Contribution of diagnostic tests for the etiological assessment of uveitis, data from the ULISSE study (Uveitis: Clinical and medicoeconomic evaluation of a standardized strategy of the etiological diagnosis).

PURPOSE: ULISSE is the only study that prospectively assessed the efficiency of a standardized strategy, compared to an open strategy for the etiologic diagnosis of uveitis. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of the tests prescribed in the ULISSE study to clarify their relevance. METHODS: ULISSE is a non-inferiority, prospective, multicenter and cluster randomized study. The standardized strategy is a two-steps strategy: in the first step, common standard tests were performed, and in the second step, tests were guided by the clinical and anatomic type of uveitis. We reported the relevance of the diagnostic tests used in the standardized strategy, as well as the profitability of the tests that were prescribed to more than twenty patients in each group. Based on diagnostic criteria, either an ophthalmologist, or an internist, established the profitability of a test by considering whether the test lead to a diagnosis or not. RESULTS: Among the 676 patients included (standardized 303; open 373), a diagnosis was made for 152 (50.4%) in the standardized group and 203 (54.4%) in the open group. The most common entities were HLA-B27 associated uveitis (22%), spondyloarthritis (11%), sarcoidosis (18%), tuberculosis (10.7%) and herpes virus infections (8.5%). Among the first step's systematic tests, tuberculin skin test was the most contributive investigation (17.1%), followed by chest X-ray (8.4%), C reactive protein and ESR (6.6% and 5.1%), complete blood count (2.2%) and VDRL (2.0%). The second step's most often contributive tests were: HLA B27 (56.3%), chest-CT (30.3%) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) (16.5%). HLA B27 and ACE were significantly more contributive in the standardized group than in the open group. Immunological tests were never contributive. Among the free investigations, or among the investigations guided by clinical or paraclinical findings, the most often contributive tests were: Quantiferon® (24%), electrophoresis of serum protein (7.8%) and sacroiliac imagery (46.4%). Intracellular serologies (1.7%), serum calcium (2.1%) and hepatic tests (3.3%) were exceptionally contributive. Among the third intention tests, labial salivary gland biopsies were contributive in 17.9% of cases, but the profitability of other invasive investigations (anterior chamber tap, vitrectomy, bronchoscopy and lumbar puncture) or specialized imagery (18F-FDG PET, Brain MRI) could not be determined since these test were rarely performed. CONCLUSION: Only a few diagnostic tests are useful for the etiological assessment of uveitis. They are often cheap, simple, more often guided by the clinical findings, and lead to an etiological diagnosis in most patients. On the other hand, some tests are never or exceptionally contributive, such as immunological tests or intracellular serologies. Further studies are required to evaluate the profitability of third intention imagery and invasive investigations.

Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating a Standardized Strategy for Uveitis Etiologic Diagnosis (ULISSE).

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the efficiency of a standardized diagnostic approach, compared to an open strategy, for the etiologic diagnosis of uveitis. DESIGN: Noninferiority, prospective, multicenter, clustered randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with uveitis, who visited 1 of the participating departments of ophthalmology, were included. In the standardized group, all patients had a minimal evaluation regardless of the type of uveitis (complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, tuberculin skin test, syphilis serology, and chest radiograph) followed by more complex investigations according to ophthalmologic findings. In the open group, the ophthalmologist could order any type of investigation. Main outcome was the percentage of etiologic diagnoses at 6 months. RESULTS: Nine hundred and three patients with uveitis were included from January 2010 to May 2013 and the per-protocol population comprised 676 patients (open 373; standardized 303). Mean age at diagnosis was 46 years. Anatomic distribution of uveitis was as follows: anterior (60.8% and 72.3%, P = .0017), intermediate (11.7% and 12.3%, P = .8028), posterior (17.8% and 8.2%, P = .0004), and panuveitis (15.3% and 15.2%, P = .9596). An etiologic diagnosis was established in 54.4% of cases in the open group and 49.5% in the standardized group (P = .2029). The difference between both strategies (standardized minus open) was -4.9% (95% CI [-12.5%; 2.6%]). There were more investigations in the open group than in the standardized group (5371 vs 3759, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The standardized strategy appears to be an efficient diagnostic approach for the etiologic diagnosis of uveitis, although its noninferiority cannot be proved.