Background: The diagnosis of ocular sarcoidosis (OS) is difficult to establish in the absence of manifest systemic involvement. To help clinicians reach a diagnosis, we convened a group of experts in 2006 (International Workshop on Ocular Sarcoidosis (IWOS)) to set-up clinical criteria for the diagnosis of ocular sarcoidosis. In addition, laboratory investigational tests represent a much-needed adjunct to ascertain the diagnosis. However, many of these tests have low sensitivity and specificity. Purpose: The aim of our study was to evaluate the usefulness of serum ACE, serum lysozyme and polyclonal antibody activation in the diagnosis of ocular sarcoidosis and compare the frequency of increased serum levels of lysozyme and ACE in proven ocular sarcoidosis or in suspected ocular sarcoidosis. Methods: Serum ACE and lysozyme were assessed in these two groups and their means compared to a group of non-granulomatous (i.e., non-sarcoidosis) uveitis patients. The proportion of elevated serum ACE versus lysozyme was compared in the sarcoidosis patients. Polyclonal antibody activation was measured by establishing exposition of patients to four human commensal herpesviruses (EBV, CMV, HSV and VZV) using ELISA or immunofluorescence and in parallel by performing quantitative complement fixation (CF) serologies. The ratio of elevated CF to positive ELISA/immunofluorescence serologies was calculated. The mean of ratios (polyclonal antibody activation) was compared between ocular sarcoidosis and control groups. Results: Thirty-seven patients (F24/M13) were included in our study including 17 patients with IWOS Level 1 and 2 criteria qualifying for Group 1 (proven sarcoidosis) and 20 ocular sarcoidosis suspect patients. Mean age was 54.52 ± 23.74. Mean serum levels of ACE was 49.17± 29 IU/L in the ocular sarcoidosis group versus 27.4 ± 15.34 IU/L (p ≤ 0.00018, student’s t test) in the control group. Mean serum lysozyme levels was 39.92 ± 55.5 mg/L in the ocular sarcoidosis group versus 10.5 ± 5.8 mg/L (p ≤ 0.0013) in the control group (n = 30). Both tests were elevated in 8/37 (21.6%) patients, elevated ACE and normal lysozyme was noted in 2/37 (5.4%) patients, whereas the proportion of normal ACE/elevated lysozyme was much higher, 23/37 (62.2%). In 4/37 (10.8%) patients, both tests were normal. The mean score of polyclonal activation (N of elevated CF serologies divided by number of viruses to which a patient was exposed) was 0.6 ± 0.33 in the ocular sarcoidosis group versus 0.15 ± 0.2 for the control group (n = 42) (p ≤ 0.00001). Sensitivity and specificity of ACE and lysozyme were, respectively, 27%/96.6% and 83.7%/90%. Sensitivity and specificity of polyclonal antibody activation amounted to 70%/90.4% Conclusion: Lysozyme was found to be much more useful than ACE as a laboratory test to support the diagnosis of ocular sarcoidosis. As shown in a previous study, polyclonal antibody activation appears to be another useful laboratory test supportive of the diagnosis of ocular sarcoidosis.

BackgroundIntravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents is the most common intraocular procedure worldwide, inevitably causing more cases of post-injection endophthalmitis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of laser flare photometry in monitoring inflammation after intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, particularly to detect early stage post-injection endophthalmitis.Main body of the abstractA retrospective case review was performed of all patients who underwent flare assessment by laser flare photometry before and after intravitreal injection of bevacizumab or aflibercept at the Centre for Ophthalmic Specialized Care in Lausanne, Switzerland, between January 2015 and May 2018. The following data were retrieved: indication for intravitreal injection, medication administered, pre-injection and 72-h post-injection laser flare photometry values, and occurrence of post-injection endophthalmitis. A total of 736 injections were included in this study; 705 cases (95.8%) had a post-injection flare at 72 h ≤ 30 ph/ms, 29 cases (3.9%) had a post-injection flare at 72 h between > 30 and 50 ph/ms, and 2 cases (0.3%) had a post-injection flare at 72 h above > 50 ph/ms (664 and 742 ph/ms). These latter two cases were diagnosed as early-stage endophthalmitis.ConclusionLaser flare photometry is a cost-effective method of screening for early stage post-injection endophthalmitis. Values > 50 ph/ms 72-h post-injection should prompt immediate evaluation by an ophthalmologist.

Purpose The aim of this study was to report on the disease course and management modalities in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-related uveitis (JIA uveitis) or intermediate uveitis of the pars planitis type (PP) who were followed up using precise ocular investigational techniques. Methods This is a retrospective single-centre study. All charts of patients seen in our centre over 15 years (2005 – 2019) with a diagnosis of JIA uveitis or PP were retrieved and analysed for clinical course, severity of inflammation, type of management, and the role played by precise investigational techniques (laser flare photometry [LFP], optical coherence tomography [OCT] and fluorescein angiography [FA]) in therapeutic decisions. Results 26 out of a total of 64 patients with sufficient data could be included in the study. Mean age was 11.2 years (SD ± 5.4). 13/26 (50%) patients presented with JIA uveitis and 13/26 (50%) with PP. PP patients had a more benign course (mean LFP values at presentation 9.9 ± 3.2 ph/ms), and at the end of follow-up, only 2/13 PP patients (15%) still needed systemic treatment. In contrast, JIA uveitis as a whole was more severe, although benign forms were present (LFP values at presentation 105.9 ± 19.5 ph/ms), and at the end of follow-up, 5/13 patients (38%) still needed systemic treatment. Complications were also more severe and frequent in JIA uveitis patients. In 6/26 patients (24%, 3 JIA and 3 PP patients), the precise monitoring methods allowed unjustified systemic treatment to be discontinued, and to avoid such a treatment, it was recommended that it should be replaced by topical treatment or observation. Conclusion Nowadays, new investigational techniques have made precise follow-up of uveitis possible. We determined the precise inflammatory pattern of JIA uveitis and PP, which is crucial information to determine the therapeutic intervention. As these two entities are common in young and paediatric patients, such precise monitoring is essential to determine adequate treatment paradigms and avoid unnecessary systemic treatment, especially corticosteroids. When the ophthalmic status requires it, multidisciplinary collaboration between the ophthalmologist, the paediatrician and the rheumatologist may be needed to offer optimal management to the patient. In cases of purely ocular involvement, it is the ophthalmologist who should determine the management.