Predictive Factors for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Changes Suggestive of Demyelination in Adult Patients with Uveitis Scanned Prior to Commencing Adalimumab Therapy.

PURPOSE: To report the predictive clinical factors for abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans suggestive of demyelination by analysis of MRI's performed for adult non-infectious uveitic patients prior to commencing adalimumab therapy. METHODS: Retrospective case review of 240 patients was conducted in a single tertiary institution between November 2017 and March 2020. Aetiology of underlying disease, clinical characteristics, and MRI outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: The presence of bilateral idiopathic intermediate uveitis (IIU) (p = .0048) and neurological symptoms (p = .028) were highly predictive of an abnormal MRI strongly suggestive of demyelination (MRSSD); 5 out of 64 scans (7.8%) with these clinical characteristics had MRSSD. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor necrosis factor antagonist-induced demyelination is a concern in adalimumab use. We propose an MRI screening protocol to identify those at high risk of demyelination; positive results can be maximised by screening all patients with IIU and those with neurological symptoms.

Immunohistochemical characterization of feline lymphoplasmacytic anterior uveitis.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the immune cells present in different forms of feline anterior uveitis. SAMPLES: Eyes were obtained from 49 cats diagnosed with chronic idiopathic lymphoplasmacytic anterior uveitis, 7 cats with feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), and 9 cats euthanized for nonocular disease. METHODS: H&E sections were scored on the level of infiltrate in the anterior uvea. Immunohistochemistry was performed for FoxP3, CD3, and IL-17A, and positive cells were quantified in multiple images of each sample. A generalized estimating equation tested for an association between the level of inflammation and the prevalence of these cell types. RESULTS: Cells stained positive for IL-17A in idiopathic uveitis but not in FIP samples. We found significantly fewer FoxP3+ and CD3+ cells in low-grade compared with high-grade inflammation in idiopathic uveitis or FIP samples (P values all <.005), but no difference between FIP and high-grade samples. CONCLUSIONS: Idiopathic, but not FIP-associated, uveitis appears to have Th17 cell involvement. The numbers of FoxP3+ and CD3+ T-cells present appear directly correlated; thus, the severity of disease does not appear directly determined by the numbers of regulatory cells.

Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for hyperopia correction.

BACKGROUND: Hyperopia, or hypermetropia (also known as long-sightedness or far-sightedness), is the condition where the unaccommodating eye brings parallel light to a focus behind the retina instead of on it. Hyperopia can be corrected with both non-surgical and surgical methods, among them photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser assisted In situ keratomileusis (LASIK). There is uncertainty as to whether hyperopic-PRK or hyperopic-LASIK is the better method. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to determine whether PRK or LASIK leads to more reliable, stable and safe results when correcting a hyperopic refractive error. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to February 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 17 February 2012. When trials are included in the review we will search the reference lists of the studies included in the review for information about further trials. We will use the Science Citation Index to search for papers that cite any studies included in this review. We did not handsearch journals or conference proceedings specifically for this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRK against LASIK for correction of hyperopia and then perform a sensitivity analysis of pre- and post-millennial trials since this is the mid-point in the history of both PRK and LASIK. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review. MAIN RESULTS: As no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, we discussed the results of non-randomised trials comparing hyperopic-PRK with hyperopic-LASIK. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No robust, reliable conclusions could be reached, but the non-randomised trials reviewed appear to be in agreement that hyperopic-PRK and hyperopic-LASIK are of comparable efficacy. High quality, well-planned open RCTs are needed in order to obtain a robust clinical evidence base.