Search

Background Surgeries for idiopathic uveitis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis in children are complex because of the high risk of inflammatory postoperative complications. There is no consensus about treatment adaptation during the perioperative period. The objectives of this study are to report the therapeutic changes made in France and to determine whether maintaining or stopping immunosuppressive therapies is associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection or an increased risk of uveitis or arthritis flare-up. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2018 in six large University Hospitals in France. Inclusion criteria were chronic idiopathic uveitis or chronic uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis under immunosuppressive therapies at the time of the surgical procedure, operated before the age of 16. Data on perioperative treatments, inflammatory relapses and post-operative infections were collected. Results A total of 76 surgeries (42% cataract surgeries, 30% glaucoma surgeries and 16% posterior capsule opacification surgeries) were performed on 37 children. Adaptation protocols were different in the six hospitals. Immunosuppressive therapies were discontinued in five cases (7%) before surgery. All the children in the discontinuation group had an inflammatory relapse within 3 months after surgery compared to only 25% in the other group. There were no postoperative infections. Conclusions The results of this study show varying practices between centres. The benefit-risk balance seems to favour maintaining immunosuppressive therapies during surgery. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal perioperative treatments required to limit post-operative inflammatory relapses.

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) can lead to severe ophthalmologic sequelae. The main risk factor is the severity of the initial ocular involvement. There are no recommendations for ocular management during acute phase.We conducted a national audit of current practice in the 11 sites of the French reference center for toxic bullous dermatoses and a review of the literature to establish therapeutic consensus guidelines. We sent a questionnaire on ocular management practices in SJS/ TEN during acute phase to ophthalmologists and dermatologists. The survey focused on ophthalmologist opinion, pseudomembrane removal, topical ocular treatment (i.e. corticosteroids, antibiotics, antiseptics, artificial tear eye drops, vitamin A ointment application), amniotic membrane transplantation, symblepharon ring use, and systemic corticosteroid therapy for ophthalmologic indication. Nine of 11 centers responded. All requested prompt ophthalmologist consultation. The majority performed pseudomembrane removal, used artificial tears, and vitamin A ointment (8/9, 90%). Combined antibiotic-corticosteroid or corticosteroid eye drops were used in 6 centers (67%), antibiotics alone and antiseptics in 3 centers (33%). Symblepharon ring was used in 5 centers (55%) if necessary. Amniotic membrane transplantation was never performed systematically and only according to the clinical course. Systemic corticosteroid therapy was occasionally used (3/9, 33%) and discussed on a case-by-case basis.The literature about ocular management practice in SJS/ TEN during acute phase is relatively poor. The role of specific treatments such as local or systemic corticosteroid therapy is not consensual. The use of preservatives, often present in eye drops and deleterious to the ocular surface, is to be restricted. Early amniotic membrane transplantation seems to be promising.

Background Whether they are injected peri- or intraocularly, corticosteroids are still essential tools in the therapeutic arsenal for treating inflammatory macular oedema. A few years ago, however, only triamcinolone acetonide was available to ophthalmologists. While this compound was initially developed for rheumatological or dermatological use, it has been increasingly deployed in ophthalmology, despite still being off-label. In 2011, the system for delivery of dexamethasone from a biodegradable, injectable implant into the vitreous cavity obtained approval for use in inflammatory macular oedema. While the efficacy and safety of triamcinolone in macular oedema, including inflammatory oedema, have already been studied, there are currently no publications on subconjunctival triamcinolone injections, which are simple, effective and well tolerated. To date, the dexamethasone 700 μg implant has been authorized for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis, but there have been no studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different peri- and intraocular strategies, including the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. Methods This protocol is therefore designed to compare the efficacy and safety of peri- and intraocular corticosteroid injections in the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. In this ongoing study, 142 patients will be included, and the oedematous eye will be randomised to treatment with either subconjunctival triamcinolone injection or an intravitreal implant containing 700 μg dexamethasone. Follow-up is planned for 6 months with monthly visits. Each visit will include visual acuity measurement, a slit lamp examination, fundoscopy, intraocular pressure measurement, laser flare measurement (if available) and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Discussion The results of this trial will have a real impact on public health if it is shown that a Kenacort retard® (i.e. triamcinolone) injection costing just €2.84 and performed in the physician’s office (with no additional overhead costs) is at least as effective as the dexamethasone 700 μg implant (Ozurdex®; costing approximately €960 with the injection performed in a dedicated room), with no increased side effects. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02556424. Registered on 22 September 2015.

Controlling long-term inflammation during non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis while limiting side effects remains challenging. There is no standardized pre-therapeutic evaluation providing diagnostic certainty, but some simple tests allow us to identifiy the main etiologies. The ophthalmologist identifies the type of uveitis, and the internist completes the investigations according to the ophthalmologist's findings. Fundus photographs, optical coherence tomography, and fluorescein and indocyanine green angiography should be considered during diagnosis and follow-up. Ocular complications of uveitis are numerous. They require close monitoring and specific medical and sometimes surgical management. The growing number of available drugs makes it possible to optimize the management of these conditions with varied etiologies and presentations. Currently, systemic corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, and other alternatives are considered in the case of poor tolerance, steroid resistance or dependence. The choice of a systemic, periocular or intravitreal treatment depends on several factors: chronicity or recurrence of uveitis, duration, bilaterality, association with a systemic inflammatory disease, the presence of contraindications to certain treatments, and also socioeconomic constraints. It is of the utmost importance to find the best compromise allowing tight control of ocular inflammation by means of adapted systemic and/or local treatment while avoiding the main complications.; Contrôler l’inflammation à long terme au cours des uvéites intermédiaires, postérieures ou totales, non infectieuses en limitant la iatrogénie est un véritable défi. Il n’existe pas de bilan standardisé qui assure une certitude diagnostique, mais quelques tests simples permettent de ne pas omettre les principales étiologies. L’ophtalmologiste qualifie le type d’atteinte puis le médecin interniste complète les investigations en fonction des constatations de l’ophtalmologiste. Photographies du fond d’œil, tomographies en cohérence optique, angiographies à la fluorescéine et au vert d’indocyanine doivent être envisagées au cours du diagnostic et du suivi. Les complications oculaires de l’inflammation sont nombreuses. Elles nécessitent une surveillance étroite et une prise en charge spécifique, médicale et parfois chirurgicale. Le nombre croissant de molécules disponibles permet d’optimiser la prise en charge de ces pathologies aux étiologies et présentations variées. Actuellement, la corticothérapie systémique reste le traitement de référence et les autres thérapeutiques sont envisagées en cas de mauvaise tolérance, corticorésistance ou corticodépendance. Le choix d’un traitement systémique, régional périoculaire ou intravitréen dépend de plusieurs facteurs : chronicité ou récurrence de l’uvéite, ancienneté, bilatéralité, association à une maladie inflammatoire systémique, présence de contre-indications à certains traitements et contraintes socio-économiques. Il est très important de trouver le meilleur compromis permettant un contrôle strict de l’inflammation oculaire à l’aide d’un traitement systémique et/ou local adapté tout en évitant les principales complications.

Purpose Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), or its ligand PD-L1, are the mainstay of metastatic cancer treatment. Patients receiving these treatments may develop immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and describe the clinical patterns of moderate-to-severe ocular irAEs-associated with anti-PD-(L)1 treatment. Design Prospective case series. Methods This study included patients recruited via (1) a single-center prospective cohort and (2) a national pharmacovigilance registry between June 2014 and March 2018, and focused on patients with moderate-to-severe ocular irAEs following anti-PD-(L)1. All patients underwent a comprehensive ophthalmologic assessment. The main outcome measure was the prevalence of moderate-to-severe ocular irAEs. Results Of a total of 745 patients included in the prospective cohort, 3 developed moderate-to-severe ocular irAEs, providing a prevalence of 0.4% and an incidence of 0.7 per 1000 patient-months of treatment. An additional 5 cases of moderate-to-severe ocular irAEs were reported through the national registry. From these 8 patients, 5 presented with intraocular inflammation, 2 with ocular surface disease, and 1 with orbital myopathy. Five patients (62.5%) experienced additional extraophthalmologic irAEs. Ocular irAEs led to permanent discontinuation of anti-PD-(L)1 in 4 patients. Treatment by local and/or systemic corticosteroids allowed resolution or control of the ocular symptoms in 7 of 8 patients. Conclusion Although uncommon, anti-PD-(L)1-associated ocular complications may be sight-threatening and lead to discontinuation of anti-PD-(L)1 treatments. Patients complaining of eye problems while receiving ICI treatment should immediately be seen by an ophthalmologist.