Table 1.

Comparison of visual acuity, central macular thickness and treatment augmentation among uveitic eyes with peripheral vascular leakage (PVL) vs. those without PVL

OUTCOMES			Initial visit	OR		p	Intermediate visit	OR	p	Final visit	OR	p
Time elapsed since initial visit [months; mean (range)]							7 (6–11)			36 (12–55)
Visual Acuity	20/40 or better	PVL	24/41(59%)			0.73a	31/41(76%)		0.95a	33/41(80%)		0.47a
		No PVL	20/32(63%)				24/32(75%)			24/32(75%)
	Comparison of change in logMAR VA from baseline (PVL vs. no PVL)		Ref				-0.096b		0.34	+0.014b		0.92
Central Macular thickness	Proportion with CME on OCT	PVL	15/41(37%)	1.27c		0.63	7/41(17%)	1.11c	0.87	2/41(5%)	0.61c	0.37
		No PVL	10/32(31%)				5/32(16%)			4/32(13%)
	Comparison of change in CMT from baseline (PVL vs. no PVL)		Ref				+10.49d		0.80	-12.14d		0.82
Treatment Augmentation		PVL	27/41(66%)	0.02a,e		8/41(20%)		0.94a	3/41(7%)		0.67a
		No PVL	12/32(38%)			6/32(19%)			2/32(6%)

PVL = Peripheral Vascular Leakage; OCT = Optical Coherence Tomography; CME = Cystoid Macular Edema; CMT = Central Macular Thickness; VA = Visual Acuity; GEE = Generalize Estimating Equation

^aGEE with Chi² statistics

^bGEE with multivariable linear regression coefficient comparing patients with and without PVL. “+” indicates a greater increase in logMAR VA in the PVL group, i.e. poorer visual acuity than those without PVL

^cGEE with multivariable logistic regression. OR>1 indicates higher likelihood of CME among patients with PVL compared to those without PVL

^dGEE with multivariable linear regression coefficient comparing patients with and without PVL. “+” indicates a greater increase in CMT in the PVL group

^eStatistically significant at alpha=0.05

All multivariable regression models assessed potential confounding from age, uveitis classification, time elapsed since baseline visit, and changes in media status