Rheumatologist's Perspective on Non-Infectious Uveitis: Patterns from Tertiary Referral Rheumatologic Clinics in Italy

Impact of biological therapy in reducing the risk of arthritis development in inflammatory bowel diseases

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate spondyloarthritis (SpA) incidence in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) between patients treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and define risk factors associated with SpA development.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) and divided into two cohorts: cDMARDs or bDMARDs/targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs treated patients. Rheumatological assessment was performed in patients presenting musculoskeletal symptoms. Multivariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the adjusted SpA risk development.

RESULTS

507 patients were included in the study. 176 patients with CD received bDMARDs, 112 cDMARDs and 106 new SpA diagnosies were formulated. Females (OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 3), adjusted p=0.04), non-stricturing/non-penetrating phenotype (OR 2 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.4), adjusted p=0.01), psoriasis (OR 2.1 (95% CI 1 to 4.6), adjusted p=0.04) and non-infectious uveitis (OR 6.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 33.4), adjusted p=0.01) were associated with increased SpA risk development, while bDMARDs usage was protective (OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.8), adjusted p=0.01), statistically higher than cDMARDs throughout the entire follow-up (effect size 0.47). 98 patients with UC received b-tsDMARDs, 121 cDMARDs and 56 new SpA diagnoses were formulated. Females (OR 2.1 (95% CI 1 to 4.3), adjusted p=0.02) and psoriasis (OR 2.7 (95% CI 1 to 6.8), adjusted p=0.03) were associated with increased SpA risk development, while bDMARDs were protective for SpA development for up to 12 months of treatment compared with cDMARDs (p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARDs treatment had an impact in reducing SpA development and clinical associated risk factors to transition from IBD to IBD-SpA emerged.

A novel terminologic "naming-meshing" system using anterior chamber sedimentation for early diagnosis and prompt treatment of ocular or systemic diseases: is it hypopyon or pseudohypopyon?

A novel, algorithmic "naming-meshing" system was introduced for the distinction of hypopyon from pseudohypopyon to make an early diagnosis and prompt treatment of anterior chamber collection standardized to encompass all sediment characteristics. For this reason, a literature review of "hypopyon" and "pseudohypopyon" was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from 1966 to May 15, 2023. Two issues were clarified: 1) which strategies should the ophthalmologist follow when asked to evaluate an eye with anterior chamber sedimentation to distinguish hypopyon from pseudohypopyon, and 2) in which systemic disorders should a non-ophthalmologist order a prompt ophthalmic consultation to distinguish pseudohypopyon from hypopyon. Pathognomonic characteristics of the sediment were examined; scleral show (warm/cold), location (corneal/anterior chamber/capsular/posterior), visibility (macro/micro/occult-angle), orientation (horizontal/vertical/oblique), number (single/double), shape (convex/triangular/pyramidal/ring/lumpy/inverse), and color (white/yellow/pink/brown/black). Associated findings were then assessed; acute/chronic, spontaneous/provoked, unilateral/bilateral, inflammatory/non-inflammatory, suppurative (non-sterile)/non-suppurative (sterile), granulomatous/non-granulomatous, recurrent/non-recurrent, shifting/non-shifting, and transient/persistent. The type of precipitation was named (naming) and matched (meshing) to a potential list of etiologies (inflammatory, infective, therapeutic, masquerades). Given that (pseudo)hypopyon predominantly afflicts younger patients in their most productive years, clinicians supervising such patients should be aware of all sediment characteristics. The ophthalmologist should never ask non-ophthalmologists to run the full battery of tests in a patient with (pseudo)hypopyon, and rather indicate which type of collection is present, what its pathognomonic feature is, and what the most likely diagnoses to be excluded are.