Purpose: To describe uveitis cases after the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective study. Vaccine-related uveitis diagnosis was supported by the classification of the World Health Organization Adverse Drug Terminology and the Naranjo criteria.Results: Twenty-one patients (23 eyes) with a mean age of 51.3 years (23-78 years) were included. Eight of the 21 patients had a known history of uveitis. The median time from previous to current attack was 1 year (0.5-15 years). There were 21 anterior uveitis cases, two with bilateral inflammation. Eight cases occurred after the first vaccination and 13 after the second vaccination. All but three presented as mild to moderate disease. Two patients developed multiple evanescent white dot syndrome after the second vaccination. The mean time from vaccination to uveitis onset was 7.5 ± 7.3 days (1-30 days). At final follow-up, complete resolution was achieved in all but two eyes, which showed significant improvement. One case of severe anterior uveitis developed vitritis and macular edema after the second vaccination, which completely resolved after an intravitreal dexamethasone injection.Conclusion: Uveitis may develop after the administration of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. The most common complication was mild to moderate anterior uveitis, while multiple evanescent white dot syndrome can also occur less frequently.

Purpose The purpose was to evaluate the pain associated with intravitreal Ozurdex injections, and to compare it with that associated with intravitreal bevacizumab injections. Methods The study included 57 eyes of 57 patients who received an intravitreal Ozurdex injection at our institution. Pain was measured by the visual analog scale (VAS). Additional parameters recorded included age, sex, indication for the injection, number of previous Ozurdex injections in the study eye, presence of diabetes mellitus, and lens status. Data were compared with a 2 : 1 sexand age-matched control group of 114 patients who received intravitreal bevacizumab injections. Results Indications for injection included diabetic macular edema (40.4%) and macular edema secondary to central and branch retinal vein occlusion (28% and 31.6%, respectively). Pain scores on the VAS ranged from 0 to 90, with a mean of 20.8±20.3. There was no significant difference in pain between Ozurdex and bevacizumab injections. Pseudophakia was correlated with increased pain in Ozurdex injections. Conclusions This is the first series evaluating the pain associated with intravitreal Ozurdex injections. Despite a larger needle gauge and tunneled injection technique, intravitreal injection of Ozurdex is not associated with increased pain compared with bevacizumab. This finding may be a potential advantage for Ozurdex, and may serve to improve patient compliance with future long-term treatment protocols.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and agreement of OCTA interpretation in cases of common retinal findings and diagnoses, and evaluate the effect of the OCT B-scans on OCTA interpretations. Methods: A case-series study, consisting of a questionnaire with 8 cases demonstrating common retinal conditions of normal, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy (DR). Each case included OCTA images, and 58 participants were asked to identify retinal findings and provide a diagnosis. Following OCTA interpretation, the corresponding OCT B-scans were revealed and participants were asked again to identify retinal findings and provide a diagnosis. Rates of accuracy and agreement for each condition were analyzed. Results: Overall rates of accurate diagnosis and identification of retinal findings were 37.4% and 61.6%, respectively. Following addition of the OCT B-scans, rates increased to 61.6% and 79.4%, respectively (p<0.001 for both). A significant improvement in correct interpretation occurred in the normal and AMD cases, but not DR cases. There was no correlation with length of experience or self-reported familiarity with OCTA. Discussion: Considerable variability exists in OCTA interpretation, with mediocre rates of accuracy and agreement between clinicians. Increased familiarity as well as future automation advances will be needed to improve OCTA interpretation accuracy and uniformity.