Hisae Nakahara

The distribution of uveitis varies with genetic, ethnic, geographic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Epidemiological information about the patterns of uveitis is useful when an ophthalmologist considers the diagnosis of uveitis. Therefore, it is important to identify the causes of uveitis over the years in different regions. The purposes of this study were to characterize the uveitis patients who first arrived at the University of Tokyo Hospital in 2013–2015, and to analyze the changes in the patterns of uveitis from 2004 to 2012 to 2013–2015. We retrospectively identified 750 newly arrived patients with uveitis who visited the Uveitis Clinic in the University of Tokyo Hospital between January 2013 and December 2015, using clinical records. We extracted data on patient age, sex, diagnosis, anatomic location of inflammation, laboratory test results of blood and urine, and chest X-ray and fluorescein fundus angiography findings for each patient. In addition, we compared these data with those from 2004 to 2012 to analyze the changes in the patterns of uveitis. A definite diagnosis was established in 445 patients (59.3%). The most common diagnoses were herpetic iridocyclitis (7.5%), sarcoidosis (6.1%), Behçet’s disease (4.4%), Vogt–Koyanagi–Harada disease (4.1%), and intraocular lymphoma (4.1%). The most frequent unclassified type of uveitis was suspected sarcoidosis (22.3%). Analysis of the changes in the patterns of uveitis in the central Tokyo area from 2004 to 2012 to 2013–2015 revealed notable increasing trends of herpetic iridocyclitis and intraocular lymphoma, and increasing trends of bacterial endophthalmitis, fungal endophthalmitis, and juvenile chronic iridocyclitis. In contrast, the frequency of sarcoidosis, Behçet’s disease, and Vogt–Koyanagi–Harada disease decreased. The patterns of uveitis changed considerably from 2004 to 2012 to 2013–2015. Continuous investigations about the epidemiology of uveitis are needed to diagnose uveitis more accurately.

Fuchs’ uveitis (FU) is occasionarlly complicated with heavy vitreous opacity. We have performed vitrectomy procedures to remove vitreous opacity in affected patients as part of differential diagnosis for primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL). We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of five patients who first visited the Uveitis Clinic of the University of Tokyo Hospital between 2009 and 2013, were diagnosed with FU and underwent a vitrectomy for removal of dense vitreous opacity. All were diagnosed as FU by ocular findings and elevation of Goldmann-Witmer coefficient (GWC) value for the rubella virus (RV) antibody. In examinations of the vitreous body, cytological diagnosis, elevation of IL-10/IL-6 ratio, and the kappa/lambda ratio in flow cytometry findings were negative in all cases, whereas monoclonal immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH) gene rearrangement was positive in 4 cases and negative in 1 case. Although monoclonal IgH gene rearrangement is thought to be a reliable biomarker for PVRL, a high percentage of vitreous specimens from our FU patients showed pseudo-positive results. Ophthalmologists must take care regarding possible pseudo-positive findings when performing differential diagnosis between FU and PVRL. Combinations of results of cytological diagnosis, IL-10/IL-6 ratio, kappa/lambda ratio, and IgH gene rearrangement may be necessary for a definitive diagnosis of PVRL and differentiation from FU.