A position statement from the vascular risk and systemic autoimmune disease groups of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine, produced jointly with the Spanish retina and vitreous society, sets out a consensus approach to anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy. It follows earlier joint consensuses from the same groups on retinal arterial and venous occlusion, and the recurring theme is the same: a condition sitting between two specialties, managed with wide variation in who investigates what.
The document separates the arteritic form, which is a medical and ophthalmological emergency, from the far commoner non-arteritic form, for which it states plainly that no specific effective treatment currently exists. It then addresses what is usually neglected - aetiological workup, follow-up and secondary prevention - and assigns a defined role to the physician rather than leaving the patient with an eye clinic appointment and no systemic assessment.
Read the grading honestly: the authors say these are expert consensus recommendations, explicitly so in the sections where high-quality evidence is lacking, which is most of the non-arteritic management. Its value is as a pathway to adopt locally, settling who does the vascular workup and who follows the patient. For services where neurology, ophthalmology and general medicine sit in different buildings - the norm in much of Indian practice - that allocation is the part worth copying, whatever the local evidence base.
- Agree locally, in advance, who performs the systemic vascular workup after non-arteritic AION.
- Book the secondary prevention review at diagnosis rather than leaving it to the eye clinic.
- Tell patients with the non-arteritic form directly that no specific treatment exists, and treat risk factors instead.
- Keep the arteritic pathway separate and time-critical; it should not share a waiting list.
- Treat the recommendations as expert consensus, not as evidence-based guidance, in the non-arteritic sections.
Why it matters
It assigns ownership of the systemic assessment in a condition where both specialties assume the other is doing it.
Don't overread it
This is expert consensus, not a systematic evidence review, and the authors say so for the sections where evidence is thin.
Read the rest in the app
You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.
Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.
Tomorrow morning, before your first patient
One edition a day for neurology, written by the desk, every claim tied to its paper. Six minutes.
Get the app — free