Risk factors for recurrences and visual impairment in patients with ocular toxoplasmosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is caused by the parasite Toxoplasma gondii. OT is the leading cause of posterior uveitis globally; it is a recurrent disease that may result in visual impairment and blindness. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to summarize and evaluate the risk factors for recurrences, visual impairment, and blindness described in the literature worldwide.

Methods and findings

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, VHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and DANS EASY Archive. All studies reporting patients with clinically and serologically confirmed OT presenting any clinical or paraclinical factor influencing recurrences, visual impairment, and blindness were included. Studies presenting secondary data, case reports, and case series were excluded. An initial selection was made by title and abstract, and then the studies were reviewed by full text where the eligible studies were selected. Then, the risk of bias was assessed through validated tools. Data were extracted using a validated extraction format. Qualitative synthesis and quantitative analysis were done. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022327836).

Results

Seventy two studies met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-three were summarized in the qualitative synthesis in three sections: clinical and environmental factors, parasite and host factors, and treatment-related factors. Of the 72 articles, 39 were included in the meta-analysis, of which 14 were conducted in South America, 13 in Europe, four in Asia, three multinational, two in North America and Central America, respectively, and only one in Africa. A total of 4,200 patients with OT were analyzed, mean age ranged from 7.3 to 65.1 year of age, with similar distribution by sex. The frequency of recurrences in patients with OT was 49% (95% CI 40%–58%), being more frequent in the South American population than in Europeans. Additionally, visual impairment was presented in 35% (95% CI 25%–48%) and blindness in 20% (95% CI 13%–30%) of eyes, with a similar predominance in South Americans than in Europeans. On the other hand, having lesions near the macula or adjacent to the optic nerve had an OR of 4.83 (95% CI; 2.72–8.59) for blindness, similar to having more than one recurrence that had an OR of 3.18 (95% CI; 1.59–6.38). Finally, the prophylactic therapy with Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole versus the placebo showed a protective factor of 83% during the first year and 87% in the second year after treatment.

Conclusion

Our Systematic Review showed that clinical factors such as being older than 40 years, patients with de novo OT lesions or with less than one year after the first episode, macular area involvement, lesions greater than 1 disc diameter, congenital toxoplasmosis, and bilateral compromise had more risk of recurrences. Also, environmental and parasite factors such as precipitations, geographical region where the infection is acquired, and more virulent strains confer greater risk of recurrences. Therefore, patients with the above mentioned clinical, environmental, and parasite factors could benefit from using prophylactic therapy.

Introduction

Ocular Toxoplasmosis (OT) is caused by the parasite of the apicomplexan family known as Toxoplasma gondii (Tg), considered a neglected tropical disease [1]. Moreover, OT is the leading cause of posterior uveitis worldwide; its prevalence and clinical features varies according to region due to the different host and parasite factors [2–4].

Recurrences may occur in 40% to 79% of cases, generating visual impairment and potentially blindness [5–7]. The best treatment for OT is controversial and, there is no consensus on which drugs must be used for prophylactic treatment of recurrences [8–11]. Although, some risk factors for recurrences, such as the number of lesions (patients with only one lesion have a 60% greater risk than those with more than 2 lesions) [12], presence of polymorphisms (the presence of T/A heterozygosis in the IFN-γ gene at position AT+874 had a 49% higher risk of recurrences than those with A/A homozygosis) [12], and age (higher risk of recurrences was associated with older patients that present a de novo active lesion) [12–14] have been identified, it is still unclear which patients should receive prophylaxis.

Additionally, some data comes from studies with low-quality evidence, generating weak recommendations regarding risk factors for recurrence and visual outcomes, treatment and prophylactic treatment in OT. Thus, this topic deserves an update and synthesis of the available literature to provide high-quality evidence that leads to strong recommendations. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the factors that increase the risk of recurrence, visual impairment, and blindness in patients with OT.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (S1 Checklist) [15]. It was registered in the “International prospective register of systematic reviews” (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022327836). Due to the characteristics of our study, it does not need to have ethical committee approval.

Search strategy

We conducted a systematic literature search in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, VHL (Virtual Health Library), Cochrane Library (Ovid), Scopus, and DANS EASY Archive. We used “MeSH,” “Emtree, and “DeCS” terms accordingly. The search strategy can be found in S1 Table. We identified and deleted duplicated articles with the assistance of Zotero and Excel filters.

Selection criteria

We reviewed papers that evaluated patients with a diagnosis of OT confirmed by clinical and/or serological criteria exposed to any clinical or paraclinical factor influencing our outcomes of interest, including recurrences or visual impairment.

Studies eligible for inclusion in this systematic review included clinical trials (randomized/non-randomized) and observational studies (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional studies, and population-based studies). We excluded secondary studies (systematic, narrative, and scoping reviews), case reports, case series, and articles from preclinical studies (not providing clinical outcome data) and abstracts.

Definitions

Recurrence of OT was defined as the presence of an active retinochoroidal lesion associated with scarring in at least one eye (congenital and acquired) [7]. Additionally, the World Health Organization definitions for visual impairment and blindness were used [16].

Selection process

Nine authors (AO, CC, EC, FV, LM, MS, MH, PB, WR) formed five pairs of review authors how independently examined the titles and abstracts identified by the electronic searches. Each author screened titles and abstracts independently to exclude those that were unrelated to our question based on the selection criteria; then, the independent decision was compared with the pair, and any disagreements were discussed. If disagreements persisted, a panel of seven thematic experts decided if the article should be included or excluded. The level of agreement in each couple was: C1 = 81.1% (LM+PB), C2 = 82.2% (FV+EC), C3 = 72.4% (MS+CC), C4 = 79.4% (MH+WR), and C5 = 96.2% (AO+WR). The overall agreement was 82.4%. The step-by-step can be found in Fig 1.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Data extraction

Data were extracted by nine independent investigators (AO, CC, EC, FV, LM, MS, MH, PB, WR) using a standardized and validated Excel form. The following characteristics were extracted from each eligible study: article code, author, year, digital object identifier system, design of the study, intervention, country, studied population, age, race, sex, immunological status, Tg serotype/genotype, ocular inflammation characteristics, number of reactivations, factors related to the reactivations and magnitude of the risk, frequency of visual impairment and blindness, factors related to the visual impairment and blindness and magnitude of the risk, treatment, duration of treatment, type of prophylactic treatment, duration of prophylactic treatment, and sociodemographic factors. For all included studies, mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR) were used for data extraction.

Risk of bias assessment and quality assessment

To assess the risk of bias for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used [17]. This tool includes five specific bias domains: randomization; deviation from intended intervention; missing data; outcome measurement; and selection of reported results. To evaluate the risk of bias in Non-Randomized studies of interventions, the ROBINS-I tool was used [18], which considered seven domains: confounding; selection of participants; classification of intervention; deviation from interventions; missing outcome data; measurement of outcomes; selection of reported result. The figures were done using the Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis) [19].

Moreover, quality of cross-sectional studies was assessed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) tool [20]; the score was categorized as high risk of bias (0 to 4 score), moderate risk of bias (5 to 7 score), and low risk of bias (8 to 11 score) [21]. Finally, to evaluate the risk of bias in longitudinal studies, cohorts, and case-control, the checklist provided by the Clinical Advances Through Research and Knowledge Translation (CLARITY) group of McMaster University was used [22]. Detailed information can be found in S2 Table.

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

For prevalence, a meta-analysis of forest plots was conducted using the R Package (dmetar version 0.0.9000) [23, 24], and for related factors, forest plots Review Manager (RevMan 5.4; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collection, Copenhagen, Denmark) were used. A random effects model was used for all analyses, considering the significant heterogeneity of data. Only variables that were reported by at least two included studies underwent meta-analysis.

Since our primary outcome was to evaluate the factors influencing the recurrences rate, visual impairment, and blindness, we initially looked for the frequency of recurrences, visual impairment, and blindness subdivided by continents. The precaution of not including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials was always considered since they do not represent the reality of the world situation as they are controlled studies. Moreover, for the frequency analyses of visual impairment and blindness, we analyzed the final visual acuities reported in longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, and data was managed in eye categories because most studies report the number of eyes instead of patients. Studies that did not provide this data were excluded from the meta-analysis and included in the systematic review.

The influence of the following characteristics in the primary outcomes was evaluated: laterality of the disease, retinal location, sex, number of lesions, complications, and type of treatment. This analysis was done considering the number of patients, not the number of eyes. In order to assess the heterogenicity, we used the I² statistics test with 30% to 60% as representing moderate heterogeneity and 50% to 90% representing substantial heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots if there were more than 10 studies. Significance was set at the level of P-value less than 0.05.

Finally, for the qualitative synthesis, we created tables summarizing the most important factors related to recurrences and visual outcomes (visual impairment or blindness). They were subdivided according to the following categories: clinical and environmental factors, parasite and host factors, and therapeutic factors. All articles that provided relevant data for qualitative analysis were summarized, regardless they were included or not in the meta-analysis.

Results

Study selection

We found 1,119 articles, of which 193 duplicates were eliminated, and one article was a retraction of a manuscript. Subsequently, 799 articles were excluded in the initial screening by title and abstract, and 126 articles were included for full-text review. However, two articles could not be obtained, a Polish and a French article published more than 20 years ago. Therefore, 124 articles were evaluated, of which 72 were eligible, 53 for the systematic review since their outcomes had information regarding visual acuity and recurrences, and 39 for meta-analysis since they had similar measures that allowed us to combine the individual results. The articles without information regarding visual acuity or recurrences were not included in the systematic review. More detailed information can be found in Fig 1.

Study characteristics

Of the 72 analyzed studies, 9 were randomized clinical trials, which presented a low risk of bias in the outcomes of interest (See Fig 2A and 2B). On the other hand, three articles were non-randomized clinical trials that presented moderate to serious risks of bias for the outcomes (See Fig 3A and 3B). As for the cohort studies, 21 were analyzed and scored low risk of bias (an average of 6.90 out of 8 questions). Eight case-controls were identified and scored low risk of bias (an average of 4.87 out of 5 questions). Regarding the longitudinal studies, four were identified and scored low risk of bias (an average of 1.75 out of 3 questions). Finally, 27 cross-sectional articles were identified and scored moderate risk of bias (an average of 5.5 out of 11 questions) [5–7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 25–89].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A). RoB2 risk of bias summary of randomized control trials traffic light; (B). Risk of bias graph across randomized controlled trials.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A). ROBINS-I risk of bias summary of non-randomized control trials traffic light; (B). ROBINS-I risk bias graph across non-randomized controlled trials.

In the quantitative analysis, 39 studies were used, 17 cross-sectional studies, 12 cohort studies, eight clinical trials (Two were non-randomized clinical trials), and two case-control studies. Of these, 39 were included in the meta-analysis, of which 14 were conducted in South America, 13 in Europe, four in Asia, three multinational, two in North America, two Central America, and only one in Africa. In total, 4,200 patients with OT were analyzed, mean age ranged from 7.3 to 65.1 year of age [Range 1 week to 87 years] (S3 Table) [7, 9, 12, 25–30, 32, 33, 35, 37–43, 48, 51–53, 55, 56, 62–64, 67–70, 72, 73, 78–80, 83, 85]. The remaining 53 articles were included in the qualitative summary, divided into clinical and environmental factors (Table 1), parasite factors (Table 2), and treatment-related factors (Table 3).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Clinical and environmental factors

Multiple articles described clinical factors that influence the recurrence rate. One of them was time since the disease onset. Most authors found a higher risk of reactivation in the first years after primary acquired infection, which tends to decrease over time. This risk can reduce by 72% in the first decade, and the decrease is continuous over time [14, 44, 76, 78]. In addition, age over 40 years was a factor that increased the risk of recurrences with a relative risk (RR) up to 1.74, (95% CI 1.06–2.86) [44]. Other clinical factors increasing the risk of OT reactivation were bilateral lesions (RR: 8.0; 95% CI 1.3–50.0) [28], pregnancy (RR: 7.40; 95% CI 4.46–12.06) [33], the presence of a single lesion with a Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.60 (95% CI 1.07–2.40) [12], and an initial active presentation odds ratio (OR) 4.74 (95% CI 1.95–12.91) [27, 42].

On the other hand, environmental factors, such as living in regions with high precipitation rates, were also associated with higher recurrence rates. An Argentinian study found that for every mm of precipitation, the frequency of consultations due to OT recurrences increased by 2% in an ophthalmological center (OR: 1.002; 95% CI 1.000–1.003) [54]. Other factor is the consumption of bottled water that reduces recurrences risk [34]; on the other hand, surgeries are controversial as risk factor of reactivation [46, 47].

Regarding recurrences in previous and no previous involved eye, they usually occur in the affected eye [7, 85]. Finally, the mean number of reactivations was between 0.105 and 2.6 recurrences per year [14, 28, 31, 50]. In addition, reported flare-ups per interval of time were one recurrence in 5 years, 1.7 recurrences in 10 years, and two recurrences in 11 years [42, 44, 50]. However, it is not possible to meta-analyze this information due to the data heterogeneity.

Concerning visual impairment, studies have found that patients > 45 years of age who debut with active lesions have a ten times higher risk of developing visual impairment [27, 32, 79]. Moreover, the location of the lesion also plays an essential role, as the involvement of the macular area is associated with 8.95 times more occurrence of visual impairment than the peripheral retinal compromise [27, 32, 37, 65]. Also, complications (e.g. retinal detachment) are important factors influencing visual outcomes (OR: 10.26; 95% CI 3.82–30.67) [6, 27]. Other clinical factors related to visual impairment are the grade of inflammation, and lesion size [65, 70, 79]. Congenital Toxoplasmosis increased the risk of visual impairment (RR: 5.07; 95% CI 2.62–9.81) [7, 57, 66]; however, in these patients visual impairment is also determined by macular localization (RR: 3.06; 95% CI 1.16–9.28) [66].

The development of blindness, as reactivations and visual impairment, was affected by the location of the lesion. It was estimated that central lesions raise 8.95 to 68.6 times the risk of blindness compared to a lesion located outside the macula [7, 27, 35, 37, 64]. Additionally, an age ≥50 years and the presence of lesions size >1 disc diameter (DD) had an OR of 3.27 (95% CI 1.22–8.8) and 6.30 (95% CI 2.28–22.46) for blindness, respectively [7, 27, 64]. Other associated factors are a history of scarring, recurrences during follow-up, and a VA <20/200 at admission [32, 35, 64]. Interestingly, in one article the geographical region was not statistically significantly associated with reactivations, visual impairment, and blindness [64]. Finally, we could consider some variables as future biomarkers, such as the evidence of hyporeflective spaces or signal voids in Spectral Domain optical coherence tomography [52]. Nevertheless, in OT patients the standard automated perimetry better indicate the moderate or severe visual impairment (blindness) than visual acuity [51].

Parasite and host factors influencing reactivations and visual acuity outcomes in OT

Factors related to the parasite can influence OT recurrences, L Shobab et al. found that patients infected with serotypes non-reactive (NR) to GRA6 and GRA7 allelic peptide motifs derived from distinct parasite types were more likely to have recurrences (OR: 2. 92; 95% CI, 1.05–8.89) compared to OT patients infected with a type I/III, type II, or atypical parasites. Moreover, they described that patients with NR serotype had 2.42 times more recurrences than those infected with type II strains [38].

On the other hand, there are protective and risk factors related to the human host. The AT heterozygosis polymorphisms in the IFN-γ gene at position +874 increases the risk of recurrence by 49% (HR: 1.49, 95% CI 1.04–2.14) [12]. Additionally, other genetic studies have found that genotypes associated with low production of IL-10 may be associated with the OT development but not with the recurrence and visual acuity [59]. Likewise, the TNF-α gene polymorphism (2308G/A) do not seem to be associated with OT development and recurrences [58]. Similarly, Ayo et al. found that the presence of the -KIR3DS1/KIR3DL1+/Bw4-8-80Ile+ combination was a protective factor against recurrences (OR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.03–0.45) [74].

Finally, a study involving intraocular fluids have found that elevated levels of IL-5 and VEGF positively correlated with recurrences [36]. Also, Silveira C et al. proposed that parasitemia could be a factor related to reactivations, based on the analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBC); however, the sample in this study was small limitating the results generalization [75]. Finally, peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A (PPIA) identified by immunoblotting may be a biomarker of multi-episodic disease in OT patients. PPIA can help deferring between a first episode of OT, a recurrence of OT, other forms of uveitis, or other parasitic infections during an active ocular inflammation episode [77].

Treatment-related factors influencing reactivations and visual acuity outcomes in OT

Several treatment regimens used in active OT seem to influence the risk of recurrences, such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), spiramycin (Sp), and pyrimethamine sulfadiazine (P+Sdz), in combination with or without systemic and topical steroids. However, studies have not shown that treatment in the disease’s active phase can significantly reduce the recurrence rate. Prospective studies are needed to analyze this outcome in more detail [5, 9, 31, 45, 61, 71]. However, some studies debate this; proposing the use of antibiotic therapy is not superior to the use of no management at all during active episodes of OT [90, 91]. This issue still needs more studies with optimal methodological quality [31]. Additionally, the use of systemic steroids without antibiotic treatment and subconjunctival steroids are a determining factors for the presence of new recurrences [42].

On the other hand, studies have shown that the regimen of azithromycin alone or with a steroid has less effectiveness than other schemes [61, 71], achieving comparable effectiveness only when combined with pyrimethamine [45]. However, some of these studies have a poor methodological quality, so their conclusions do not have a high validity. Therefore, the information regarding the use of azithromycin for recurrences should be analyze cautiously (see Fig 3A and 3B and S2 Table).

The use of pyrimethamine/sulfadoxine (Sdx) as secondary antifolate prophylaxis can lead to 3,5-year recurrence-free survival in 90.9% of cases (Scheme: P+Sdx 25 mg/500 mg, one tablet twice a week for six months without folinic acid supplementation) [11]. Another proposed scheme of prophylaxis is the single tablet TMP160 mg/SMX 800 mg every three days for up to 20 months, showing a 75% reduction of recurrences with a HR of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.08–0.75) [53]. Also, another scheme with TMP/SMX was described by Fernandes Felix et al. where they gave one dose of TMP160 mg/SMZ 800 every other day for 311 days, showing a single recurrence in 6 years in the experimental group [9]. Moreover, two studies report the use of photocoagulation for the prevention of reactivation; however, these studies do not have much methodological soundness and contradict each other [60, 81]. Additionally, in immunosuppressed patients, the prophylactic scheme with P+Sdz seems to reduce the rate of recurrences, however, more studies are needed [84].

Regarding VA, a significant effect of antibiotic therapy is observed in general, but more studies of better quality are needed to make any affirmation [43, 45, 72, 87, 89].

Meta-analysis

Prevalence of recurrences in OT patients.

In the meta-analysis for the prevalence recurrences, 2,913 patients with OT were included (Fig 4), and the global prevalence of recurrences was 49% (95% CI 40%–58% I2 = 95%; Fig 4) (P < 0.01). Given the demonstrated high level of heterogeneity, an analysis by continental subgroups was performed, where the p-value lost statistical significance (P = 0.63). The highest prevalence was reported in South America at 56% (95% CI 41%–69% I2 = 95%; Fig 4), followed by Central America at 51% (95% CI 29%–72% I2 = 83%), Europe 46% (95% CI 29%–63% I2 = 95%; Fig 4), and North America 39% (95% CI 9%–80% I2 = 96%; Fig 4) [7, 26–30, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 48, 52, 55, 63, 64, 68–70, 73, 78, 80, 83, 85]. Funnel plot of all studies evidences a Fail-Safe N analysis (Fail-safe N = 32976; P<0.001), Rank correlation test (Tau = -0.058; P = 0.681), Asymetry (Z = -0.353; P = 0.724) can be found in the S1 Fig.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Prevalence of visual impairment and blindness in OT patients.

Four hundred seventy one eyes were analyzed to estimate the prevalence of visual impairment secondary to OT (Fig 5A). This was found at 35% (95% CI 25% –48%, I 2 = 80%; (P <0.01) Fig 5A) of cases around the world. Subgroup analysis shows that the continent with the highest prevalence of visual impairment was South America with 30% of cases (95% CI 20%–43%, I 2 = 73%; (P = 0.01)), followed by Europe 27% (95% CI 11%–52%, I 2 = 72%; (P = 0.06)) [25, 27, 28, 32, 51, 52, 69, 88]. Funnel plot of all studies showed a Fail-Safe N analysis (Fail-safe N = 857; P <0.001), Rank correlation test (Tau = 0.333; P = 0.260), Asymetry (Z = 1.201; P = 0.230) (S1 Fig).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A).Visual impairment, (B). Blindness.

Regarding the prevalence of blindness in OT (Fig 5B), 969 eyes were analyzed and it was 20% (95% CI 13%–30%, I 2 = 79%; (P <0.01)). Subgroup analysis showed the frequency of blindness was slightly lower in Europe 19% (95% CI 14%–24%, I 2 = 30%; (P = 0.46)) than in South America 22% (95% CI 9%–46%, I2 = 88% (P <0.001)). In addition, in visual impairment even performing a subgroup analysis the statistically significant difference between studies remains [7, 12, 25, 27, 28, 32, 40, 52, 64, 68, 72, 88]. Funnel plot of all the studies can be found in the S1 Fig, the Fail-Safe N analysis (Fail-safe N = 1106; P <0.001), Rank correlation test (Tau = 0.182; P = 0.459), Asymetry (Z = 1.620; P = 0.105).

Factors influencing recurrences.

None of the factors evaluated was significantly associated with recurrences. However, some tendencies were found. Fig 6A shows the effect of gender in recurrences, OR 1.50 (95% CI; 0.47–4.77; I2 = 64% (P = 0.49)) [9, 12, 28, 40]. Fig 6B evidences the effect of laterality in recurrences, OR 3.34 (95% CI; 0.19–58.11; I2 = 76% (P = 0.41)) [28, 30, 82]. Fig 6C shows the effect of the number of lesions in recurrences, OR 0.97 (95% CI; 0.30–3.07; I2 = 56% (P = 0.95)) [12, 30]. Fig 6D shows the effect of the lesion localization in recurrences, OR 1.05 (95% CI; 0.47–2.35; I2 = 0% (P = 0.90)) [28, 30].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A). Laterality, (B). Localization; (C). Sex; (D). Number of lesions.

Blindness related factors.

We evaluated the factors related to blindness in OT patients. Fig 7A shows that macular or adjacent optic nerve lesions are significantly related to blindness, OR 4.83 (95% CI; 2.72–8.59; I2 = 0% (P <0.00001)) [7, 35]. Also, Fig 7B, shows that recurrences are a risk factor for blindness, OR 3.18 (95% CI; 1.59–6.38; I2 = 0% (P = 0.001)) [35, 40].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A). Localization, (B). Recurrences.

Effect of the initial treatment in the reduction of recurrences.

We sought to determine if any treatment further reduced recurrences, none of them were significantly associated with a reduction on recurrences. Fig 8A shows the comparison between any P+Sdz scheme vs. the use of intravitreal clindamycin + dexamethasone, OR 1.13 (95% CI; 0.36–3.61; I2 = 0% (P = 0.83)) [39, 56]), Fig 8B shows the comparison between any P+Sdz scheme vs. subconjunctival clindamycin, OR 1.66 (95% CI; 0.42–6.63; I2 = 0% (P = 0.47)) [62, 67]. Fig 8C compares the use of any TMP/SMX scheme vs P+Sdz scheme OR 0.94 (95% CI; 0.36–2.41; I2 = 0% (P = 0.89) [41, 43]. In this analysis, risk trends are observed, without significance, where clindamycin by any ocular route of administration reduces recurrences more frequently than any P+Sdz scheme, and TMP/SMX also showed to be partially better for reducing recurrences vs. P+Sdz.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A). Any scheme of P+Sdz vs Intravitreal clindamycin + dimethazone, (B). Any scheme of P+Sdz vs Subconjunctival clindamycin, (C). Any scheme of TMP/SMX vs Any scheme of P+Sdz.

Prophylaxis treatment to reduce recurrence.

This analysis sought to determine the effect of prophylactic treatments reducing recurrences [9, 53]. Fig 9A, shows the effect at the first year after the TMP/SMX prophylaxis vs placebo OR 0.17 (95% CI; 0.03–0.86; I2 = 31% (P = 0.03)). Fig 9B shows the effect at the second year after the TMP/SMX prophylaxis vs placebo, 0.13 (95% CI; 0.02–0.81; I2 = 43% (P = 0.03)). In this case, a statistical significant result was evidenced, also, a tendency of reduction in the risk of recurrence was incremental over time.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A). Reduction in recurrence with prophylaxis in the first year, (B). Reduction in recurrence with prophylaxis in the second year.

Discussion

Our systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effect of multiple clinical, environmental, geographic, parasite, genetic, and management factors on the recurrences, visual impairment, and blindness in OT.

One of the most critical factors related to recurrences was the first year after the first lesion because the risk tends to decrease in the subsequent years [7, 14]. Additionally, age >40 years, binocularity of the lesions, pregnancy, precipitation, parasite with a non-reactive serotype, AT heterozygosis in the IFN-γ gene at position +874, and the use of steroids without antibiotics as treatment were the main determinants of reactivations. The majority of these factors can be explained by the the immunosenescence that allows reactivations of the parasite cyst located in the retina [12, 14, 27, 44]. Therefore, these are the variables that should be considered when elaborating additional recommendations [14, 28, 38, 42, 44, 54].

Additionally, we meta-analyzed the prevalence of recurrences, visual impairment, and blindness worldwide. We found that recurrences are most common in South American and Central American patients, corroborating that these latitudes have more severe cases of OT, possibly due to more virulent strains [92, 93]. However, all studies in Central America evaluated only one region (Cuba), which can generate an overestimation of the effect. On the other hand, it should be considered that the meta-analysis of prevalence of recurrence has a high risk of publication bias, which is why they should be analyzed carefully, and the subgroup’s analysis did not entirely correct them. Owing to this, we suggest that there are additional factors that explain the high heterogeneity. For example, the serotype could be another factor, as L Shobab et al. [38] reported that the NR serotype had the highest risk of recurrence, which may be considered in future studies.

Regarding visual acuity and blindness prevalence in OT eyes, we found that in South America there is a greater prevalence of visual impairment and blindness than in Europe but not in the rest of the world. However, some studies’ incorrect reports of this outcome can limit our results. Additionally, it should be noted that the sub-analysis by subgroups appropriately controlled the heterogeneity of the metanalysis.

In the analysis of risk factors associated with blindness, we found that recurrences and the macular localization of the lesion are the most important factors related to blindness. This has been supported by previous studies, which evidenced that macular lesions have up to 8.95 to 68.6 times increased risk of blindness [7, 27, 35, 37, 64]. Therefore, as clinicians, we have to prevent these scenarios to reduce the visual impact of OT.

In addition to the previously mentioned factors (macular location of the lesions and recurrences) [7, 27, 32, 35, 37, 64, 65], other factors that increased the risk of blindness are extensive or atypical lesions in patients aged more than 45 years [7, 27, 32, 64, 79], and congenital toxoplasmosis [7, 57, 66]. Therefore, a closer follow-up and optimized treatment should be considered in these patients. Moreover, we evidence that few articles detail the immunological status of patients, which should be added in future studies in order to quantify the impact of this variable. Regarding the treatment in active lessons, we found that TMP/SMX and clindamycin (intravitreal and subconjunctival) are possibly superior to PS in preventing recurrence; nevertheless, these differences were not statiscally significant and must be interpreted with caution. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the best therapy in the acute phase of the disease that further prevents recurrences.. Although there is a lack of data, current evidence can be useful to guide prophylactic treatment [39, 43, 56, 62, 67].

Prophylaxis in patients with OT is a protective factor that increases over time, reaching a reduction of almost 87% compared to placebo. This metanalysis does not have a high risk of publication bias. Also, it is essential to consider there were evaluated few studies; we suggest conducting more studies in this field to expand the evidence and assess the superiority of the different schemes. Our results are supported by the marked reduction trend in recurrences that has been reported with the use of antibiotic prophylaxis with TMP/SMX in any scheme, more detailed information on schemes, doses and times see Table 4 [9, 53]. Nevertheless, a publication by Silveira et al. showed after discontinuing the TMP/SMX treatment, the recurrence rate is similar to the placebo group, even after ten years of use. This is explained due to a loss of the drug’s effect once discontinued [8]. This differs from Fernandes Felix et al., who have shown a much lower recurrence rate after the discontinuation of the prophylactic scheme, with six years free of recurrences [9]. We proposed that other possible variables could be involved, such as the periodicity of the prophylactic treatment, parasite genotype, genetic susceptibility of the host, and the immune status, that may differ from the studies’ populations [9, 11, 53]. We suggest performing further studies on these additional variables.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

In conclusion, considering the results of our meta-analysis and the evidence previously presented, we suggest that patients older than 40 years, patients with de novo OT lesions or with less than one year after the first episode, macular area involvement, lesions greater than 1DD, congenital toxoplasmosis, and bilateral compromise could benefit from using prophylactic therapy, especially if they live in South America or in a high precipitation area. However, due to the number of studies and their characteristics, it is not possible to determine which prophylactic strategy is superior [9, 11, 53].

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283845.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283845.s002

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Risk of bias and quality assessment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283845.s003

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Characteristics of the metanalyzed studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283845.s004

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Funnel-plots.

Fail-Safe N analysis (Fail-safe N = 30630; P<0.001), Rank correlation test (Tau = -0.066; P = 0.650), Asymmetry (Z = -0.375; P = 0.708). Fail-Safe N analysis (Fail-safe N = 857; P <0.001), Rank correlation test (Tau = 0.333; P = 0.260), Asymmetry (Z = 1.201; P = 0.230). Fail-Safe N analysis (Fail-safe N = 1086; P <0.001), Rank correlation test (Tau = 0.212; P = 0.381), Asymmetry (Z = 2.225; P = 0.026).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283845.s005

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

Ethics approval

This study adheres to the ethical principles for human research established by the Helsinki Declaration, the Belmont Report, and Colombian Resolution 008430 of 1993. According to the risks contemplated in resolution 8430 from 1993, this investigation is considered without risks. The information in the databases used in this article is freely accessible and is available for research purposes. In the same way, their coding system ensures data confidentiality.

Citation: Cifuentes-González C, Rojas-Carabali W, Pérez ÁO, Carvalho É, Valenzuela F, Miguel-Escuder L, et al. (2023) Risk factors for recurrences and visual impairment in patients with ocular toxoplasmosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0283845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283845

About the Authors:

Carlos Cifuentes-González

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Neuroscience (NEUROS) Research Group, Neurovitae Center for Neuroscience, Institute of Translational Medicine (IMT), Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia

William Rojas-Carabali

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Neuroscience (NEUROS) Research Group, Neurovitae Center for Neuroscience, Institute of Translational Medicine (IMT), Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia

Álvaro Olate Pérez

Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Laboratory of Ocular and Systemic Autoimmune Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6934-6550

Érika Carvalho

Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Clinical Research Laboratory of Infectious Diseases in Ophthalmogy, National Institute of Infectious Disease, INI—Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Felipe Valenzuela

Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Laboratory of Ocular and Systemic Autoimmune Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

Lucía Miguel-Escuder

Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Clinic Institute of Ophthalmology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

María Soledad Ormaechea

Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clinicas Jose de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina, Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Milagros Heredia

Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clinicas Jose de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina, Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Pablo Baquero-Ospina

Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Inflammatory Eye Disease Clinic, Dr. Luis Sanchez Bulnes" Hospital, Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México (APEC), Mexico City, CDMX, Mexico

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6262-9558

Alfredo Adan

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Clinic Institute of Ophthalmology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Red de Investigación en Inmunología Ocular de Latinoamérica (RIOLAT)

Andre Curi

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Clinical Research Laboratory of Infectious Diseases in Ophthalmogy, National Institute of Infectious Disease, INI—Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Red de Investigación en Inmunología Ocular de Latinoamérica (RIOLAT)

Ariel Schlaen

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clinicas Jose de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina, Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Red de Investigación en Inmunología Ocular de Latinoamérica (RIOLAT)

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1202-8660

Cristhian Alejandro Urzua

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Laboratory of Ocular and Systemic Autoimmune Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile, Red de Investigación en Inmunología Ocular de Latinoamérica (RIOLAT), Faculty of Medicine, Clinica Alemana-Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile

Cristóbal Couto

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clinicas Jose de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina, Red de Investigación en Inmunología Ocular de Latinoamérica (RIOLAT)

Lourdes Arellanes

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Inflammatory Eye Disease Clinic, Dr. Luis Sanchez Bulnes" Hospital, Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México (APEC), Mexico City, CDMX, Mexico, Red de Investigación en Inmunología Ocular de Latinoamérica (RIOLAT)

Alejandra de-la-Torre

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations: Neuroscience (NEUROS) Research Group, Neurovitae Center for Neuroscience, Institute of Translational Medicine (IMT), Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia, Red de Investigación en Inmunología Ocular de Latinoamérica (RIOLAT)

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0684-1989

References

1. Weiss L, editor. Toxoplasma gondii. Waltham: Elsevier; 2020.

2. Miserocchi E, Fogliato G, Modorati G, Bandello F. Review on the Worldwide Epidemiology of Uveitis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2013;23: 705–717. pmid:23661536

3. Kalogeropoulos D, Kalogeropoulos C, Sakkas H, Mohammed B, Vartholomatos G, Malamos K, et al. Pathophysiological Aspects of Ocular Toxoplasmosis: Host-parasite Interactions. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2021; 1–10. pmid:34242103

4. Peyron F, Lobry JR, Musset K, Ferrandiz J, Gomez-Marin JE, Petersen E, et al. Serotyping of Toxoplasma gondii in chronically infected pregnant women: predominance of type II in Europe and types I and III in Colombia (South America). Microbes Infect. 2006;8: 2333–2340. pmid:16938480

5. Timsit JC, Bloch-Michel E. [Efficacy of specific chemotherapy in the prevention of recurrences of toxoplasmic chorioretinitis during the 4 years following the treatment]. J Fr Ophtalmol. 1987;10: 15–23.

6. Bosch-Driessen LH, Karimi S, Stilma JS, Rothova A. Retinal detachment in ocular toxoplasmosis. Ophthalmology. 2000;107: 36–40. pmid:10647716

7. Bosch-Driessen LEH, Berendschot TTJM, Ongkosuwito JV, Rothova A. Ocular toxoplasmosis: clinical features and prognosis of 154 patients. Ophthalmology. 2002;109: 869–878. pmid:11986090

8. Silveira C, Muccioli C, Nussenblatt R, Belfort RJ. The Effect of Long-term Intermittent Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole Treatment on Recurrences of Toxoplasmic Retinochoroiditis: 10 Years of Follow-up. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2015;23: 246–247. pmid:25325434

9. Fernandes Felix JP, Cavalcanti Lira RP, Grupenmacher AT, Assis Filho HLG de, Cosimo AB, Nascimento MA, et al. Long-term Results of Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole Versus Placebo to Reduce the Risk of Recurrent Toxoplasma gondii Retinochoroiditis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;213: 195–202. pmid:31926883

10. Patel NS, Vavvas DG. Ocular Toxoplasmosis: A Review of Current Literature. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2022;62: 231–250. pmid:35325921

11. Borkowski PK, Brydak-Godowska J, Basiak W, Świtaj K, Żarnowska-Prymek H, Olszyńska-Krowicka M, et al. The Impact of Short-Term, Intensive Antifolate Treatment (with Pyrimethamine and Sulfadoxine) and Antibiotics Followed by Long-Term, Secondary Antifolate Prophylaxis on the Rate of Toxoplasmic Retinochoroiditis Recurrence. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004892. pmid:27542116

12. Aleixo ALQ do C, Vasconcelos C de Oliveira R, Cavalcanti Albuquerque M, Biancardi AL, Land Curi AL, Israel Benchimol E, et al. Toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis: The influence of age, number of retinochoroidal lesions and genetic polymorphism for IFN-γ +874 T/A as risk factors for recurrence in a survival analysis. PloS One. 2019;14: e0211627. pmid:30753197

13. Holland GN. Ocular toxoplasmosis: the influence of patient age. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009;104: 351–357. pmid:19430663

14. Reich M, Ruppenstein M, Becker MD, Mackensen F. Time patterns of recurrences and factors predisposing for a higher risk of recurrence of ocular toxoplasmosis. Retina Phila Pa. 2015;35: 809–819. pmid:25299969

15. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; n71. pmid:33782057

16. World Health Organization (WHO) Vision impairment and blindness. 14 Oct 2021 [cited 12 Sep 2022]. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment

17. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; l4898. pmid:31462531

18. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; i4919. pmid:27733354

19. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12: 55–61. pmid:32336025

20. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). [cited 12 Sep 2022]. Available: https://www.ahrq.gov/

21. Chen D, Zhi Q, Zhou Y, Tao Y, Wu L, Lin H. Association between Dental Caries and BMI in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Caries Res. 2018;52: 230–245. pmid:29353283

22. Clinical Advances Through Research and Knowledge Translation (CLARITY) group of McMaster University. In: DistillerSR [Internet]. [cited 12 Sep 2022]. Available: https://www.evidencepartners.com/resources

23. Harrer M. Doing meta-analysis with R: a hands-on guide. First edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2022.

24. Harrer M, Pim C, Furukawa T, Ebert DD. dmetar: Companion R Package For The Guide “Doing Meta-Analysis in R”. R package version 0.0.9000. 2019 [cited 12 Sep 2022]. Available: https://dmetar.protectlab.org/

25. De Angelis RE, Veronese Rodrigues M de L, Passos ADC, Bollela VR, Freitas E Silva MS, Vieira BR, et al. Frequency and visual outcomes of ocular toxoplasmosis in an adult Brazilian population. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 3420. pmid:33564078

26. Casoy J, Nascimento H, Silva LMP, Fernández-Zamora Y, Muccioli C, Dias JR de O, et al. Effectiveness of Treatments for Ocular Toxoplasmosis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020;28: 249–255. pmid:30806556

27. Arruda S, Vieira BR, Garcia DM, Araújo M, Simões M, Moreto R, et al. Clinical manifestations and visual outcomes associated with ocular toxoplasmosis in a Brazilian population. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 3137. pmid:33542439

28. Brandão-de-Resende C, Santos HH, Rojas Lagos AA, Lara CM, Arruda JSD, Marino APMP, et al. Clinical and Multimodal Imaging Findings and Risk Factors for Ocular Involvement in a Presumed Waterborne Toxoplasmosis Outbreak, Brazil(1). Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26: 2922–2932. pmid:33219657

29. Huang PK, Jianping C, Vasconcelos-Santos DV, Arruda JSD, Dutta Majumder P, Anthony E, et al. Ocular Toxoplasmosis in Tropical Areas: Analysis and Outcome of 190 Patients from a Multicenter Collaborative Study. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2018;26: 1289–1296. pmid:29020481

30. Arantes TEF, Silveira C, Holland GN, Muccioli C, Yu F, Jones JL, et al. Ocular Involvement Following Postnatally Acquired Toxoplasma gondii Infection in Southern Brazil: A 28-Year Experience. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159: 1002–1012.e2. pmid:25743338

31. Reich M, Becker MD, Mackensen F. Influence of drug therapy on the risk of recurrence of ocular toxoplasmosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100: 195–199. pmid:26163541

32. Nsiangani Lusambo N, Kaimbo Wa Kaimbo D. Profil clinique et épidémiologique de la toxoplasmose oculaire à Kinshasa. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2019;42: 900–906. pmid:31248609

33. Brydak-Godowska J, Borkowski PK, Rabczenko D, Moneta-Wielgoś J, Kęcik D. Do pregnancy, postpartum period and lactation predispose to recurrent toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis? Med Sci Monit. 2015 Feb 23;21:582–4. pmid:25703198; PMCID: PMC4349134.

34. Velasco-Velásquez S, Celis-Giraldo D, Botero Hincapié A, Alejandro Hincapie Erira D, Sofia Cordero López S, Marulanda Orozco N, et al. Clinical, Socio-economic and Environmental Factors Related with Recurrences in Ocular Toxoplasmosis in Quindío, Colombia. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2021;28: 258–264. pmid:33115293

35. Aleixo ALQ do C, Curi ALL, Benchimol EI, Amendoeira MRR. Toxoplasmic Retinochoroiditis: Clinical Characteristics and Visual Outcome in a Prospective Study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004685. pmid:27136081

36. de-la-Torre A, Pfaff AW, Grigg ME, Villard O, Candolfi E, Gomez-Marin JE. Ocular cytokinome is linked to clinical characteristics in ocular toxoplasmosis. Cytokine. 2014;68: 23–31. pmid:24787053

37. Kovačević-Pavićević D, Radosavljević A, Ilić A, Kovačević I, Djurković-Djaković O. Clinical pattern of ocular toxoplasmosis treated in a referral centre in Serbia. Eye Lond Engl. 2012;26: 723–728. pmid:22361847

38. Shobab L, Pleyer U, Johnsen J, Metzner S, James ER, Torun N, et al. Toxoplasma serotype is associated with development of ocular toxoplasmosis. J Infect Dis. 2013;208: 1520–1528. pmid:23878321

39. Soheilian M, Ramezani A, Azimzadeh A, Sadoughi MM, Dehghan MH, Shahghadami R, et al. Randomized trial of intravitreal clindamycin and dexamethasone versus pyrimethamine, sulfadiazine, and prednisolone in treatment of ocular toxoplasmosis. Ophthalmology. 2011;118: 134–141. pmid:20708269

40. Vishnevskia-Dai V, Achiron A, Buhbut O, Berar OV, Musika AA, Elyashiv SM, et al. Chorio-retinal toxoplasmosis: treatment outcomes, lesion evolution and long-term follow-up in a single tertiary center. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40: 811–821. pmid:31792847

41. Soheilian M, Sadoughi M-M, Ghajarnia M, Dehghan MH, Yazdani S, Behboudi H, et al. Prospective randomized trial of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole versus pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine in the treatment of ocular toxoplasmosis. Ophthalmology. 2005;112: 1876–1882. pmid:16171866

42. de-la-Torre A, Rios-Cadavid AC, Cardozo-García CM, Gomez-Marín JE. Frequency and factors associated with recurrences of ocular toxoplasmosis in a referral centre in Colombia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93: 1001–1004. pmid:19429576

43. Rothova A, Meenken C, Buitenhuis HJ, Brinkman CJ, Baarsma GS, Boen-Tan TN, et al. Therapy for ocular toxoplasmosis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115: 517–523. pmid:8470726

44. Holland GN, Crespi CM, ten Dam-van Loon N, Charonis AC, Yu F, Bosch-Driessen LH, et al. Analysis of recurrence patterns associated with toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145: 1007–1013. pmid:18343351

45. Bosch-Driessen LH, Verbraak FD, Suttorp-Schulten MSA, van Ruyven RLJ, Klok AM, Hoyng CB, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of pyrimethamine and azithromycin vs pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine for the treatment of ocular toxoplasmosis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134: 34–40. pmid:12095805

46. Heringer GC, Oueghlani E, Dell’Omo R, Curi ALL, Oréfice F, Pavésio CE. Risk of reactivation of toxoplasmic retinitis following intraocular procedures without the use of prophylactic therapy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98: 1218–1220. pmid:24820044

47. Bosch-Driessen LH, Plaisier MB, Stilma JS, Van der Lelij A, Rothova A. Reactivations of ocular toxoplasmosis after cataract extraction. Ophthalmology. 2002;109: 41–45. pmid:11772577

48. de-la-Torre A, López-Castillo CA, Gómez-Marín JE. Incidence and clinical characteristics in a Colombian cohort of ocular toxoplasmosis. Eye Lond Engl. 2009;23: 1090–1093. pmid:18617902

49. de Paula Rodrigues KF, Faria e Arantes TE, Muccioli C, de Andrade Neto JL, Pinheiro MM. Incidence of toxoplasma retinochoroiditis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after using TNF-α blockers. Parasitol Int. 2013;62: 272–275. pmid:23485566

50. Garweg JG, Scherrer JN, Halberstadt M. Recurrence characteristics in European patients with ocular toxoplasmosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92: 1253–1256. pmid:18211930

51. Scherrer J, Iliev ME, Halberstadt M, Kodjikian L, Garweg JG. Visual function in human ocular toxoplasmosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91: 233–236. pmid:16987904

52. Oliver GF, Ferreira LB, Vieira BR, Arruda S, Araújo M, Carr JM, et al. Posterior segment findings by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and clinical associations in active toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. Sci Rep. 2022;12: 1156. pmid:35064148

53. Silveira C, Belfort RJ, Muccioli C, Holland GN, Victora CG, Horta BL, et al. The effect of long-term intermittent trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole treatment on recurrences of toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134: 41–46. pmid:12095806

54. Rudzinski M, Meyer A, Khoury M, Couto C. Is reactivation of toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis associated to increased annual rainfall? Parasite Paris Fr. 2013;20: 44. pmid:24225023

55. Accorinti M, Bruscolini A, Pirraglia MP, Liverani M, Caggiano C. Toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis in an Italian referral center. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19: 824–830. pmid:19787604

56. Baharivand N, Mahdavifard A, Fouladi RF. Intravitreal clindamycin plus dexamethasone versus classic oral therapy in toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Int Ophthalmol. 2013;33: 39–46. pmid:23053769

57. Phan L, Kasza K, Jalbrzikowski J, Noble AG, Latkany P, Kuo A, et al. Longitudinal study of new eye lesions in treated congenital toxoplasmosis. Ophthalmology. 2008;115: 553–559.e8. pmid:17825418

58. Cordeiro CA, Moreira PR, Costa GC, Dutra WO, Campos WR, Oréfice F, et al. TNF-alpha gene polymorphism (-308G/A) and toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92: 986–988. pmid:18577652

59. Cordeiro CA, Moreira PR, Andrade MS, Dutra WO, Campos WR, Ore´fice F, et al. Interleukin-10 Gene Polymorphism (−1082G/A) is Associated with Toxoplasmic Retinochoroiditis. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2008;49: 1979. pmid:18436829

60. Desmettre T, Labalette P, Fortier B, Mordon S, Constantinides G. Laser photocoagulation around the foci of toxoplasma retinochoroiditis: a descriptive statistical analysis of 35 patients with long-term follow-up. Ophthalmol J Int Ophtalmol Int J Ophthalmol Z Augenheilkd. 1996;210: 90–94. pmid:9148260

61. Prášil P, Plíšek S, Boštík P. [Ocular toxoplasmosis—seeking a strategy for treatment]. Klin Mikrobiol Infekcni Lek. 2014;20: 112–115.

62. Jeddi A, Azaiez A, Bouguila H, Kaoueche M, Malouche S, Daghfous F, et al. [Value of clindamycin in the treatment of ocular toxoplasmosis]. J Fr Ophtalmol. 1997;20: 418–422.

63. Majda-Stanisławska E, Socha K, Sicinska J, Kuc A, Niwald A, Moll A, et al. Long-term observation of ocular toxoplasmosis in immunocompetent children. Pediatr Pol. 2018;93: 17–22.

64. Rey A, Llorenç V, Pelegrín L, Mesquida M, Molins B, Rios J, et al. Clinical pattern of toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis in a Spanish referral center. Ophthalmologica. 2013;229: 173–178. pmid:23548496

65. London NJS, Hovakimyan A, Cubillan LDP, Siverio CD Jr., Cunningham ET Jr.. Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and causes of vision loss in patients with ocular toxoplasmosis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011;21: 811–819. pmid:21374556

66. Tan HK, Schmidt D, Stanford M, Teär-Fahnehjelm K, Ferret N, Salt A, et al. Risk of Visual Impairment in Children with Congenital Toxoplasmic Retinochoroiditis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144: 648–653.e2. pmid:17854757

67. Colin J, Harie JC. [Presumed toxoplasmic chorioretinitis: comparative study of treatment with pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine or clindamycin]. J Fr Ophtalmol. 1989;12: 161–165.

68. Çakar Özdal MP, Balikoğlu Yilmaz M, Özdemіr P, Kavuncu S, Öztürk F. Aktif oküler toksoplazmoziste nüks ve sonuç görme keskinliğini etkileyen prognostik faktörler. Retina-Vitr. 2009;17: 255–262. Available: http://search/yayin/detay/99263

69. Naranjo Valladares BT, León Sánchez MA, Iglesias Rojas MB, Sainz Padrón L. Toxoplasmosis ocular: aspectos clínico-epidemiológicos en edad pediátrica. Rev Cienc Med Pinar Rio. 2020;24: e4457–e4457. Available: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-31942020000400013

70. Naranjo Valladares BT, León Sánchez MA, López MR. Retinocoroiditis toxoplásmica y la evolución del resultado visual en pacientes inmunocompetentes. Rev Cuba Oftalmol. 2021;34: e983–e983. Available: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21762021000300005

71. Ghavidel LA, Milani AE, Bagheri M. Comparison of azithromycin and pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine treatment in ocular toxoplasmosis in North West of Iran. Crescent J Med Biol Sci. 2017;4: 80–84. Available: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L615147189&from=export

72. Ocampo Domínguez HH. Manejo de toxoplasmosis ocular severa con clindamicina y triamcinolona intravitreas: reporte de 22 casos. Rev Soc Colomb Oftalmol. 2015;48: 312–321. Available: https://scopublicaciones.socoftal.com/index.php/SCO/article/view/109/111

73. Lago EG, Endres MM, Scheeren MF da C, Fiori HH. Ocular Outcome of Brazilian Patients With Congenital Toxoplasmosis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2021;40: e21–e27. pmid:33060522

74. Ayo CM, Frederico FB, Siqueira RC, Brandão de Mattos C de C, Previato M, Barbosa AP, et al. Ocular toxoplasmosis: susceptibility in respect to the genes encoding the KIR receptors and their HLA class I ligands. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 36632. pmid:27827450

75. Silveira C, Vallochi AL, Rodrigues da Silva U, Muccioli C, Holland GN, Nussenblatt RB, et al. Toxoplasma gondii in the peripheral blood of patients with acute and chronic toxoplasmosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95: 396–400. pmid:20601663

76. Bosch-Driessen EH, Rothova A. Recurrent ocular disease in postnatally acquired toxoplasmosis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128: 421–425. pmid:10577582

77. Isenberg J, Golizeh M, Belfort RN, da Silva AJ, Burnier MN, Ndao M. Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A–A novel biomarker of multi-episodic (recurrent) ocular toxoplasmosis. Exp Eye Res. 2018;177: 104–111. pmid:30063883

78. Tugal-Tutkun I, Corum I, Otük B, Urgancioglu M. Active ocular toxoplasmosis in Turkish patients: a report on 109 cases. Int Ophthalmol. 2005;26: 221–228. pmid:17318320

79. Labalette P, Delhaes L, Margaron F, Fortier B, Rouland J-F. Ocular toxoplasmosis after the fifth decade. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133: 506–515. pmid:11931784

80. Friedmann CT, Knox DL. Variations in recurrent active toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. 1969;81: 481–493. pmid:5777756

81. Spalter HF. Prophylactic Photocoagulation of Recurrent Toxoplasmic Retinochoroiditis: A Preliminary Report. Arch Ophthalmol. 1966;75: 21. pmid:5900501

82. Garweg JG, Kodjikian L, Peyron F, Binquet C, Fleury J, Grange J-D, et al. Kongenitale okuläre Toxoplasmose—Okuläre Manifestationen und Verlauf nach Frühdiagnostik der Infektion. Klin Monatsblätter Für Augenheilkd. 2005;222: 721–727. pmid:16175482

83. Mets MB, Holfels E, Boyer KM, Swisher CN, Roizen N, Stein L, et al. Eye manifestations of congenital toxoplasmosis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123: 1–16. pmid:9186091

84. Cochereau-Massin I, LeHoang P, Lautier-Frau M, Zerdoun E, Zazoun L, Robinet M, et al. Ocular toxoplasmosis in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;114: 130–135. pmid:1322640

85. Wallon M, Kodjikian L, Binquet C, Garweg J, Fleury J, Quantin C, et al. Long-term ocular prognosis in 327 children with congenital toxoplasmosis. Pediatrics. 2004;113: 1567–1572. pmid:15173475

86. Cordeiro CA, Moreira PR, Bessa TF, Costa GC, Dutra WO, Campos WR, et al. Interleukin-6 gene polymorphism (−174 G/C) is associated with toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2013;91: e311–e314. pmid:23336844

87. Lashay A, Mirshahi A, Parandin N, Riazi Esfahani H, Mazloumi M, Reza Lashay M, et al. A prospective randomized trial of azithromycin versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in treatment of toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017;29: 120. pmid:28626822

88. Türkcü FM, Şahin A, Yüksel H, Çınar Y, Cingü K, Altındağ S, et al. Activation of toxoplasma retinochoroiditis during pregnancy and evaluation of ocular findings in newborns. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37: 559–563. pmid:27480335

89. Raskin E, Alves M, Eredia GC, Raskin A, Ruiz Alves M. Ocular toxoplasmosis: a comparative study of the treatment with sulfadiazine and pyrimetamine versus sulphametoxazole-trimethoprim. Toxoplasmose Ocul Estudo Comp Trat Com Sulfadiazina E Pirimetamina Sulfametoxazol E Trimetropim. 2002;61: 335.

90. Stanford MR, See SE, Jones LV, Gilbert RE. Antibiotics for toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology. 2003;110: 926–31; quiz 931–932. pmid:12750091

91. Maenz M, Schlüter D, Liesenfeld O, Schares G, Gross U, Pleyer U. Ocular toxoplasmosis past, present and new aspects of an old disease. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2014;39: 77–106. pmid:24412517

92. de-la-Torre A, Sauer A, Pfaff AW, Bourcier T, Brunet J, Speeg-Schatz C, et al. Severe South American Ocular Toxoplasmosis Is Associated with Decreased Ifn-γ/Il-17a and Increased Il-6/Il-13 Intraocular Levels. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7. pmid:24278490

93. Pfaff AW, de-la-Torre A, Rochet E, Brunet J, Sabou M, Sauer A, et al. New clinical and experimental insights into Old World and neotropical ocular toxoplasmosis. Int J Parasitol. 2014;44: 99–107. pmid:24200675