-
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine Nov 2021Euthyroid Graves' Disease (EGD) is a challenging pathology, due to its atypical clinical manifestations and the absence of abnormal thyroid function. Typically, thyroid... (Review)
Review
Euthyroid Graves' Disease (EGD) is a challenging pathology, due to its atypical clinical manifestations and the absence of abnormal thyroid function. Typically, thyroid ophthalmopathy is associated with elevated thyroid hormone levels and with the presence of thyrotropin receptor antibodies (TRAb) but a low percentage of patients remain euthyroid without developing hyperthyroidism during long-term follow-up periods. Although it is considered a different pathology, it shares a lot of similarities with Graves' disease, rendering the diagnosis more difficult. It is also important to note that ophthalmopathy may be the first clinical manifestation of Graves' disease and that thyroid function examinations do not present abnormalities over a long period. Treatment choices for euthyroid disease do not differ from those described in Graves' ophthalmopathy. However, it is considered that since euthyroid patients develop milder ophthalmic symptoms and their clinical activity score is lower, they tend to have better responses to treatment. Moreover, atypical sight-threatening cases such as exposure keratopathy and dysthyroid optic neuropathy with variable responses to therapy also exist. Disease management consists of a favorable collaboration between ophthalmologists and endocrinologists because patients with EGD can develop thyroid abnormalities over time. In conclusion, the diagnosis of EGD is difficult, clinical manifestations and evolution are variables depending on several factors, including the heterogeneity of TRAb. This review aimed to identify the characteristics of this disease by reviewing the clinical studies and case reports published in previous years.
PubMed: 34630700
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.10781 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2021The purpose of this systematic review was to identify existing guidelines for antimalarial prescribing and monitoring, specifically for hydroxychloroquine, and how these... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review was to identify existing guidelines for antimalarial prescribing and monitoring, specifically for hydroxychloroquine, and how these guidelines compare and have evolved over time.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using Embase and Medline to identify guidelines published from 1946-2018. MeSH terms were used and alternative spelling and related words were entered as keywords to broaden results.
RESULTS
243 results were reviewed to obtain 11 recommendations. Ophthalmology sources included the American Academy of Ophthalmology, Royal College of Ophthalmologists and Canadian editorials. The American College of Rheumatology and Canadian Rheumatology Association consensus statements summarised rheumatology recommendations. Recently, American and British guidelines changed from suggesting hydroxychloroquine doses ≤6.5 mg/kg/day to ≤5 mg/kg/day. American guidelines recommended baseline visual field (VF) testing and annual screening after five years. Visual field (VF) testing evolved from the Amsler grid to current recommendations of 10-2 automated VF and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). The 2012 Canadian recommendations suggested initial VF testing every two years, with SD-OCT after 10 years. Older British guidelines advocated for baseline and annual assessment with Amsler grids during rheumatology clinic visits. The 2018 British guidelines supported baseline and annual screening after five years with 10-2 VF, SD-OCT and fundus autofluorescence.
CONCLUSIONS
The newest recommendations are heterogeneous suggesting lower hydroxychloroquine dosing. Retinal toxicity is irreversible and the risk increases over time. Annual screening after five years with automated VF and SD-OCT may be warranted to detect early changes and discontinue therapy if necessary.
Topics: Antimalarials; Antirheumatic Agents; Canada; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Retinal Diseases; Rheumatic Diseases; Tomography, Optical Coherence
PubMed: 33124575
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/1u36qt -
Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology 2020The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic has presented major challenges to ophthalmologists. Reports have shown that ocular manifestations can be the first... (Review)
Review
Ocular manifestation, comorbidities, and detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 from conjunctiva in coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic has presented major challenges to ophthalmologists. Reports have shown that ocular manifestations can be the first presenting symptoms of COVID 19 infection and conjunctiva may be a portal of entry for the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) associated coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV 2). The purpose of this article is to provide general guidance for ophthalmologists to understand the prevalence of ocular presentation in COVID 19 patients and to reduce the risk of transmission during practice. Relevant studies published in the period of November 1, 2019, and July 15, 2020, regarding ocular manifestations of COVID 19 and detection of SARS CoV 2 in the eye were included in this systematic review and meta analysis. The pooled prevalence of the ocular manifestations has been estimated at 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.10) among COVID 19 patients. The pooled detection rate of SARS CoV 2 from conjunctiva was low (1%, 95% CI: 0.00-0.03). Conjunctival symptoms were the most common ocular manifestations in COVID 19, but the positive detection rate of the SARS CoV 2 virus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of conjunctival tears or secretions remained low. No study has shown a definite transmission of COVID 19 through ocular mucosa or secretions. In summary, ocular manifestations in COVID 19 patients commonly comprise ocular surface symptoms. Although a low prevalence of ocular symptoms was encountered among patients infected by SARS CoV 2, it is imperative for all ophthalmologists to understand the full spectrum of COVID 19 symptoms or signs including those of the eyes as well as to adopt appropriate protective measures during clinical practice.
PubMed: 33110745
DOI: 10.4103/tjo.tjo_53_20 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Acute primary angle closure (APAC) is a potentially blinding condition. It is one of the few ophthalmic emergencies and carries high rates of visual morbidity in the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute primary angle closure (APAC) is a potentially blinding condition. It is one of the few ophthalmic emergencies and carries high rates of visual morbidity in the absence of timely intervention. Laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) has been the standard of care thus far. However, LPI does not eliminate the long-term risk of chronic angle closure glaucoma and other associated sequelae. There has been increasing interest in lens extraction as the primary treatment for the spectrum of primary angle closure disease, and it is as yet unclear whether these results can be extrapolated to APAC, and whether lens extraction provides better long-term outcomes. We therefore sought to evaluate the effectiveness of lens extraction in APAC to help inform the decision-making process. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of lens extraction compared to LPI in the treatment of APAC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE E-pub Ahead of Print, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to 10 January 2022), Embase (January 1947 to 10 January 2022), PubMed (1946 to 10 January 2022), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to 10 January 2022), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search. We last searched the electronic databases on 10 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing lens extraction against LPI in adult participants ( ≥ 35 years) with APAC in one or both eyes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for prespecified outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies conducted in Hong Kong and Singapore, comprising 99 eyes (99 participants) of predominantly Chinese origin. The two studies compared LPI with phacoemulsification performed by experienced surgeons. We assessed that both studies were at high risk of bias. There were no studies evaluating other types of lens extraction procedures. Phacoemulsification may result in an increased proportion of participants with intraocular pressure (IOP) control compared with LPI at 18 to 24 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.15; 2 studies, n = 97; low certainty evidence) and may reduce the need for further IOP-lowering surgery within 24 months (RR 0.07, 96% CI 0.01 to 0.51; 2 studies, n = 99; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may result in a lower mean IOP at 12 months compared to LPI (mean difference (MD) -3.20, 95% CI -4.79 to -1.61; 1 study, n = 62; low certainty evidence) and a slightly lower mean number of IOP-lowering medications at 18 months (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.46; 1 study, n = 60; low certainty evidence), but this may not be clinically significant. Phacoemulsification may have little to no effect on the proportion of participants with one or more recurrent APAC episodes in the same eye (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.30; 1 study, n = 37; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may result in a wider iridocorneal angle assessed by Shaffer grading at six months (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.47; 1 study, n = 62; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may have little to no effect on logMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at six months (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.02; 2 studies, n = 94; very low certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the extent of peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) (clock hours) between intervention arms at 6 months (MD -1.86, 95% CI -7.03 to 3.32; 2 studies, n = 94; very low certainty evidence), although the phacoemulsification group may have less PAS (degrees) at 12 months (MD -94.20, 95% CI -140.37 to -48.03; 1 study, n = 62) and 18 months (MD -127.30, 95% CI -168.91 to -85.69; 1 study, n = 60). In one study, there were 26 adverse events in the phacoemulsification group: intraoperative corneal edema (n = 12), posterior capsular rupture (n = 1), intraoperative bleeding from iris root (n = 1), postoperative fibrinous anterior chamber reaction (n = 7), and visually significant posterior capsular opacification (n = 5), and no cases of suprachoroidal hemorrhage or endophthalmitis. There were four adverse events in the LPI group: closed iridotomy (n = 1) and small iridotomies that required supplementary laser (n = 3). In the other study, there was one adverse event in the phacoemulsification group (IOP > 30 mmHg on day 1 postoperatively (n = 1)), and no intraoperative complications. There were five adverse events in the LPI group: transient hemorrhage (n = 1), corneal burn (n = 1), and repeated LPI because of non-patency (n = 3). Neither study reported health- or vision-related quality of life measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low certainty evidence suggests that early lens extraction may produce more favorable outcomes compared to initial LPI in terms of IOP control. Evidence for other outcomes is less clear. Future high-quality and longer-term studies evaluating the effects of either intervention on the development of glaucomatous damage and visual field changes as well as health-related quality of life measures would be helpful.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cataract Extraction; Glaucoma; Intraocular Pressure; Phacoemulsification; Quality of Life
PubMed: 36884304
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015116.pub2 -
Vaccines Jan 2023Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have played an important global role in reducing morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection. While the benefits... (Review)
Review
Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have played an important global role in reducing morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection. While the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the risks, adverse events do occur. Non-ocular adverse effects of the vaccines have been well-documented, but descriptions of ophthalmic effects remain limited. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of reported cases of corneal adverse events after receiving vaccination against COVID-19 and to compile existing clinical data to bring attention to these phenomena. Our review discusses corneal graft rejection, including proposed mechanisms, herpetic keratitis, and other reported corneal complications. Ophthalmologists and primary care physicians should be aware of such possible associations.
PubMed: 36680010
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11010166 -
Cureus Jul 2020Lemierre's syndrome (LS), once known as "the forgotten disease," is a rare and potentially life-threatening condition that has had a gain in incidence over the last 30... (Review)
Review
Lemierre's syndrome (LS), once known as "the forgotten disease," is a rare and potentially life-threatening condition that has had a gain in incidence over the last 30 years due to a variety of factors that could include changes in antibody prescription patterns, particularly in regard to the treatment of pharyngitis/tonsillitis. Due to its low incidence and broad spectrum of symptoms, LS does not have an obvious clinical diagnosis and can confuse the clinician managing the patient. Furthermore, it is equally difficult to treat patients suffering from LS as it requires a multidisciplinary approach from multiple subspecialties. Thus, communication between hospitalists, radiologists, otolaryngologists, neurologists, and ophthalmologists is critical towards quickly diagnosing the disease condition so that prompt antibiotics, anticoagulation, and surgical intervention can occur. Atypical presentations can also exist, making the diagnosis and management exponentially more challenging. Ophthalmologic symptoms are a particularly rare and atypical presentation of LS. These rare symptoms in LS can be terrifying for patients and providers alike; yet, there does not seem to be any modern medical literature that summarizes ophthalmologic complications for LS patients. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of LS with a focus on ophthalmologic complications that has been done. The main objective of this review paper is to provide an up-to-date literature review of LS epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment while also performing a novel systematic review of reported cases of LS with ophthalmological complications. We hope to bring more awareness towards LS and its atypical presentations so that physicians will be better able to rapidly diagnose and treat their patients in order to minimize long-term morbidity and mortality.
PubMed: 32742884
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.9326 -
Heliyon Aug 2023Mpox virus infection is a significant public health concern worldwide due to its potential severity and the likelihood of outbreaks occurring across different regions.... (Review)
Review
Mpox virus infection is a significant public health concern worldwide due to its potential severity and the likelihood of outbreaks occurring across different regions. Ophthalmic manifestations of the disease have been linked with more severe cases, leading to the need for hospitalization and antiviral therapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines to summarize the literature available on this topic. The review revealed that ophthalmic manifestations, such as conjunctivitis and periocular umbilicated lesions, are the most common in Mpox virus infections. However, severe manifestations, such as corneal opacity, that can potentially cause blindness may also occur. Antiviral treatment with tecovirimat and topical management for conjunctivitis can be considered for severe cases. However, the evidence quality is poor due to the predominance of case reports and imprecise characterization of the ophthalmic manifestations. Overall, ophthalmologists and healthcare professionals should be aware of these manifestations for early diagnosis and timely treatment.
PubMed: 37576249
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18561 -
Eye (London, England) Jul 2023Cerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is a common condition in the UK. Patients with conditions associated with CVI are frequently seen in paediatric ophthalmology clinics... (Review)
Review
Cerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is a common condition in the UK. Patients with conditions associated with CVI are frequently seen in paediatric ophthalmology clinics offering eye care professionals an opportunity to identify children proactively. In most cases CVI occurs as part of a neurodevelopmental condition or as a feature of multiple and complex disabilities. However, CVI can also be seen in children with apparently typical development. In some cases, high contrast visual acuity is normal and in other cases severely impaired. As such, identification of CVI requires evaluation of aspects of visual performance beyond high contrast acuity and consideration that visual function of those with CVI may fluctuate. Few paediatric ophthalmologists have received formal training in CVI. The detection and diagnosis of CVI varies across the UK and patients report hugely different experiences. A diagnosis of CVI is made based on professional clinical judgement and it is recognised that individual perspectives and local practice in the specific methodologies of assessment will vary. A systematic review and survey of professionals is underway to attempt to reach agreement on diagnostic criteria. Nonetheless, established pathways and published protocols can offer guidance on how a paediatric ophthalmology service can approach assessment of the child with suspected CVI. The purpose of this paper is to present a summary of research and clinical practice methods for detecting and diagnosing CVI in a paediatric ophthalmology outpatient setting. It represents current understanding of the topic and acknowledges the evolving nature of both practice and the evidence-base. A rapid literature review was undertaken to identify articles relating to clinical investigation of children with CVI. A focus group of QTVI and subject matter experts from sight loss charities was undertaken to address areas which were not covered by the literature review.
Topics: Child; Humans; Consensus; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity; Ophthalmology; Blindness
PubMed: 36258009
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02261-6 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Nov 2022Cataract extraction is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS) is a popular technique of cataract... (Review)
Review
Cataract extraction is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS) is a popular technique of cataract extraction. Full economic evaluation of different techniques is of value to policy makers. This was a systematic review of published literature to present a brief overview of evidence available in respect of economic evaluation measures like cost effectiveness, cost utility, and cost parameters in cataract patients regarding MSICS. The data on these was sparse and heterogeneous. Direct costs of MSICS were lower than phacoemulsification (PE): $25.55 (PE) to $17.03 (MSICS) in India, $15 (MSICS) to $70 (PE) in Nepal, and $62.25 (MSICS) to $104.15 (PE) in Thailand. The cost utility analysis for MSICS demonstrated savings of $79.57 (INR6175) per gain in LogMAR BCVA, $8.91 (INR691) per QALY gained and $1.42 (INR110) per VF 14 score increment in India. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) $368.20 (13,215.50 Baht) for MSICS was better than $489.30 (17,561.70 Baht) for PE in Thailand. ICER for femto laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) compared to was €10,703 in femtosecond laser-assisted versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery (FEMCAT) study. The corrected ICER for PE against MSICS is €146.50. The limited data available demonstrates that MSICS is the most cost-effective technique among FLACS, PE, and MSICS. MSICS scores over other existing alternatives of cataract extraction from cost-effectiveness and cost-minimization approaches. Further research is required in this area.
Topics: Humans; Cataract Extraction; Phacoemulsification; Cataract; Lens Implantation, Intraocular; Ophthalmology
PubMed: 36308093
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1266_22 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022As demonstrated in pivotal clinical trials, brolucizumab can be used to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) because it antagonizes vascular...
As demonstrated in pivotal clinical trials, brolucizumab can be used to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) because it antagonizes vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the vitreous. However, brolucizumab may cause retinal vasculitis obliterans in the presence of inflammation in the eyes. In the present study, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of brolucizumab. ClinicTrail.gov., Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were retrieved from inception until 31 December 2021 for RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of brolucizumab. Changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central sub-field thickness (CSFT) and incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, and serious ocular adverse events were extracted from eligible RCTs. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1. A total of six RCTs with 3,574 participants were finally involved in this meta-analysis. The changes of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) showed no statistically significant difference between the brolucizumab-treated group and aflibercept-treated group. Brolucizumab induced higher central sub-field thickness (CSFT) reduction than the control agent (aflibercept). The incidence of adverse events was similar between the brolucizumab group and control group (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08, = 0.09), and brolucizumab caused fewer serious adverse events (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.95, = 0.01). However, brolucizumab could lead to more serious ocular adverse events than Lucentis and aflibercept (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.16, = 0.02). Brolucizumab was non-inferior to other anti-VEGF agents in improving BCVA and decreasing CSFT. But it caused more serious ocular adverse events which is worthy of special attention by ophthalmologists.
PubMed: 35645802
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.890732