-
Acta Ophthalmologica Nov 2018To investigate causes, diagnostics and treatment modalities for persistent socket pain (PSP) after enucleation and evisceration.
PURPOSE
To investigate causes, diagnostics and treatment modalities for persistent socket pain (PSP) after enucleation and evisceration.
METHODS
A systematic search was undertaken in accordance with the PRISMA Statement, in PubMed, Embase.com and Thomson Reuters/Web of Science. We searched for relevant papers until the 28th of July 2016. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with a history of enucleation or evisceration, (2) PSP, (3) report of the cause and/or used diagnostics and/or treatment modality, (4) full text in English, Dutch or Spanish language. Excluded were (1) review articles, (2) comments, and publications concerning, (3) nonhumans, (4) exenterated patients, (5) acute postoperative pain, or (6) periorbital pain without pain in the socket. Given the lack of high quality evidence from randomized controlled trials, we examined all available evidence from primary observational studies and assessed quality within this lower level of evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies were included. Causes of PSP found were prosthesis-related (n = 5), dry socket (n = 2), trochleitis (n = 3), compression of the trigeminal nerve (n = 2), implant-related (n = unknown), inflammation (n = 5), surgery-related (n = 4), neuromas (n = 8), malignant tumours (n = 3), psychiatric/psychosocial (n = 2), phantom pain (n = 149), rarer entities (n = 3) or unknown (n = 14). Nonsurgical treatments suffice for conditions as trochleitis, prosthesis-related pain, dry socket and for phantom pain. Other causes of pain may require more invasive treatments such as implant removal.
CONCLUSION
Careful history and examination can give some direction in the diagnostic procedure; however, PSP is probably multifactorial and the specific origin(s) may remain uncertain. Implant replacement can be an effective treatment. Studies to identifiy less invasive procedures are required.
Topics: Eye Diseases; Eye Enucleation; Eye Evisceration; Eye Pain; Humans; Orbital Diseases; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 29633581
DOI: 10.1111/aos.13688 -
Dystonia (Lausanne, Switzerland) 2022Blepharospasm is a type of dystonia where the diagnosis is often delayed because its varied clinical manifestations are not well recognized. The purpose of this study...
OBJECTIVE
Blepharospasm is a type of dystonia where the diagnosis is often delayed because its varied clinical manifestations are not well recognized. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive picture of its clinical features including presenting features, motor features, and non-motor features.
METHODS
This was a two-part study. The first part involved a systematic literature review that summarized clinical features for 10,324 cases taken from 41 prior reports. The second part involved a summary of clinical features for 884 cases enrolled in a large multicenter cohort collected by the Dystonia Coalition investigators, along with an analysis of the factors that contribute to the spread of dystonia beyond the periocular region.
RESULTS
For cases in the literature and the Dystonia Coalition, blepharospasm emerged in the 50s and was more frequent in women. Many presented with non-specific motor symptoms such as increased blinking (51.9%) or non-motor sensory features such as eye soreness or pain (38.7%), photophobia (35.5%), or dry eyes (10.7%). Non-motor psychiatric features were also common including anxiety disorders (34-40%) and depression (21-24%). Among cases presenting with blepharospasm in the Dystonia Coalition cohort, 61% experienced spread of dystonia to other regions, most commonly the oromandibular region and neck. Features associated with spread included severity of blepharospasm, family history of dystonia, depression, and anxiety.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a comprehensive summary of motor and non-motor features of blepharospasm, along with novel insights into factors that may be responsible for its poor diagnostic recognition and natural history.
PubMed: 36248010
DOI: 10.3389/dyst.2022.10359 -
Translational Vision Science &... Nov 2023This systematic review evaluates the safety and efficacy of ocular gene therapy using adeno-associated virus (AAV). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This systematic review evaluates the safety and efficacy of ocular gene therapy using adeno-associated virus (AAV).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched systematically for controlled or non-controlled interventional gene therapy studies using key words related to retinal diseases, gene therapy, and AAV vectors. The primary outcome measure was safety, based on ocular severe adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcome measures evaluated efficacy of the therapy based on best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and improvements in visual sensitivity and systemic involvement following ocular delivery. Pooling was done using a DerSimonian Laird random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 1.
RESULTS
Our search identified 3548 records. Of these, 80 publications met eligibility criteria, representing 28 registered clinical trials and 5 postmarket surveillance studies involving AAV gene therapy for Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA), choroideremia, Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON), age-related macular degeneration (AMD), retinitis pigmentosa (RP), X-linked retinoschisis, and achromatopsia. Overall, AAV therapy vectors were associated with a cumulative incidence of at least one SAE of 8% (95% confidence intervals [CIs] of 5% to 12%). SAEs were often associated with the surgical procedure rather than the therapeutic vector itself. Poor or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) were a limitation for the meta-analysis. The proportion of patients with any improvement in BCVA and visual sensitivity was 41% (95% CIs of 31% to 51%) and 51% (95% CIs of 31% to 70%), respectively. Systemic immune involvement was associated with a cumulative incidence of 31% (95% CI = 21% to 42%).
CONCLUSIONS
AAV gene therapy vectors appear to be safe but the surgical procedure required to deliver them is associated with some risk. The large variability in efficacy can be attributed to the small number of patients treated, the heterogeneity of the population and the variability in dosage, volume, and follow-up.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
This systematic review will help to inform and guide future clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Retinal Degeneration; Dependovirus; Macular Degeneration; Retinitis Pigmentosa; Genetic Therapy
PubMed: 37982768
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.12.11.24 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or direct heat. One effect of the burn is damage to the limbal epithelial stem cells of the ocular... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or direct heat. One effect of the burn is damage to the limbal epithelial stem cells of the ocular surface with delayed re-epithelialisation, stem cell failure, and conjunctivalisation of the cornea. Amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) performed in the acute phase (day 0 to day 7) following an ocular surface burn is claimed to reduce pain and accelerate healing. The surgery involves securing a layer of amniotic membrane (AM) to the eyelid margins as a patch to cover the entire ocular surface. However, there is debate about the severity of an ocular burn that may benefit from AMT and uncertainty of whether AMT improves outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effect of AMT with medical therapy in the first seven days after an ocular surface burn, compared to medical therapy alone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 September 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials that compared an AMT applied in the first seven days following an ocular surface burn in addition to medical therapy with medical therapy alone. The outcome measures were failure of re-epithelialisation by day 21 post injury, visual acuity at final follow-up, corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon, time to re-epithelialisation and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed the included studies for risk of bias and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. We summarised data using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) as appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We analysed two RCTs, but excluded individual patients who had been treated outside the acute phase in one of the studies (data provided by study authors). In total, 36 moderate burns from one RCT and 92 severe burns from two RCTs were evaluated separately. For both categories, the certainty of the evidence was downgraded principally as a result of high risks of performance and detection biases, and because of imprecision indicated by very wide confidence intervals. In addition, follow-up was insufficiently frequent to calculate time-to-epithelialisation precisely. Moderate severity ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification II-III) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 0.18 (0.02 to 1.31), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.32 lower (0.55 to 0.09 lower) in the treatment group (i.e. better), suggesting a possible benefit of AMT. The GRADE assessment for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (very wide confidence intervals including no effect). The GRADE assessment for visual acuity at final follow-up was downgraded to low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (optimal information size not met). The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.56; 0.21 to 1.48), symblepharon (RR 0.41; 0.02 to 9.48) and time-to-epithelialisation (13 days lower; 26.30 lower to 0.30 higher) suggest possible benefit of AMT, but the wide confidence intervals indicate that both harm and benefit are possible. GRADE assessments for these outcomes were once again downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision. Since adverse effects are rare, the small sample would have fewer occurrences of rare but potentially important adverse effects. The GRADE assessment for adverse effects was therefore considered to be low. Severe ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification IV) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 1.03 (0.94 to 1.12), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.01 higher (0.29 lower to 0.31 higher) in the treatment group (i.e, worse), indicating no benefit of AMT. GRADE assessments for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 and final outcomes were downgraded to low. The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.84; 0.66 to 1.06), symblepharon (RR 0.89; 0.56 to 1.42) and time-to-epithelialisation (1.66 days lower; 11.09 lower to 7.77 higher) may include both benefit and harm. GRADE assessments for corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon and time-to-epithelialisation were downgraded to low due to risk of bias and imprecision. For adverse effects, the GRADE assessment was downgraded to low, reflecting the small sample sizes in the RCTs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is uncertain evidence to support the treatment of moderate acute ocular surface burns with AMT in addition to standard medical therapy as a means of preventing failure of epithelialisation by day 21, improving visual outcome and reducing corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon formation and time-to-epithelialisation. For severe burns, the available evidence does not indicate any significant benefit of treatment with AMT.
Topics: Amnion; Corneal Neovascularization; Eye Burns; Humans; Visual Acuity; Wound Healing
PubMed: 36047788
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009379.pub3 -
Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences Jan 2022There are reports of ocular tropism due to respiratory viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Various studies have shown ocular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are reports of ocular tropism due to respiratory viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Various studies have shown ocular manifestation in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. We aimed to identify ophthalmic manifestations in COVID-19 patients and establish an association between ocular symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS
A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for publications from December 2019 to April 2021. The search included MeSH terms such as SARS-CoV-2 and ocular manifestations. The pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using binomial distribution and random effects. The meta-regression method was used to examine factors affecting heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS
Of the 412 retrieved articles, 23 studies with a total of 3,650 COVID-19 patients were analyzed. The PPE for any ocular manifestations was 23.77% (95% CI: 15.73-31.81). The most prevalent symptom was dry eyes with a PPE of 13.66% (95% CI: 5.01-25.51). The PPE with 95% CI for conjunctival hyperemia, conjunctival congestion/conjunctivitis, and ocular pain was 13.41% (4.65-25.51), 9.14% (6.13-12.15), and 10.34% (4.90-15.78), respectively. Only two studies reported ocular discomfort and diplopia. The results of meta-regression analysis showed that age and sample size had no significant effect on the prevalence of any ocular manifestations. There was no significant publication bias in our meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
There is a high prevalence of ocular manifestations in COVID-19 patients. The most common symptoms are dry eyes, conjunctival hyperemia, conjunctival congestion/conjunctivitis, ocular pain, irritation/itching/burning sensation, and foreign body sensation.
Topics: COVID-19; Eye Diseases; Humans; Prevalence
PubMed: 35017772
DOI: 10.30476/ijms.2021.89475.2026 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2022This analysis was aimed at providing evidence-based medicine basis for systematic evaluation of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of knee... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This analysis was aimed at providing evidence-based medicine basis for systematic evaluation of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.
METHODS
The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Network Database (CNKI), China VIP Database, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) online database. The retrieval time ranges from the database creation to the present. Two investigators gathered the information individually. The risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane back review group. RevMan5.4 statistical software analyzed the selected data.
RESULTS
A total of 6 RCT articles were obtained. Overall, 764 samples were evaluated by meta-analysis. The clinical efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine was significantly better than that of routine treatment by meta-analysis. The confidence interval of 95% was (4.86, 17.08) ( = 6.89, < 0.00001). The scores of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction in patients with knee osteoarthritis treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine were significantly lower than those treated with routine treatment. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between chondroitin combined with glucosamine and single treatment of KOA. Due to the small number of documents included in the analysis, it is not suitable to make a funnel chart, but there may be some publication deviation in the analysis.
CONCLUSION
Chondroitin combined with glucosamine is more effective than chondroitin or glucosamine alone in the treatment of KOA and deserves clinical promotion. However, this conclusion still needs to be supported by multicenter, high-quality, double-blind, large-sample randomized controlled clinical trials due to the limitations of the six trials included.
Topics: China; Chondroitin; Glucosamine; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35924114
DOI: 10.1155/2022/5285244 -
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease May 2019is a genus of obligate parasites belonging to the Pentastomida subclass that was first described as a cause of human disease in 1847. Human infection by is rare and... (Review)
Review
is a genus of obligate parasites belonging to the Pentastomida subclass that was first described as a cause of human disease in 1847. Human infection by is rare and not widely known. These parasites are transmitted to humans by handling or eating undercooked meat from infected snakes, which are the definitive hosts, or oral uptake of environmental ova. The aim of this systematic review was to record all available evidence regarding infections by in humans. A systematic review of PubMed (through 21 December 2018) for studies providing epidemiological, clinical, microbiological, as well as treatment data and outcomes of infections was conducted. A total of 26 studies, containing data of 40 patients, were eventually included in the analysis. The most common sites of infection were the peritoneal cavity, the liver, the lower respiratory and the abdominal tract. The commonest infecting species was and most patients were asymptomatic; however, when symptoms occurred, the commonest was abdominal pain, even though unusual presentations occurred, such as hepatic encephalopathy or neurologic symptoms. Most cases were diagnosed at surgery or by imaging, and most patients were not treated. Mortality was low, but the majority of the cases with ocular infection lead to permanent loss of vision.
PubMed: 31100831
DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed4020080 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a potentially blinding, secondary glaucoma. It is caused by the formation of abnormal new blood vessels, which prevent normal drainage of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a potentially blinding, secondary glaucoma. It is caused by the formation of abnormal new blood vessels, which prevent normal drainage of aqueous from the anterior segment of the eye. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications are specific inhibitors of the primary mediators of neovascularization. Studies have reported the effectiveness of anti-VEGF medications for the control of intraocular pressure (IOP) in NVG.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of intraocular anti-VEGF medications, alone or with one or more types of conventional therapy, compared with no anti-VEGF medications for the treatment of NVG.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register); MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; and LILACS to 19 October 2021; metaRegister of Controlled Trials to 19 October 2021; and two additional trial registers to 19 October 2021. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people treated with anti-VEGF medications for NVG.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the search results for trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence. We resolved discrepancies through discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (356 eyes of 353 participants). Each trial was conducted in a different country: two in China, and one each in Brazil, Egypt, and Japan. All five RCTs included both men and women; the mean age of participants was 55 years or older. Two RCTs compared intravitreal bevacizumab combined with Ahmed valve implantation and panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) with Ahmed valve implantation and PRP alone. One RCT randomized participants to receive an injection of either intravitreal aflibercept or placebo at the first visit, followed by non-randomized treatment according to clinical findings after one week. The remaining two RCTs randomized participants to PRP with and without ranibizumab, one of which had insufficient details for further analysis. We assessed the RCTs to have an unclear risk of bias for most domains due to insufficient information to permit judgment. Four RCTs examined achieving control of IOP, three of which reported our time points of interest. Only one RCT reported our critical time point at one month; it found that the anti-VEGF group had a 1.3-fold higher chance of achieving control of IOP at one month (RR 1.32, 95% 1.10 to 1.59; 93 participants) than the non-anti-VEGF group (low certainty of evidence). For other time points, one RCT found a three-fold greater achievement in control of IOP in the anti-VEGF group when compared with the non-anti-VEGF group at one year (RR 3.00; 95% CI:1.35 to 6.68; 40 participants). However, another RCT found an inconclusive result at the time period ranging from 1.5 years to three years (RR 1.08; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.75; 40 participants). All five RCTs examined mean IOP, but at different time points. Very-low-certainty evidence showed that anti-VEGFs were effective in reducing mean IOP by 6.37 mmHg (95% CI: -10.09 to -2.65; 3 RCTs; 173 participants) at four to six weeks when compared with no anti-VEGFs. Anti-VEGFs may reduce mean IOP at three months (MD -4.25; 95% CI -12.05 to 3.54; 2 studies; 75 participants), six months (MD -5.93; 95% CI -18.13 to 6.26; 2 studies; 75 participants), one year (MD -5.36; 95% CI -18.50 to 7.77; 2 studies; 75 participants), and more than one year (MD -7.05; 95% CI -16.61 to 2.51; 2 studies; 75 participants) when compared with no anti-VEGFs, but such effects remain uncertain. Two RCTs reported the proportion of participants who achieved an improvement in visual acuity with specified time points. Participants receiving anti-VEGFs had a 2.6 times (95% CI 1.60 to 4.08; 1 study; 93 participants) higher chance of improving visual acuity when compared with those not receiving anti-VEGFs at one month (very low certainty of evidence). Likewise, another RCT found a similar result at 18 months (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.33 to 12.05; 1 study; 40 participants). Two RCTs reported the outcome, complete regression of new iris vessels, at our time points of interest. Low-certainty evidence showed that anti-VEGFs had a nearly three times higher chance of complete regression of new iris vessels when compared with no anti-VEGFs (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.18; 1 study; 93 participants). A similar finding was observed at more than one year in another RCT (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.45 to 7.05; 1 study; 40 participants). Regarding adverse events, there was no evidence that the risks of hypotony and tractional retinal detachment were different between the two groups (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.12 to 3.57 and RR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.01 to 7.72, respectively; 1 study; 40 participants). No RCTs reported incidents of endophthalmitis, vitreous hemorrhage, no light perception, and serious adverse events. Evidence for the adverse events of anti-VEGFs was low due to limitations in the study design due to insufficient information to permit judgments and imprecision of results due to the small sample size. No trial reported the proportion of participants with relief of pain and resolution of redness at any time point.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGFs as an adjunct to conventional treatment could help reduce IOP in NVG in the short term (four to six weeks), but there is no evidence that this is likely in the longer term. Currently available evidence regarding the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs in achieving control of IOP, visual acuity, and complete regression of new iris vessels in NVG is insufficient. More research is needed to investigate the effect of these medications compared with, or in addition to, conventional surgical or medical treatment in achieving these outcomes in NVG.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Bevacizumab; Glaucoma, Neovascular; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 37010901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007920.pub4 -
Preventive Medicine Reports Feb 2024COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, commonly presents with symptoms such as fever and shortness of breath but can also affect other organs. There is growing evidence pointing... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, commonly presents with symptoms such as fever and shortness of breath but can also affect other organs. There is growing evidence pointing to potential eye complications. In this article, we aim to systematically review the ocular manifestations of COVID-19.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to explore the ocular manifestations of COVID-19. We searched online databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science up to September 4, 2023. After a two-stage screening process and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, eligible articles were advanced to the data extraction phase. The PRISMA checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used for quality and bias risk assessments.
RESULTS
We selected and extracted data from 42 articles. Most of the studies were cross-sectional (n = 33), with the highest number conducted in Turkey (n = 10). The most frequent ocular manifestation was conjunctivitis, reported in 24 articles, followed by photophobia, burning, chemosis, itching, and ocular pain. Most studies reported complete recovery from these manifestations; however, one study mentioned visual loss in two patients.
CONCLUSION
In general, ocular manifestations of COVID-19 appear to resolve either spontaneously or with supportive treatments. For more severe cases, both medical treatment and surgery have been employed, with the outcomes suggesting that complete recoveries are attainable.
PubMed: 38375172
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102608 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids that involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids that involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian glands, and inflammation of the conjunctiva and cornea. Chronic inflammation of the cornea can lead to scarring, vascularisation and opacity. BKC in children can cause significant symptoms including irritation, watering, photophobia and loss of vision from corneal opacity, refractive error or amblyopia.Treatment of BKC is directed towards modification of meibomian gland disease and the bacterial flora of lid margin and conjunctiva, and control of ocular surface inflammation. Although both topical and systemic treatments are used to treat people with BKC, this Cochrane review focuses on topical treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare data on the efficacy and safety of topical treatments (including antibiotics, steroids, immunosuppressants and lubricants), alone or in combination, for BKC in children from birth to 16 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE ( January 1946 to 11 July 2016), Embase (January 1980 to 11 July 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 11 July 2016. We searched the reference lists of identified reports and the Science Citation Index to identify any additional reports of studies that met the inclusion criteria.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials that involved topical treatments in children up to 16 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of BKC. We planned to include studies that evaluated a single topical medication versus placebo, a combination of treatments versus placebo, and those that compared two or multiple active treatments. We planned to include studies in which participants received additional treatments, such as oral antibiotics, oral anti-inflammatories, warm lid compresses and lid margin cleaning.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the results of the literature search (titles and abstracts) to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria of the review and applied standards as expected for Cochrane reviews. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one study from the USA that met the inclusion criteria. In the study, 137 children aged zero to six years old with blepharoconjunctivitis were randomised to treatment in one of four trial arms (loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin combination, loteprednol etabonate alone, tobramycin alone or placebo) for 15 days, with assessments on days 1, 3, 7 and 15. We judged the study to be at high risk of attrition bias and bias due to selective outcome reporting. The study did not report the number of children with improvement in symptoms nor with total or partial success as measured by changes in clinical symptoms.All children showed a reduction in blepharoconjunctivitis grade score, but there was no evidence of important differences between groups. Visual acuity was not fully reported but the authors stated that there was no change in visual acuity in any of the treatment groups. The study reported ocular and non ocular adverse events but was underpowered to detect differences between the groups. Ocular adverse events were as follows: loteprednol/tobramycin 1/34 (eye pain); loteprednol 4/35 (eye pain, conjunctivitis, eye discharge, eye inflammation); tobramycin 0/34; placebo (vehicle) 0/34. The evidence was limited for all these outcomes and we judged it to be very low certainty.There was no information on clinical signs (aside from grade score), disease progression or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no high-quality evidence of the safety and efficacy of topical treatments for BKC, which resulted in uncertainty about the indications and effectiveness of topical treatment. Clinical trials are required to test efficacy and safety of current and any future treatments. Outcome measures need to be developed which can capture both objective clinical and patient-reported aspects of the condition and treatments.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Allergic Agents; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Blepharitis; Child; Child, Preschool; Conjunctiva; Eyelids; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Keratoconjunctivitis; Loteprednol Etabonate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tobramycin
PubMed: 28170093
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011965.pub2