64
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    1
    shares
      Are you tired of sifting through news that doesn't interest you?
      Personalize your Karger newsletter today and get only the news that matters to you!

      Sign up

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Structural Endpoints and Outcome Measures in Uveitis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Most uveitis entities are rare diseases but, taken together, are responsible for 5–10% of worldwide visual impairment which largely affects persons of working age. As with many rare diseases, there is a lack of high-level evidence regarding its clinical management, partly due to a dearth of reliable and objective quantitative endpoints for clinical trials. This review provides an overview of available structural outcome measures for uveitis disease activity and damage in an anatomical order from the anterior to the posterior segment of the eye. While there is a multitude of available structural outcome measures, not all might qualify as endpoints for clinical uveitis trials, and thorough testing of applicability is warranted. Furthermore, a consensus on endpoint definition, standardization, and “core outcomes” is required. As stipulated by regulatory agencies, endpoints should be precisely defined, clinically important, internally consistent, reliable, responsive to treatment, and relevant for the respective subtype of uveitis. Out of all modalities used for assessment of the reviewed structural outcome measures, optical coherence tomography, color fundus photography, fundus autofluorescence, and fluorescein/indocyanine green angiography represent current “core modalities” for reliable and objective quantification of uveitis outcome measures, based on their practical availability and the evidence provided so far.

          Related collections

          Most cited references200

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature for Reporting Clinical Data. Results of the First International Workshop

          To begin a process of standardizing the methods for reporting clinical data in the field of uveitis. Consensus workshop. Members of an international working group were surveyed about diagnostic terminology, inflammation grading schema, and outcome measures, and the results used to develop a series of proposals to better standardize the use of these entities. Small groups employed nominal group techniques to achieve consensus on several of these issues. The group affirmed that an anatomic classification of uveitis should be used as a framework for subsequent work on diagnostic criteria for specific uveitic syndromes, and that the classification of uveitis entities should be on the basis of the location of the inflammation and not on the presence of structural complications. Issues regarding the use of the terms "intermediate uveitis," "pars planitis," "panuveitis," and descriptors of the onset and course of the uveitis were addressed. The following were adopted: standardized grading schema for anterior chamber cells, anterior chamber flare, and for vitreous haze; standardized methods of recording structural complications of uveitis; standardized definitions of outcomes, including "inactive" inflammation, "improvement'; and "worsening" of the inflammation, and "corticosteroid sparing," and standardized guidelines for reporting visual acuity outcomes. A process of standardizing the approach to reporting clinical data in uveitis research has begun, and several terms have been standardized.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Adalimumab in Patients with Active Noninfectious Uveitis

            Patients with noninfectious uveitis are at risk for long-term complications of uncontrolled inflammation, as well as for the adverse effects of long-term glucocorticoid therapy. We conducted a trial to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab as a glucocorticoid-sparing agent for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              In vivo fluorescence of the ocular fundus exhibits retinal pigment epithelium lipofuscin characteristics.

              To characterize the intrinsic fluorescence (autofluorescence) of the human ocular fundus with regard to its excitation and emission spectra, age relationship, retinal location, and topography, and to identify the dominant fluorophore among the fundus layers. Using a novel fundus spectrophotometer, fluorescence measurements were made at 7 degrees temporal to the fovea and at the fovea in 30 normal subjects and in 3 selected patients. Topographic measurements were made in 3 subjects. Ex vivo measurements of fluorescence of human retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) were obtained and compared to in vivo data. Fundus fluorescence reveals a broad band of emission between 500 and 750 nm, a maximum of approximately 630 nm, and optimal excitation of approximately 510 nm. Exhibiting a significant increase with age, this fluorescence is highest at 7 degrees to 15 degrees from the fovea, shows a well-defined foveal minimum, and decreases toward the periphery. In vivo fluorescence spectra are consistent with those obtained ex vivo on human RPE. Measurements with short wavelength excitation are strongly influenced by ocular media absorption and reveal an additional minor fluorophore in the fovea. Spectral characteristics, correlation with age, topographic distribution, and retinal location between the choriocapillaris and the photoreceptors suggest that the dominant fundus fluorophore is RPE lipofuscin. The minor fluorophore is probably in the neurosensory retina but has not been identified.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                OPH
                Ophthalmologica
                10.1159/issn.0030-3755
                Ophthalmologica
                S. Karger AG
                978-3-318-07037-8
                978-3-318-07038-5
                0030-3755
                1423-0267
                2021
                November 2021
                01 June 2021
                : 244
                : 5
                : 465-479
                Affiliations
                [_a] aDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
                [_b] bDepartment of Ophthalmology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
                [_c] cAcademic Unit of Ophthalmology, Institute of Inflammation & Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
                [_d] dHealth Data Research UK, London, United Kingdom
                [_e] eBerlin Institute of Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [_f] fDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom
                [_g] gDepartment of Ophthalmology, St. Franziskus-Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
                [_h] hDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
                [_i] iNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                *Robert P. Finger, robert.finger@ukbonn.de
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2766-7038
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9771-3431
                Article
                517521 Ophthalmologica 2021;244:465–479
                10.1159/000517521
                34062542
                9038671f-8558-4b3f-8212-5063a58a377e
                © 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 02 November 2020
                : 20 May 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Pages: 15
                Categories
                Review Article

                Vision sciences,Ophthalmology & Optometry,Pathology
                Imaging biomarker,Uveitis,Outcome measure,Outcome,Endpoint,Inflammatory eye diseases,Instrument-based measure,Biomarker

                Comments

                Comment on this article