Search

To evaluate current practice patterns for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and characterize factors influencing clinical decisions, a database of all ophthalmologists subspecializing in pediatrics and retina was compiled from membership directories of subspecialty societies and academic institutions in the United States. A web-based survey was emailed to these subspecialists to obtain information regarding demographics, treatment practices, and preferences in hypothetical clinical scenarios. From 2,977 retina and pediatric ophthalmology subspecialists surveyed, 302 self-reported as treating ROP, of whom 56% reported having performed intra-vitreal anti-VEGF injection for ROP. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection was the initial treatment for posterior type 1 high risk ROP preferred by the majority of surveyed ROP treaters, whereas 66% reported uncertainty regarding long-term side effects as the largest barrier to its use. Geographic practice location was associated with anti-VEGF use (To evaluate current practice patterns for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and characterize factors influencing clinical decisions, a database of all ophthalmologists subspecializing in pediatrics and retina was compiled from membership directories of subspecialty societies and academic institutions in the United States. A web-based survey was emailed to these subspecialists to obtain information regarding demographics, treatment practices, and preferences in hypothetical clinical scenarios. From 2,977 retina and pediatric ophthalmology subspecialists surveyed, 302 self-reported as treating ROP, of whom 56% reported having performed intra-vitreal anti-VEGF injection for ROP. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection was the initial treatment for posterior type 1 high risk ROP preferred by the majority of surveyed ROP treaters, whereas 66% reported uncertainty regarding long-term side effects as the largest barrier to its use. Geographic practice location was associated with anti-VEGF use (P= .019). Anti-VEGF injection as ROP therapy was preferred in some scenarios in our sample. Concerns regarding potential anti-VEGF side effects warrant further investigation. Clinical Implications: Intravitreal anti-VEGF injection was chosen as the initial therapeutic option by the majority of ROP treatment providers for posterior type 1 ROP in this survey that assessed treatment preferences for a range of clinical scenarios. Uncertainty regarding long-term side effects was the largest reported barrier to use of anti-VEGF for ROP treatment.[[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2016;47:491–495.]

This case series demonstrates a posterior segment phenotypic manifestation of Coxsackie virus infection that has not been previously appreciated. Identifying the constellation of multimodal imaging findings that characterize this entity is important, since it may prevent confusion with other diseases that have a similar manifestation.

IMPORTANCE: Survivors of Ebola virus disease (EVD) may experience ocular sequelae. Comparison with antibody-negative individuals from the local population is required to characterize the disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess features of ophthalmic disease specific to EVD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This baseline cross-sectional analysis of survivors of EVD and their close contacts was conducted within PREVAIL III, a 5-year, longitudinal cohort study. Participants who enrolled at John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Liberia, West Africa from June 2015 to March 2016 were included in this analysis. Close contacts were defined as household members or sex partners of survivors of EVD. Data were analyzed from July 2016 to July 2020. EXPOSURES: All participants, both survivors and close contacts, underwent testing of IgG antibody levels against Ebola virus surface glycoprotein. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ocular symptoms, anterior and posterior ophthalmologic examination findings, and optical coherence tomography images were compared between antibody-positive survivors and antibody-negative close contacts. RESULTS: A total of 564 antibody-positive survivors (320 [56.7%] female; mean [SD] age, 30.3 [14.0] years) and 635 antibody-negative close contacts (347 [54.6%] female; mean [SD] age, 25.8 [15.5] years) were enrolled in this study. Survivors were more likely to demonstrate color vision deficit (28.9% vs 19.0%, odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1) and lower intraocular pressure (12.4 vs 13.5 mm Hg; mean difference, -1.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8 mm Hg) compared with close contacts. Dilated fundus examination revealed a higher percentage of vitreous cells (7.8% vs 0.5%; OR, 16.6; 95% CI, 5.0-55.2) and macular scars (4.6% vs 1.6%; OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.5) in survivors than in close contacts. Uveitis was present in 26.4% of survivors and 12.1% of close contacts (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.8-3.2). Among all participants with uveitis, survivors were more likely than close contacts to have intermediate uveitis (34.2% vs 6.5% of all cases; OR, 7.8; 95% CI, 3.1-19.7) and had thicker mean central subfield thickness on optical coherence tomography (222 vs 212 µm; mean difference, 14.4 µm; 95% CI, 1.9-26.9 µm). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study, survivors of EVD had a distinct spectrum of ocular and neuro-ophthalmologic findings compared with close contacts that potentially require medical and surgical treatment.