, 65% female, and 73% white. Initial mean VA was worse among panuveitis (20/84) than posterior (20/64), intermediate (20/47), and anterior (20/37) uveitides. On average, mean VA improved by 0.62, 0.51, 0.37, and 0.26 logMAR-equivalent lines over 2 years, respectively (each P < .001), then remained stable, except posterior uveitis mean VA worsened to initial levels. Conclusion: Mean VA of uveitic eyes improved and, typically, improvement was sustained under uveitis subspecialty care. Because VA tends to improve under tertiary care, mean VA change appears a better outcome for clinical studies than time-to-loss of VA.
Entities:
Keywords:
Uveitis; Visual acuity; inverse probability of censoring weighting
Authors: John H Kempen; Michael M Altaweel; Lea T Drye; Janet T Holbrook; Douglas A Jabs; Elizabeth A Sugar; Jennifer E Thorne Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-08-20 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: John H Kempen; Michael M Altaweel; Janet T Holbrook; Elizabeth A Sugar; Jennifer E Thorne; Douglas A Jabs Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 56.272