A national survey of Canadian ophthalmologists to determine awareness of published guidelines for the management of uveitis

Managing a patient with uveitis in the era of artificial intelligence: Current approaches, emerging trends, and future perspectives

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with healthcare has opened new avenues for diagnosing, treating, and managing medical conditions with remarkable precision. Uveitis, a diverse group of rare eye conditions characterized by inflammation of the uveal tract, exemplifies the complexities in ophthalmology due to its varied causes, clinical presentations, and responses to treatments. Uveitis, if not managed promptly and effectively, can lead to significant visual impairment. However, its management requires specialized knowledge, which is often lacking, particularly in regions with limited access to health services. AI's capabilities in pattern recognition, data analysis, and predictive modelling offer significant potential to revolutionize uveitis management. AI can classify disease etiologies, analyze multimodal imaging data, predict outcomes, and identify new therapeutic targets. However, transforming these AI models into clinical applications and meeting patient expectations involves overcoming challenges like acquiring extensive, annotated datasets, ensuring algorithmic transparency, and validating these models in real-world settings. This review delves into the complexities of uveitis and the current AI landscape, discussing the development, opportunities, and challenges of AI from theoretical models to bedside application. It also examines the epidemiology of uveitis, the global shortage of uveitis specialists, and the disease's socioeconomic impacts, underlining the critical need for AI-driven approaches. Furthermore, it explores the integration of AI in diagnostic imaging and future directions in ophthalmology, aiming to highlight emerging trends that could transform management of a patient with uveitis and suggesting collaborative efforts to enhance AI applications in clinical practice.

Development and validation of a health practitioner survey on ocular allergy

Survey studies have played a significant role in understanding the gaps in the knowledge and practices of health practitioners. However, there have been no such survey studies on Ocular Allergy (OA). Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a survey on OA to better understand the gaps in the diagnostic, treatment, and collaborative care approaches of health practitioners in OA. The survey is titled "Survey on Ocular Allergy for Health Practitioners (SOAHP)". SOAHP was developed in a five-stage process. First, item extraction via the use of a literature review, second, face and content validity, third, a pilot study, fourth, test-retest reliability, and fifth, finalisation of the survey. 65 items under 6 domains were initially generated in the item extraction phase. Content validity was conducted on 15 experts in the field. This was conducted twice to reach consensus whereby items and domains were added, edited, kept, or removed, resulting in 50 items under 7 domains. The pilot study was conducted on 15 participants from the five relevant health practitioner fields (Allergists/Immunologists, General Practitioners (GPs), Ophthalmologists, Optometrists and Pharmacists). This altered the survey further to 40 items under 7 domains. Test-retest reliability was conducted on 25 participants from the five health practitioner fields. Reliability was moderate to almost perfect for most (97%) investigated items. The finalised survey was 40 items under 7 domains. SOAHP is the first survey created to assess diagnostic, treatment and collaborative care approaches of Allergists/Immunologists, GPs, Ophthalmologists, Optometrists and Pharmacists on OA. SOAHP will be a useful tool in clinical research on OA.

Clinical characteristics of non-infectious uveitis treated with and without systemic immunomodulatory therapy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the patient characteristics and long-term outcomes for those treated with and without systemic immunomodulatory therapy (IMT) for non-infectious uveitis (NIU).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

All consecutive adults with NIU receiving care at 5 uveitis subspecialty tertiary care clinics between 2010 and 2021.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes were evaluated on initial presentation and at the last available follow-up. The main outcome measures were baseline characteristics and final visual acuity.

RESULTS

A total of 914 NIU patients (418 IMT, 496 non-IMT) with a median age of 51.0 years and 57.4% female were identified. Over half the patients had bilateral disease, with a significantly higher proportion of bilateral cases in the IMT group compared with the non-IMT group (p < 0.001). The IMT group was more likely to have chronic uveitis (p < 0.001), with a higher proportion of patients experiencing cataracts and cystoid macular edema (p < 0.001 for both). A significantly higher proportion of non-IMT patients had anterior uveitis and an idiopathic etiology (p < 0.001). Overall, visual acuity improved significantly from baseline to last follow-up in the entire cohort (p < 0.001), with a slightly better improvement in the IMT group. Multivariable linear regression analysis suggested that baseline visual acuity and panuveitis were significant predictors of final visual acuity (p < 0.001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

NIU patients on IMT are often younger, suffer from bilateral and chronic uveitis, and are more likely to have ocular complications. Those in the non-IMT group are more likely to have anterior idiopathic NIU. Baseline visual acuity and panuveitis are the main predictors of final vision outcomes among patients with NIU.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health among Patients with Chronic Ocular Conditions

The COVID-19 pandemic had significant impacts on the mental and visual health of patients. This cross-sectional, survey-based, multicentric study evaluates the state of mental and visual health among patients with chronic ocular diseases such as glaucoma, neovascular age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, or chronic uveitis during the lockdown period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health was assessed using three questionnaires: the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25). A total of 145 patients completed the questionnaires. The PHQ-9 showed that most respondents (n = 89, 61%) had none or minimal depressive symptoms, while 31 (21%) had mild depressive symptoms, 19 (13%) had moderate depressive symptoms, 5 (3%) had moderately severe depressive symptoms, and 1 (1%) had severe depressive symptoms. Regarding stress surrounding the pandemic, the median IES-R showed mild distress in 16 (11%), moderate distress in 7 (5%), and severe distress in 4 (3%). The COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns had a negative impact on patients' mental health with close to 20% of the patients reporting at least moderately depressive symptoms and 19% reporting at least mildly distressful symptoms.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of guidelines in rare diseases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases present a challenge to guideline implementation due to a low prevalence in the general population and the unfamiliarity of healthcare professionals. Existing literature in more common diseases references barriers and facilitators to guideline implementation. This systematic review aims to identify these barriers and facilitators in rare diseases from existing literature.

METHODS

A multi-stage strategy included searching MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane library from the earliest date available to April 2021, Orphanet journal hand-search, a pearl-growing strategy from a primary source and reference/citation search was performed. The Integrated Checklist of Determinants of Practice which comprises of twelve checklists and taxonomies, informed by 57 potential determinants was selected as a screening tool to identify determinants that warrant further in-depth investigation to inform design of future implementation strategies.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were included, most of which were conducted in the United States (54.5%). There were 168 barriers across 36 determinants (37 studies) and 52 facilitators across 22 determinants (22 studies). Fifteen diseases were included across eight WHO ICD-11 disease categories. Together individual health professional factors and guideline factors formed the majority of the reported determinants (59.5% of barriers and 53.8% of facilitators). Overall, the three most reported individual barriers were the awareness/familiarity with the recommendation, domain knowledge and feasibility. The three most reported individual facilitators were awareness/familiarity with the recommendation, agreement with the recommendation and ability to readily access the guidelines. Resource barriers to implementation included technology costs, ancillary staff costs and more cost-effective alternatives. There was a paucity of studies reporting influential people, patient advocacy groups or opinion leaders, or organisational factors influencing implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Key barriers and facilitators to the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in the setting of rare diseases were at the individual health professional and guideline level. Influential people and organisational factors were relatively under-reported and warrant exploration, as does increasing the ability to access the guidelines as a potential intervention.

Current Landscape of Uveitis Specialists in the United States

Purpose This study characterizes the current landscape of uveitis specialists and their practice settings in the United States.

Methods An anonymous Internet-based survey with questions pertaining to training history and practice characteristics was distributed via REDCap to the American Uveitis Society and Young Uveitis Specialists listservs.

Results Forty-eight uveitis specialists in the United States responded to the survey out of 174 uveitis specialists that identify as practicing in the United States. Twenty-five of 48 respondents (52%) completed an additional fellowship. These additional fellowships ranged from surgical retina (12/25, 48%), cornea (8/25, 32%), and medical retina (4/25, 16%). Two-thirds of uveitis specialists managed their own immunosuppression, while one-third comanaged immunosuppression with rheumatologists. Thirty-three of 48 (69%) maintained a surgical practice.

Conclusion This is the first survey of uveitis specialists across the United States to provide understanding into training and practice characteristics. These data will provide insight into career planning, practice building, and assist in resource allocation.

Referral characteristics and wait times for uveitis consultation at academic tertiary care centres in Toronto

OBJECTIVE

To assess the characteristics of referrals to academic uveitis tertiary care centres in Toronto and identify determinants of wait time for consultation.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Consecutive new uveitis referrals received at 5 University of Toronto-affiliated uveitis tertiary care centres, between February 2016 and November 2016, were included.

RESULTS

A total of 159 new uveitis referrals were received from academic (69%) and community (31%) providers. A large proportion of referrals were sent by comprehensive ophthalmologists (33%) and retina specialists (38%). Disease was bilateral in 46% of cases, had an acute onset in 43% of cases, and was classified as posterior uveitis in 38% of cases. Disease etiology at the time of referral was unknown in 55% of cases. Only 43% of all referrals included a basic uveitis workup, and patients who had undergone diagnostic testing had a shorter wait time for consultation (41 ± 43 vs. 59 ± 54 days, p = 0.033). Acute uveitis had a shorter wait time compared with recurrent and chronic uveitis (33 ± 42 vs. 66 ± 44 and 59 ± 58 days, p < 0.001). Referrals triaged as urgent had significantly shorter wait times compared with referrals triaged as semiurgent or elective (7 ± 10 vs. 54 ± 43 and 88 ± 59, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Referrals to academic uveitis tertiary care centres in Toronto are often acute, bilateral cases affecting the posterior segment without a known etiology. Approximately half of referrals include no diagnostic workup, which may delay diagnosis for patients and lengthen wait times for consultation. We provide a set of recommendations for investigations that should be included in uveitis referrals.