Search

Purpose: Diagnosis and management of non‐infectious uveitis (NIU), a major cause of blindness worldwide, are challenging. Corticosteroids, the cornerstone of therapy, are not appropriate for long‐term use, and while non‐biologic and biologic immunomodulators may be used for some patients, data on their efficacy and safety in this population are limited. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI), believed to affect uveitis by multiple mechanisms, has received regulatory approval for treatment of ophthalmic diseases including posterior uveitis, but is not widely used or discussed in guidelines for the management of uveitis and ocular inflammatory diseases. Methods: The index study employed a modified Delphi process with a panel of 14 US‐based ophthalmologists. Consensus recommendations were developed through a series of three questionnaires. Panellists rated statements on a Likert scale from –5 (strongly disagree) to +5 (strongly agree). Results: The Delphi panel provided consensus recommendations on examinations and testing needed for diagnosis, treatment goals, and the use of corticosteroids, as well as the use of non‐biologic and biologic immunomodulators. The panel reached consensus that RCI may be considered for posterior and pan‐uveitis, and dosing should be individualized for each patient. Dose reduction/discontinuation should be considered for excessive RCI‐related toxicity, hyperglycaemia and/or diabetic complications, excessive costs, or remission ≥ 2 years. Patients should be weaned from RCI if uveitis is stable and well controlled. Adverse events during RCI therapy can be managed by appropriate interventions, with dose reduction/discontinuation considered if events are severe or recurrent. Conclusions: Expert consensus suggests RCI may be an appropriate treatment option for some patients with uveitis when other therapies are ineffective or intolerable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), including in retinal vascular diseases, has been well studied, and pharmacological blockade of VEGF is the gold standard of treatment for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration, retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular oedema. Placental growth factor (PGF, previously known as PlGF), a homologue of VEGF, is a multifunctional peptide associated with angiogenesis‐dependent pathologies in the eye and non‐ocular conditions. Animal studies using genetic modification and pharmacological treatment have demonstrated a mechanistic role for PGF in pathological angiogenesis. Inhibition decreases neovascularization and microvascular abnormalities across different models, including oxygen‐induced retinopathy, laser‐induced choroidal neovascularization and in diabetic mice exhibiting retinopathies. High levels of PGF have been found in the vitreous of patients with diabetic retinopathy. Despite these strong animal data, the exact role of PGF in pathological angiogenesis in retinal vascular diseases remains to be defined, and the benefits of PGF‐specific inhibition in humans with retinal neovascular diseases and macular oedema remain controversial. Comparative effectiveness research studies in patients with diabetic retinal disease have shown that treatment that inhibits both VEGF and PGF may provide superior outcomes in certain patients compared with treatment that inhibits only VEGF. This review summarizes current knowledge of PGF, including its relationship to VEGF and its role in pathological angiogenesis in retinal diseases, and identifies some key unanswered questions about PGF that can serve as a pathway for future basic, translational and clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of trained nurses, mid‐level and senior ophthalmologists in Vietnam against a reference standard from the UK, and assess the impact of further training on graders. Methods: Fundus photographs were taken and graded at two different time points by trained nurses, mid‐level ophthalmologists and senior ophthalmologists in Vietnam using the UK National Screening Committee classification system. A reference standard from the UK regraded all images in masked fashion and DTA was calculated using sensitivity and specificity (with 95% CIs), and positive and negative predictive values. Results: Between September and November 2018, 431 people with diabetes attended diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in Southern Vietnam. The sensitivity for detecting any DR for all grader groups in Vietnam was low (<43%) against the reference standard in the UK. The sensitivity for detecting referable DR and referrable diabetic macular oedema was particularly low (<20%) for all grader groups. Subsequently, an additional subset of images from 138 consecutive patients screened from March to April 2021 was regraded in the UK to evaluate graders' performance after additional training was delivered. A significant improvement in DTA among all grader groups in Vietnam was identified, with sensitivity for detecting any DR exceeding 85%. Nurses achieved the highest sensitivity for grading referable DR (76.9%, 60.3–88.3%) and mid‐level ophthalmologists attained the highest sensitivity for detecting referable maculopathy (77.5%, 61.2–88.6). Conclusions: Grading accuracy was low in Vietnam in the first six months of implementing a training programme. Many factors may have contributed to poor grader performance, including inadequate training and feedback, insufficient time to participate in quality assurance testing and competing work responsibilities. After further training was delivered, DTA among all graders in Vietnam increased. Findings from this study are particularly important for DR programme planners in low‐ and middle‐income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

. The main objective of this report is to encourage consistent quality of testing and reporting within and between centres that use colour Doppler imaging (CDI) for assessment of retrobulbar blood flow. The intention of this review is to standardize methods in CDI assessment that are used widely, but not to exclude other approaches or additional tests that individual laboratories may choose or continue to use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]