Ocular Toxocariasis in Adult Caucasian Patients: Clinical Presentations and Treatment Outcomes

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: To report the clinical features and treatment outcomes in adult Caucasians with ocular toxocariasis (OT) and investigate their prognosis depending on their serological status. METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study (2016-2021) including consecutive adults with uveitis and positive western blot (WB) in the aqueous humor or vitreous. The presence of serum antibodies was not necessary for inclusion, allowing to compare the outcomes depending on the serological status. RESULTS: Seventeen eyes of 15 patients were included. Mean age at diagnosis was 51.9 years. Vitreous inflammation was the most frequent sign (100%). Vitreoretinal tractions (41.2%) and chorioretinal granulomas (58.8%) were less prevalent. Atypical features were: spontaneous intravitreal hemorrhage (23.5%), exudative retinal detachment (11.8%), isolated macular edema (17.6%), papillitis (29.4%) and vasculitis (47.1%). Twenty percent of patients had a positive serum serology. Baseline clinical features did not differ statistically depending on the serological status; however, the degree of inflammation was numerically higher in patients with negative serology. Overall, macular thickness, anterior and posterior segment inflammation improved significantly after treatment with oral albendazole, systemic ± local corticosteroids. Vitrectomy (47.1%) was performed in case of persistent vitritis (62.5%), retinal detachment (12.5%) and intravitreous hemorrhage (25%). CONCLUSION: OT has no pathognomonic sign and atypical presentations were not infrequent in this adult Caucasian cohort. Serum antibodies were rarely positive, stressing on the importance of ocular sample analysis, especially in case of atypical features. Serum antibodies may prove useful in forecasting the rapidity of inflammation clearance. Antiparasitic and anti-inflammatory treatment was safe and efficient in most cases.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.