Purpose: To describe the visual outcomes and morbidity of newly referred uveitis patients. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 133 newly referred uveitis patients with active uveitis who required care in a tertiary center for at least 1 year. Main outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at referral and 1 year after referral, duration of visual impairment, systemic medications used, as well as all complications and surgeries during the first year of follow-up. Generalized estimating equation models was used to assess prognosticators for poor BCVA. Results: The mean age at onset of uveitis was 43 years. The proportion of patients with at least one eye with BCVA ≤0.3 decreased from 35% at referral to 26% (P=0.45) at 1-year follow-up. The mean duration of visual impairment in the first year after referral was 4 months per affected eye. At 1-year follow-up, bilateral visual impairment was observed in 4% but at least one ocular complication developed in 66% and 30% of patients required at least one intraocular surgery. Systemic immunosuppressive treatment was required in 35% of patients and the mean number of visits to ophthalmologist was 11 per year, while 8% of patients required hospital admission. Prognosticators for poor visual outcome included surgery undergone before referral (odds ratio (OR), 3; 95% CI, 1-11; P=0.047), visual impairment at referral (OR, 21; 95% CI, 8-54; P<0.001), and glaucoma before referral (OR, 7; 95% CI, 2-28; P=0.007). Conclusions: Patients with severe uveitis had a favorable BCVA 1 year after referral with only 4% of patients having bilateral visual impairment. This, in contrast to the prolonged duration of visual impairment during the first year of follow-up and the demanding care.

dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.269, hdl.handle.net/1765/82224
Eye
Department of Ophthalmology

Hakan-Groen, F, Ramdas, W.D, de Hoog, J, Vingerling, J.R, & Rothová, A. (2016). Visual outcomes and ocular morbidity of patients with uveitis referred to a tertiary center during first year of follow-up. Eye, 30(3), 473–480. doi:10.1038/eye.2015.269