Keywords
acetazolamide - uveal effusion - angle closure - myopic shift - idiosyncratic drug
reaction - UBM
Schlüsselwörter
Ultraschallbiomikroskopie (UBM) - Myopisierung - Acetazolamid - Uvealeffusion
Introduction
Acetazolamide-induced anterior displacement of the iris-lens diaphragm is a rare idiosyncratic
reaction and was first described by Back in 1956 [1]. We report the case of a young patient presenting with an acute myopic shift due
to a uveal effusion following a single administration of 250 mg acetazolamide. We
also reviewed the literature in order to systematize the clinical presentation and
treatment options of this adverse reaction.
History and Signs
A 32-year-old phakic, nearly emmetropic (+ 0.25D OU), male patient, with no relevant
medical history, was referred because of recurrent episodes of vertical diplopia associated
with a cerebellar oculomotor syndrome, and a positive family history. After an extensive
workup, transient episodic ataxia, a rare autosomal dominant inherited disorder, was
suspected and the patient was initiated oral acetazolamide 250 mg bid, the usual treatment
for most forms of episodic ataxia [2]. A few hours after the first dose, his vision became blurred, with increasing near-sightedness.
Upon examination 12 hours after the drug intake, a bilateral myopic shift of − 4.5D
OU was observed, while best-corrected visual acuity was still 20/20 OU. Both anterior
chambers were shallow, with some rare cells and flare.
Therapy and Outcome
An anterior ciliary body rotation with displacement of the iris-lens diaphragm, an
extremely rare complication of acetazolamide, was suspected and the patient was admitted
for monitoring because of the risk of angle closure. Twelve hours later, his myopia
had progressed to − 5.5 D with angle closure while intraocular pressure (IOP) remained
normal at 12 mmHg (RE) and 13 mmHg (LE). A bilateral circumferential anterior uveal
detachment was revealed on ultrasound biomicroscopy ([Fig. 1]). In order to reverse the anterior ciliary body rotation, cycloplegia was initiated
with atropine 0.5% bid associated with topical dexamethasone 0.1% qid. The evolution
was favorable, with a progressive deepening of the anterior chambers, reopening of
the iridocorneal angle ([Fig. 2]), and complete resolution of the myopic shift after 5 days. Best-corrected visual
acuity remained 20/20 OU throughout this follow-up.
Fig. 1 Circumferential ultrasound biomicroscopy (48 MHz): anterior uveal effusion associated
with iridocorneal angle narrowing/closure (RE).
Fig. 2 a Slit lamp and gonioscopy photo at presentation. Shallow anterior chamber due to anterior
iris-lens displacement. b Anterior segment OCT B-scan. Favorable evolution of anterior chamber depth, angle
closure and reopening, and the associated refraction following drug withdrawal, cycloplegia,
and topical steroids to reverse acetazolamide-induced anterior uveal effusion (RE).
Discussion
Sulfonamideʼs derivatives, such as topiramate, hydrochlorothiazide, and acetazolamide,
have been rarely reported to induce ciliochoroidal effusion [3], [4]. Acetazolamide administration, specifically, has been associated with a transient
myopic shift, iridocorneal angle closure with or without ocular hypertension, and
a ciliochoroidal detachment [1], [5] – [23]. To our knowledge, this rare adverse reaction has only been reported in 23 patients
since 1956, including our patient ([Table 1]). In summary, after the administration of a median dose of 500 mg (125 – 1000) acetazolamide,
all cases presented a myopic shift after a median 24 hours (3 – 24), complicated in
about a third of patients by angle closure ocular hypertension. A uveal effusion was
observed in about half of the patients. When acetazolamide was stopped,
all cases recovered completely after a median of 5 days (2 – 14), with the aid of
additional cycloplegia, anti-glaucomatous agents, and/or steroid treatment in about
a quarter, a third, and more than half of the patients, respectively [1], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].
Table 1 Overview of case reports on acetazolamide-induced myopic shift, summarizing drug
dosage, time till onset of presentation, clinical characteristics, management, and
time to recovery.
|
First author (et al.), year
|
Dose of acetazolamide (mg)
|
Time till onset of symptoms (hours)
|
Clinical presentation
(1 = mentioned in paper)
|
Treatment (1 = mentioned in paper)
|
Time to recovery
(days)
|
|
Myopic shift
|
Angle-closure glaucoma
|
Uveal effusion
|
Stop acetazolamide
|
Cycloplegia
|
Anti-glaucomatous treatment
Topical = a
Systemic = b
|
Corticosteroids
Topical = a
Systemic = b
|
|
*When the time till onset of symptoms or time to recovery was reported as a “few”
hours or days, we arbitrarily used the number 4 to allow calculations
|
|
Back 1956 [1]
|
250
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
2
|
|
Kronning 1957 [5]
|
750
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
5
|
|
250
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
3
|
|
Binder et al. 1957 [6]
|
250
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
14
|
|
Muirhead et al. 1959 [7]
|
250
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
7
|
|
Halpern et al. 1959 [8]
|
250
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
3
|
|
Galin et al. 1962 [9]
|
500
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
7
|
|
500
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
4*
|
|
Garland et al. 1962 [10]
|
750
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
5
|
|
Fan et al. 1993 [11]
|
500
|
24
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1a
|
1a
|
7
|
|
Parthasarathi et al. 2007 [12]
|
250
|
4*
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1b
|
1b
|
5
|
|
Bayer and Moroi 2010 [13]
|
250
|
4*
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1a
|
1a
|
4
|
|
Malagola et al. 2013 [14]
|
500
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1b
|
–
|
3
|
|
de Rojas et al. 2013 [15]
|
500
|
24
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1a
|
1a, 1b
|
5
|
|
Man et al. 2016 [16]
|
500
|
4*
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1a
|
1a
|
14
|
|
Llovet-Raussel et al. 2016 [17]
|
750
|
24
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1a
|
1a
|
14
|
|
Hill 2016 [18]
|
1000
|
12
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1b
|
7
|
|
Grigera and Grigera 2017 [19]
|
500
|
24
|
1
|
–
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1a, 1b
|
2
|
|
Kalina and Kalina 2020 [20]
|
500
|
4*
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1a
|
4
|
|
Anwar et al. 2021 [21]
|
250
|
6
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1b
|
1b
|
8
|
|
Rothwell and Anderson 2021 [22]
|
125
|
4*
|
1
|
–
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
1a
|
7
|
|
Musetti et al. 2022 [23]
|
250
|
4*
|
1
|
–
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1a
|
7
|
|
This case
|
250
|
4
|
1
|
–
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1a
|
5
|
|
Median (range)
|
500
(125 – 1000)
|
24 (3 – 24)
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
5 (2 – 14)
|
|
% of cases
|
–
|
–
|
100%
|
34.7%
|
52%
|
100%
|
26%
|
21.7% a
13% b
|
43.5% a
17.4% b
|
–
|
Because of its rarity, no etiopathogenic study was conducted to date. An attempt was
made in 1962 by Galin et al., who reported no changes in anterior chamber depth in
30 eyes of normal individuals following the administration of acetazolamide (500 mg
iv or 5 mg/kg qid po) [9]. Several pathogenetic theories have been proposed [9], [10], [13]. A hypersensitivity reaction is considered less likely, as the reaction occurs upon
a first-time administration [13], [17], [18], [19], as in our case. While remaining uncertain, pathophysiology is attributed to an
idiosyncratic uveal reaction provoking an anterior displacement of the iris-lens diaphragm.
The effect seems to be dose independent, starting from a single dose of 125 mg [22], and,
as said, independent of prior drug exposure [1], [10], [16]. Also, the severity of the reaction does not appear to be correlated with the dose,
though drug continuation does exacerbate the condition [12]. In addition, the presence of the lens seems to be irrelevant, as cases have been
reported after cataract surgery [12], [21], [23] as well as in phakic individuals [5], [16], [22].
Therapeutic strategies vary in the literature ([Table 1]). Following drug withdrawal, they include simple observation, cycloplegia, topical
aqueous-humor suppressors, and/or intravenous mannitol in case of ocular hypertension,
as well as topical, periocular, and/or systemic (po or iv) corticosteroids. The efficacy
of systemic corticosteroids does not seem to be superior to drops and may have serious
side effects.
Ophthalmologists and internists should be aware of this rare side effect of acetazolamide,
a drug often used for the treatment of intraocular hypertension amongst other indications,
and maintain a high level of suspicion if a patient reports bilateral near-sightedness
following drug administration. Differential diagnosis with primary angle-closure glaucoma
may prove challenging, and drug withdrawal should be the first step. Aqueous misdirection
syndrome, presenting with a similar mechanism and characteristics, is distinguished
by its exclusive presence in a single eye, in contrast to our condition, which consistently
affects both eyes. In cases where patients with a history of acetazolamide treatment
for angle-closure glaucoma exhibit bilateralization of angle closure after drug administration,
drug-induced choroidal effusion should be considered. When diagnostic uncertainty
arises, ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) can help differentiate between the two conditions.
Rare attempts
to reproduce the effect with repeat acetazolamide administration have been met with
a relapse or no effect at all [1]. It is advised though to avoid prescribing acetazolamide to individuals presenting
this idiosyncratic reaction because of the risk of acute angle closure.