Multiple Evanescent White Dot Syndrome and Choroidal Neovascularization following SARS-COV-2 Infection in a Patient on Dabrafenib and Trametinib.

PURPOSE: to describe multimodal imaging and electrophysiology of multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS) concomitant with COVID-19 infection in a patient on BRAF (B Rapidly Accelerated Fibrosarcoma) and MEK (Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase) inhibitors. METHODS: observational case report and literature review. RESULTS: a 37-year-old woman affected by cutaneous melanoma on BRAF and MEK inhibitors developed visual symptoms in the right eye simultaneously with a SARS-COV-2 infection. The right eye visual acuity was hand movement, and clinical examination disclosed vitreous cells, yellow-white retinal spots, and macular yellowish material. Fundus autofluorescence and angiograms were consistent with MEWDS. Angiograms, optical coherence tomography, and optical coherence tomography angiography revealed a macular choroidal neovascular membrane. The infectious and inflammatory work-up was negative. Electrodiagnostic tests revealed cone dysfunction. MEWDS resolved and anti-VEGF treatment allowed partial vision recovery. CONCLUSION: the case illustrates the association of MEWDS and choroidal neovascularization developing after COVID-19 infection in the setting of immunotherapy.

Safety and efficacy of an artificial intelligence-enabled decision tool for treatment decisions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration and an exploration of clinical pathway integration and implementation: protocol for a multi-methods validation study.

INTRODUCTION: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) management is one of the largest single-disease contributors to hospital outpatient appointments. Partial automation of nAMD treatment decisions could reduce demands on clinician time. Established artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled retinal imaging analysis tools, could be applied to this use-case, but are not yet validated for it. A primary qualitative investigation of stakeholder perceptions of such an AI-enabled decision tool is also absent. This multi-methods study aims to establish the safety and efficacy of an AI-enabled decision tool for nAMD treatment decisions and understand where on the clinical pathway it could sit and what factors are likely to influence its implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Single-centre retrospective imaging and clinical data will be collected from nAMD clinic visits at a National Health Service (NHS) teaching hospital ophthalmology service, including judgements of nAMD disease stability or activity made in real-world consultant-led-care. Dataset size will be set by a power calculation using the first 127 randomly sampled eligible clinic visits. An AI-enabled retinal segmentation tool and a rule-based decision tree will independently analyse imaging data to report nAMD stability or activity for each of these clinic visits. Independently, an external reading centre will receive both clinical and imaging data to generate an enhanced reference standard for each clinic visit. The non-inferiority of the relative negative predictive value of AI-enabled reports on disease activity relative to consultant-led-care judgements will then be tested. In parallel, approximately 40 semi-structured interviews will be conducted with key nAMD service stakeholders, including patients. Transcripts will be coded using a theoretical framework and thematic analysis will follow. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS Research Ethics Committee and UK Health Research Authority approvals are in place (21/NW/0138). Informed consent is planned for interview participants only. Written and oral dissemination is planned to public, clinical, academic and commercial stakeholders.

Delayed follow-up of medical retina patients due to COVID-19: impact on disease activity and visual acuity.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus pandemic has prompted unprecedented delays to treatment with anti-VEGF intravitreal injections due to the need to reduce hospital attendances and prioritise the patients at highest risk of vision loss. This study aims to quantify the effect of these delays on visual acuity (VA) outcomes and optical coherence tomography (OCT) features for patients receiving treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), retinal vein occlusions (RVO) and diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and correlate to the Royal College of Ophthalmologists guidelines (RCOphth). METHODS: A retrospective data analysis of an electronic medical record was performed on a random sample of eyes receiving anti-VEGF injections for nAMD, RVO or DMO. Data collected included age, sex, reason for injection, number of weeks delay if > 8 weeks from that planned, VA at baseline and follow-up and the OCT features, if delayed. For those eyes not delayed, a visual acuity at 20 weeks was recorded to provide a control group. RESULTS: A sample of 981 eyes (858 patients) were analysed. There was a delay in review of 8 weeks or more in 39.6% of patients of which 30.4% had since returned for review (28.4% nAMD, 37.6% RVO and 30.0% DMO). There was no demographic difference identified between the delayed and non-delayed patients; however, the delayed group was significantly more likely to have better vision in their non-treated eye (p = 0.0003). A statistically significant difference was found in the change in VA between the delayed and the not-delayed group for eyes with nAMD (p = 0.001) but not for RVO or DMO. For the delayed group, mean CMT increased by 33 and 100 µm, respectively, for nAMD and RVO and decreased by 7.8 µm for DMO. The VA of 89.7% of DMO eyes returned to baseline, compared to 74.6% and 76.9% of nAMD and RVO eyes. CONCLUSION: The RCOphth guidance to prioritise intravitreal injections for nAMD over DMO appears appropriate in this cohort but not for RVO. Eyes with nAMD experienced the greatest loss of vision with treatment delay, and nAMD and RVO eyes were less likely to return to baseline on restarting treatment.

Macula service evaluation and assessing priorities for anti-VEGF treatment in the light of COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To assess the treatment position of all patients who have had an anti-VEGF injection in 2020, prior to the UK lockdown on 23 March. To assess methods of service quality evaluation in setting benchmarks for comparison after the situation stabilized. To consider what proportion could be delayed based on national guidelines and varying vision parameters. Finally, to measure how many patients actually attended. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of data collected from our electronic medical record was performed. Age, sex, reason for injection, visual acuity (VA) for both treated and untreated eyes and number of injections were recorded. The proportion of patients and eyes with ≥ 70 letters were calculated as an assessment of quality of service provision. The proportion of patients that could be delayed was estimated based on published guidelines and varying the parameters of difference between treated and untreated eyes. Finally, the number of patients who actually attended was recorded. RESULTS: About 3364 eyes (2229 neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), 427 diabetic macular oedema (DMO), 599 retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and 109 other) from 2924 patients were analysed. At the last appointment with injection, 64.4% of patients achieved ≥ 70 letters in their better-seeing eye. Mean VA of the treated eye was 61.5 letters, and 36.9% achieved ≥ 70. The mean number of injections was 16, 90% with aflibercept. Of the patients receiving treatment to one eye, 57.6% was receiving treatment to their worse seeing eye. In 18.2% this eye was > 20 letters worse and in 5.07% > 40 letters worse than the untreated eye. Using Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) guidelines, (treat nAMD 8 weekly, delay majority of RVO and DMO) 24.8% would be delayed. From 2738 appointments during the first 4 weeks of lockdown (booked prior to lockdown), doctors rescheduled 1025 and patients did not attend 820, leaving 893 who were seen (33%). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the treatment position of patients prior to COVID-19 lockdown enables objective stratification for prioritization for continued treatment. If RCOphth guidelines were followed 24.8% could be delayed and if treating the worse seeing eye up to 57.6%. Many scheduled patients elected not to attend, with 67% not seen in the first 4 weeks. The impact of non-attendance and delays may be evaluated later.