Coincident Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy and Paracentral Acute Middle Maculopathy in COVID-19.

An ophthalmology consultation was requested for a 29-year-old woman complaining of visual field defects. The patient had presented to the emergency department with cough and high fever one day earlier. Chest computed tomography demonstrated pneumonia and two severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction tests were positive. The patient had undergone renal transplantation 11 years ago due to glomerulonephritis. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 20/40 in the right eye and 20/30 in the left eye. Fluorescein angiography showed macular hypoperfusion, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed hyperreflectivity in the inner nuclear, outer plexiform, and outer nuclear layers, as well as discontinuity of the ellipsoid zone. Perimetry confirmed bilateral central scotoma. Levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen were 0.86 g/mL and 435.6 g/mL, respectively. The patient was diagnosed as having concurrent acute macular neuroretinopathy and paracentral acute middle maculopathy and was given low-molecular-weight heparin treatment for one month. Her BCVA improved to 20/20 in both eyes, and regression was observed in the retinal findings, hyperreflectivity and ellipsoid zone disruption on OCT, and scotoma in perimetry. Inflammation, thrombosis, and glial involvement may play a role in the pathogenesis of retinal microvascular impairment in COVID-19.

Central retinal vein occlusion and occlusive vasculopathy at macula in a patient with recent COVID-19 infection.

We described a post-COVID-19 patient who presented with central retinal vein occlusion and macular ischemia. A 50-year-old male presented with decreased vision for a month in his right eye (RE). The patient had no systemic risk factors for vascular disease but recent COVID-19 infection. Fundus examination revealed dense intraretinal dot hemorrhages especially at macula and ischemia-related retinal whitening in the posterior pole in RE. Expanding of foveal avascular zone was also detected in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) sections. After systemic steroid therapy, subretinal fluid resolved but visual acuity did not increase. Depending on the fundus fluorescein angiography and OCTA findings, clinical picture was compatible with previous central retinal vein occlusion with superimposed occlusive vasculopathy at macula. COVID-19 patients with visual problems must be considered with care in regard to thrombotic retinal diseases.

Evaluation of Retinal Microvascular Impairment after COVID-19 and its Clinical Correlates Using Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography.

Objectives: Retinal vascular complications have been described in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to analyze retinal microvascular changes and their correlations with clinical findings. Materials and Methods: This case-controlled study was conducted in a university hospital. The right eyes of 52 otherwise healthy patients recovered from COVID-19 and 42 healthy controls were examined with optical coherence tomography angiography. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare vessel density (VD) and foveal avascular zone (FAZ) parameters. Associations with treatment choices, pneumonia, and laboratory findings were analyzed. Results: Twenty-nine patients (56%) and 18 healthy controls (43%) were men. Mean age of the COVID-19 group was 39.00±13.04 years. Twenty-two patients had pneumonia, 18 (35%) received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), 17 (33%) received HCQ plus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and 10 (19%) received favipiravir. The patient group had lower parafoveal VD in the superficial capillary plexus (SCP) and lower parafoveal VD and perifoveal VD in the deep capillary plexus (DCP) than controls (p=0.003, p=0.004, p=0.001). FAZ area did not differ significantly (p=0.953). Perifoveal VD in the DCP was also significantly lower in the HCQ+LMWH group than the HCQ group (p=0.020) and in the presence of pneumonia (p=0.040). C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin levels were negatively correlated with perifoveal VD in the DCP (r=-0.445, p=0.023; r=-0.451, p=0.040). Ferritin was also negatively correlated with parafoveal VD in the SCP (r=-0.532, p=0.013). Conclusion: Parafoveal and perifoveal VD was found to be lower in the COVID-19 group. Presence of pneumonia, need for LMWH prophylaxis, and levels of CRP and ferritin were found to be negatively associated with retinal VD. Large-scale studies are needed to evaluate the clinical importance.

Behçet's syndrome: one year in review 2022.

This review highlights publications on different aspects of Behçet's syndrome (BS) that appeared in 2021 and provides a critical view. These publications include works on the epidemiology of BS across different continents, newly developed instruments to assess damage in BS, studies highlighting the immunopathogenesis, genetics and epigenetic factors, histopathology of the pathergy lesion, clinical and imaging aspects of vascular involvement, and safety and efficacy of therapeutic agents including tocilizumab, apremilast and direct oral anticoagulants.

Bilateral Cystoid Macular Edema after COVID-19: 1 Year Follow Up.

PURPOSE: The aim is to report a case of bilateral macular edema after COVID-19 pneumonia. CASE REPORT: A 66-year-old male patient with history of COVID-19 pneumonia presented to us with decreased vision. Examination showed bilateral cystoid macular edema (CME), which was confirmed on optical coherence tomography (OCT). There were no findings in the fundus examination. He had no systemic disease, drug or surgery history, or any factors that could explain the clinic presentation. Work-up for uveitis was unremarkable. After topical therapy with brinzolamide 1% and nepafenac 0.1%, macular edema regressed in a month. CONCLUSION: This is an unusual case of CME in previous COVID-19 infection. This presentation may be a parainfectious or a post-viral manifestation of COVID-19.

Higher antibody responses after mRNA-based vaccine compared to inactivated vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in Behcet's syndrome.

There are limited data about humoral response to vaccine in Behçet's syndrome (BS). We compared SARS-CoV-2 antibody response after two doses of inactivated (Sinovac/CoronaVac) or mRNA (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines in patients with BS and healthy controls (HCs). We studied 166 (92M/74F) patients with BS (mean age: 42.9 ± 9.6 years) and 165 (75M/90F) healthy controls (mean age: 42.4 ± 10.4 years), in a single-center cross-sectional design between April 2021 and October 2021. A total of 80 patients with BS and 89 HCs received two doses of CoronaVac, while 86 patients with BS and 76 HCs were vaccinated with BioNTech. All study subjects had a negative history for COVID-19. Serum samples were collected at least 21 days after the second dose of the vaccine. Anti-spike IgG antibody titers were measured quantitatively using a commercially available immunoassay method. We found that the great majority in both patient and HC groups had detectable antibodies after either CoronaVac (96.3% vs 100%) or BioNTech (98.8% vs 100%). Among those vaccinated with CoronaVac, BS patients had significantly lower median (IQR) titers compared to HCs [36.5 (12.5-128.5) vs 102 (59-180), p < 0.001]. On the other hand, antibody titers did not differ among patients with BS and HCs who were vaccinated with BioNTech [1648.5 (527.0-3693.8) vs 1516.0 (836.3-2599.5), p = 0.512). Among different treatment regimen subgroups in both vaccine groups, those who were using anti-TNF-based treatment had the lowest antibody titers. However, the difference was statistically significant only among those vaccinated with CoronaVac. Among patients vaccinated with BioNTech, there was no statistically significant difference between different treatment regimen groups. Compared to inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-based vaccine elicited higher antibody titers among BS patients. Only in the CoronaVac group, patients especially those using anti-TNF agents were found to have low titers compared to healthy subjects. BS patients vaccinated with BioNTech were found to have similar seroconversion rates and antibody levels compared to healthy controls. Further studies should assess whether the low antibody titers are associated with diminished protection against COVID-19 in both vaccine groups.

One year in review 2021: Behçet's syndrome.

This review aims to provide a critical digest of the recent studies that enhance our understanding of Behçet's syndrome by evaluating time trends, differences in disease course between men and women, and between patients with an early and late disease onset, progress in disease assessment, novel findings on immunopathogenesis and genetics, clinical features and differential diagnosis of eye, vascular, nervous system and gastrointestinal system involvement, and new data on treatment modalities including TNF-alpha, IL-17 and IL-6 inhibitors, tofacitinib, and apremilast, as well as surgical interventions.

Safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with Behcet's syndrome and familial Mediterranean fever: a cross-sectional comparative study on the effects of M-RNA based and inactivated vaccine.

Most of the published data relate to classical forms of rheumatic diseases (RD) and information on rare inflammatory disorders such as Behçet's syndrome (BS) and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) is limited. We studied the frequency of side effects and disease flares after COVID-19 vaccination with either Pfizer/BioNTech or Sinovac/CoronaVac in 256 patients with BS, 247 with FMF, and 601 with RD. Telephone interviews were conducted using a questionnaire survey in a cross-sectional design in patients with BS, FMF, and RD followed by a single university hospital. Study participants were vaccinated either with CoronaVac (BS:109, FMF: 90, and RD: 343,) or BioNTech (BS: 147, FMF: 157 and RD: 258). The majority have received double dose (BS: 94.9%, FMF 92.3% and RD: 86.2%). BioNTech ensured a significantly better efficacy than CoronaVac against COVID-19 in all patient groups (BS: 1.4% vs 10.1%; FMF: 3.2% vs 12.2%, RD:2.7% vs 6.4%). Those with at least one adverse event (AE) were significantly more frequent among those vaccinated with BioNTech than those with CoronaVac (BS: 86.4% vs 45%; FMF: 83.4% vs 53.3%; and RD: 83.3% vs 45.5%). The majority of AEs were mild to moderate and transient and this was true for either vaccine. There were also AEs that required medical attention in all study groups following CoronaVac (BS: 5.5%, FMF: 3.3%, and RD:2.9%) or BioNTech (BS: 5.4%, FMF: 1.9%, and RD: 4.7%). The main causes for medical assistance were disease flare and cardiovascular events. Patients with BS (16.0%) and FMF (17.4%) were found to flare significantly more frequently when compared to those with RD (6.0%) (p < 0.001). This was true for either vaccine. BS patients reported mainly skin-mucosa lesions; there were however, 11 (4.3%) who developed major organ attack such as uveitis, thrombosis or stroke. Flare in FMF patients were associated mainly with acute serositis with or without fever. Arthralgia/arthritis or inflammatory back pain were observed mainly in the RD group. Our study demonstrates that BS and FMF patients vaccinated with either CoronaVac or BioNTech demonstrated similar AE profile and frequency compared to RD patients. AEs that required physician consultation or hospitalization occurred in all study groups after either CoronaVac or BioNTech. Increased frequency of flares in BS and FMF compared to that seen in RD might reflect defects in innate immunity and deserves further investigation. Caution should be required when monitoring these patients after vaccination.