학술논문
Knowledge and Current Practices in Monogenic Uveitis: An International Survey by IUSG and AIDA Network
Original Research
Original Research
Document Type
Report
Author
Source
Ophthalmology and Therapy. January 2024, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p127, 21 p.
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Author(s): Carla Gaggiano [sup.1] , Vishali Gupta [sup.2] , Rupesh Agrawal [sup.3] [sup.4] [sup.5] [sup.6] [sup.7] , Marc D. De Smet [sup.8] , Bruno Frediani [sup.1] , Gian Marco Tosi [...]
Introduction This study aims to explore awareness, knowledge, and diagnostic/therapeutic practices in monogenic uveitis (mU) among uveitis experts. Methods This is an explorative, cross-sectional survey study. An anonymous, semi-structured, electronic survey was delivered to uveitis experts from the Autoinflammatory Diseases Alliance (AIDA) Network and International Uveitis Study Group (IUSG). We included respondents answering [greater than or equal to] 50% of the survey. Results Seventy-seven participants rated their knowledge of mU as proficient (3.9%), adequate (15.6%), sufficient (16.9%), or poor (63.6%). When asked about the first mU gene they thought of, 60.4% mentioned NOD2, 3.9% mentioned NLRP3 or MEFV, and 49.4% provided incorrect or no answers. Success rates in clinical scenarios varied from 15.6% to 55.8% and were higher for ophthalmologists working in multidisciplinary teams (p < 0.01). Genetic testing was ordered for suspected mU by 41.6% of physicians. The availability of molecular techniques did not significantly differ based on geography (p > 0.05). The public healthcare system ensured a higher percentage of tests prescribed were obtained by patients compared to private insurances (p < 0.00). In terms of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), tumor necrosis factor-[alpha] inhibitors were the most familiar to uveitis experts. The difficulties with off-label therapy procedures were the primary barrier to DMARDs prescription for patients with mU and correlated inversely with the obtained/prescribed drug ratio for interleukin-1 (p < 0.01) and interleukin-6 (p < 0.01) inhibitors. Conclusions This survey identifies proficiency areas, gaps, and opportunities for targeted improvements in patients care. The comprehensive outputs may inform evidence-based guidelines, empowering clinicians with standardized approaches, and drive an AIDA Network-IUSG unified effort to advance scientific knowledge and clinical practice.
Introduction This study aims to explore awareness, knowledge, and diagnostic/therapeutic practices in monogenic uveitis (mU) among uveitis experts. Methods This is an explorative, cross-sectional survey study. An anonymous, semi-structured, electronic survey was delivered to uveitis experts from the Autoinflammatory Diseases Alliance (AIDA) Network and International Uveitis Study Group (IUSG). We included respondents answering [greater than or equal to] 50% of the survey. Results Seventy-seven participants rated their knowledge of mU as proficient (3.9%), adequate (15.6%), sufficient (16.9%), or poor (63.6%). When asked about the first mU gene they thought of, 60.4% mentioned NOD2, 3.9% mentioned NLRP3 or MEFV, and 49.4% provided incorrect or no answers. Success rates in clinical scenarios varied from 15.6% to 55.8% and were higher for ophthalmologists working in multidisciplinary teams (p < 0.01). Genetic testing was ordered for suspected mU by 41.6% of physicians. The availability of molecular techniques did not significantly differ based on geography (p > 0.05). The public healthcare system ensured a higher percentage of tests prescribed were obtained by patients compared to private insurances (p < 0.00). In terms of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), tumor necrosis factor-[alpha] inhibitors were the most familiar to uveitis experts. The difficulties with off-label therapy procedures were the primary barrier to DMARDs prescription for patients with mU and correlated inversely with the obtained/prescribed drug ratio for interleukin-1 (p < 0.01) and interleukin-6 (p < 0.01) inhibitors. Conclusions This survey identifies proficiency areas, gaps, and opportunities for targeted improvements in patients care. The comprehensive outputs may inform evidence-based guidelines, empowering clinicians with standardized approaches, and drive an AIDA Network-IUSG unified effort to advance scientific knowledge and clinical practice.