{"title":"一例使用玻璃体内法尼单抗的高血压葡萄膜炎病例。","authors":"Samantha Kitson, Andrew McAllister","doi":"10.1097/ICB.0000000000001527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to report a novel case of hypertensive uveitis with intravitreal faricimab.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a case report. A 69-year-old woman undergoing treatment of bilateral diabetic macular edema with intravitreal faricimab presented for routine review. Ophthalmic examination was performed including VA, intraocular pressure, gonioscopy, and slitlamp examination. Findings consistent with hypertensive uveitis prompted further infectious/inflammatory/infiltrative uveitis screen.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The patient developed hypertensive uveitis in the left eye (four weeks after the third injection) with an intraocular pressure of 42 mmHg. Slitlamp examination revealed fine keratic precipitates and mild anterior uveitis. Anterior chamber angle was open on gonioscopy, and there was no vitritis or vasculitis. At the review a week later, the patient had developed hypertensive uveitis in the right eye (six weeks after the fourth injection) with intraocular pressure of 35 mmHg. Slitlamp examination revealed fine keratic precipitates, open angles, and mild vitritis. There was no vasculitis. At both presentations, the patient had preserved VA with no significant visual symptoms. The hypertensive uveitis resolved in both eyes with a course of steroid and antihypertensive eye drops. The uveitis screen was negative apart from elevated urine protein (negative beta-2 microglobulin), which could be explained by known diabetes and hypertension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hypertensive uveitis is a potential adverse reaction to intravitreal faricimab. This case highlights the importance of monitoring intraocular pressure in patients undergoing treatment with faricimab and emphasizes the need for reporting other cases in the community.</p>","PeriodicalId":53580,"journal":{"name":"Retinal Cases and Brief Reports","volume":" ","pages":"187-188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A CASE OF HYPERTENSIVE UVEITIS WITH INTRAVITREAL FARICIMAB.\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Kitson, Andrew McAllister\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ICB.0000000000001527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to report a novel case of hypertensive uveitis with intravitreal faricimab.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a case report. A 69-year-old woman undergoing treatment of bilateral diabetic macular edema with intravitreal faricimab presented for routine review. Ophthalmic examination was performed including VA, intraocular pressure, gonioscopy, and slitlamp examination. Findings consistent with hypertensive uveitis prompted further infectious/inflammatory/infiltrative uveitis screen.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The patient developed hypertensive uveitis in the left eye (four weeks after the third injection) with an intraocular pressure of 42 mmHg. Slitlamp examination revealed fine keratic precipitates and mild anterior uveitis. Anterior chamber angle was open on gonioscopy, and there was no vitritis or vasculitis. At the review a week later, the patient had developed hypertensive uveitis in the right eye (six weeks after the fourth injection) with intraocular pressure of 35 mmHg. Slitlamp examination revealed fine keratic precipitates, open angles, and mild vitritis. There was no vasculitis. At both presentations, the patient had preserved VA with no significant visual symptoms. The hypertensive uveitis resolved in both eyes with a course of steroid and antihypertensive eye drops. The uveitis screen was negative apart from elevated urine protein (negative beta-2 microglobulin), which could be explained by known diabetes and hypertension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hypertensive uveitis is a potential adverse reaction to intravitreal faricimab. This case highlights the importance of monitoring intraocular pressure in patients undergoing treatment with faricimab and emphasizes the need for reporting other cases in the community.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53580,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Retinal Cases and Brief Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"187-188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Retinal Cases and Brief Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICB.0000000000001527\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Retinal Cases and Brief Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICB.0000000000001527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
A CASE OF HYPERTENSIVE UVEITIS WITH INTRAVITREAL FARICIMAB.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to report a novel case of hypertensive uveitis with intravitreal faricimab.
Methods: This is a case report. A 69-year-old woman undergoing treatment of bilateral diabetic macular edema with intravitreal faricimab presented for routine review. Ophthalmic examination was performed including VA, intraocular pressure, gonioscopy, and slitlamp examination. Findings consistent with hypertensive uveitis prompted further infectious/inflammatory/infiltrative uveitis screen.
Results: The patient developed hypertensive uveitis in the left eye (four weeks after the third injection) with an intraocular pressure of 42 mmHg. Slitlamp examination revealed fine keratic precipitates and mild anterior uveitis. Anterior chamber angle was open on gonioscopy, and there was no vitritis or vasculitis. At the review a week later, the patient had developed hypertensive uveitis in the right eye (six weeks after the fourth injection) with intraocular pressure of 35 mmHg. Slitlamp examination revealed fine keratic precipitates, open angles, and mild vitritis. There was no vasculitis. At both presentations, the patient had preserved VA with no significant visual symptoms. The hypertensive uveitis resolved in both eyes with a course of steroid and antihypertensive eye drops. The uveitis screen was negative apart from elevated urine protein (negative beta-2 microglobulin), which could be explained by known diabetes and hypertension.
Conclusion: Hypertensive uveitis is a potential adverse reaction to intravitreal faricimab. This case highlights the importance of monitoring intraocular pressure in patients undergoing treatment with faricimab and emphasizes the need for reporting other cases in the community.