4.6 Article

Acute retinal necrosis in the United Kingdom: results of a prospective surveillance study

Journal

EYE
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 371-377

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2011.338

Keywords

acute retinal necrosis; retinitis; uveitis; epidemiology; herpes viridae

Categories

Funding

  1. British Ophthalmological Surveillance Unit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background To determine the incidence of acute retinal necrosis (ARN) in the United Kingdom and to describe the demographics, management, and visual outcome in these patients. Methods This was a prospective study carried out by the British Ophthalmological Surveillance Unit (BOSU) between September 2007 and October 2008. Initial and 6-month questionnaires were sent to UK ophthalmologists who reported cases of ARN via the monthly BOSU report card system. Results In all, 45 confirmed cases (52 eyes) of ARN were reported in the 14-month study period, giving a minimum incidence of 0.63 cases per million population per year. There were 20 females and 25 males. Age ranged from 10 to 94 years. Eight patients had a history of herpetic CNS disease. Aqueous sampling was carried out in 13 patients, vitreous in 27, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in 4. Varicella-zoster virus followed by herpes simplex were the most common causative agents. Treatment in 76% of the cases was with intravenous antivirals; however, 24% received only oral antivirals. In all, 47% of patients had intravitreal antiviral therapy. Visual outcome at 6 months was <6/60 in 48% of the affected eyes. Conclusion The minimum incidence of ARN in the UK is 0.63 cases per million. Patients with a history of herpetic CNS disease should be warned to immediately report any visual symptoms. There is increased use of oral and intravitreal antivirals in initial treatment. Eye (2012) 26, 370-378; doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.338; published online 27 January 2012

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available