-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Endophthalmitis refers to severe infection within the eye that involves the aqueous humor or vitreous humor, or both, and that threatens vision. Most cases of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endophthalmitis refers to severe infection within the eye that involves the aqueous humor or vitreous humor, or both, and that threatens vision. Most cases of endophthalmitis are exogenous (i.e. due to inoculation of organisms from an outside source), and most exogenous endophthalmitis is acute and occurs after an intraocular procedure. The mainstay of treatment is emergent administration of broad-spectrum intravitreous antibiotics. Due to their anti-inflammatory effects, steroids in conjunction with antibiotics have been proposed as being beneficial in endophthalmitis management.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotics combined with steroids versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of acute endophthalmitis following intraocular surgery or intravitreous injection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to August 2021), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database) (1982 to August 2021), the ISRCTN registry; searched August 2021, ClinicalTrials.gov; searched August 2021, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; searched August 2021. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of adjunctive steroids with antibiotics alone in the management of acute, clinically diagnosed endophthalmitis following intraocular surgery or intravitreous injection. We excluded trials with participants with endogenous endophthalmitis unless outcomes were reported by source of infection. We imposed no restrictions on the method or order of administration, dose, frequency, or duration of antibiotics and steroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology, and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for six outcomes using the GRADE classification.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs with a total of 264 eyes of 264 participants in this review update. The studies were conducted in South Africa, India, and the Netherlands. All studies used intravitreous dexamethasone for adjunctive steroid therapy and a combination of two intravitreous antibiotics that provided gram-positive and gram-negative coverage for the antibiotic therapy. We judged two trials to be at overall low risk of bias, and the other two studies to be at overall unclear risk of bias due to lack of reporting of study methods. Only one study was registered in a clinical trial register. While none of the included studies reported the primary outcome of complete resolution of endophthalmitis as defined in our protocol, one study reported combined anatomical and functional success (i.e. proportion of participants with intraocular pressure of at least 5 mmHg and visual acuity of at least 6/120). Very low certainty evidence suggested no difference in combined success when comparing adjunctive steroid to antibiotics alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.45; 32 participants). Low certainty evidence from two studies suggested that adjunctive dexamethasone may result in having a good visual outcome (Snellen visual acuity 6/6 to 6/18) at 3 months compared with antibiotics alone (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.60; 60 participants); however, the evidence was less conclusive at 12 months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.37; 2 studies; 195 participants; low certainty evidence). Investigators of one study reported improvement in visual acuity, but we could not estimate the effect of adjunctive steroid therapy because the study investigators did not provide any estimates of precision. Only one study examined intraocular pressure (IOP). The evidence suggests that adjunctive dexamethasone may reduce IOP slightly after 12 months of interventions (mean difference -1.90, 95% CI -3.78 to 0.07; 1 study; 167 participants; low certainty evidence). Three studies reported adverse events (retinal detachment, hypotony, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, seclusion of pupil, floaters, and pucker). The total numbers of adverse events were 14 out of 111 (12.6%) for those who received dexamethasone versus 12 out of 116 (10.3%) for those who did not. We could only perform a pooled analysis for the occurrence of retinal detachment: any difference between the two treatment groups was uncertain (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.74; 227 participants; low certainty evidence). No study reported cost-related outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The currently available evidence on the effectiveness of adjunctive steroid therapy versus antibiotics alone in the management of acute endophthalmitis after intraocular surgery is inadequate. We found no studies that had enrolled cases of acute endophthalmitis following intravitreous injection. A combined analysis of two studies suggests that use of adjunctive steroids may provide a higher chance of having a good visual outcome at three months than not using adjunctive steroids. However, considering that most of the confidence intervals crossed the null, and that this review was limited in scope and applicability to clinical practice, it is not possible to conclude whether the use of adjunctive steroids is effective at this time. Any future trials should examine whether adjunctive steroids may be useful in certain clinical settings such as type of causative organism or etiology. These studies should include outcomes that take patients' symptoms and clinical examination into account; report outcomes in a uniform and consistent manner; and follow up at short- and long-term intervals.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dexamethasone; Endophthalmitis; Eye Diseases; Humans; Retinal Detachment; Steroids
PubMed: 35665485
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012131.pub3 -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2020Diagnosing posterior chamber ocular abnormalities typically requires specialist assessment. Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) performed by nonspecialists, if... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Diagnosing posterior chamber ocular abnormalities typically requires specialist assessment. Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) performed by nonspecialists, if accurate, could negate the need for urgent ophthalmologist evaluation.
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis sought to define the diagnostic test characteristics of emergency practitioner-performed ocular POCUS to diagnose multiple posterior chamber abnormalities in adults.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed (OVID), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from inception through June 2019 without restrictions. Conference abstracts and trial registries were also searched. Bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews were manually searched, and experts in the field were queried.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies compared ocular POCUS performed by emergency practitioners with a reference standard of ophthalmologist evaluation. Pediatric studies were excluded. All 116 studies identified during abstract screening as potentially relevant underwent full-text review by multiple authors, and 9 studies were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, multiple authors extracted data from included studies. Results were meta-analyzed for each diagnosis using a bivariate random-effects model. Data analysis was performed in July 2019.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The outcomes of interest were diagnostic test characteristics of ocular POCUS for the following diagnoses: retinal detachment, vitreous hemorrhage, vitreous detachment, intraocular foreign body, globe rupture, and lens dislocation.
RESULTS
Nine studies (1189 eyes) were included. All studies evaluated retinal detachment, but up to 5 studies assessed each of the other diagnoses of interest. For retinal detachment, sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-0.97) and specificity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98). Sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.65-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-0.98), respectively, for vitreous hemorrhage and were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.81) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.53-0.98), respectively, for vitreous detachment. Sensitivity and specificity were high for lens dislocation (0.97 [95% CI, 0.83-0.99] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97-1.00]), intraocular foreign body (1.00 [95% CI, 0.81-1.00] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]), and globe rupture (1.00 [95% CI, 0.63-1.00] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]). Results were generally unchanged in sensitivity analyses of studies with low risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study suggests that emergency practitioner-performed ocular POCUS is an accurate test to assess for retinal detachment in adults. Its utility in diagnosing other posterior chamber abnormalities is promising but needs further study.
Topics: Eye Diseases; Humans; Point-of-Care Systems; Posterior Eye Segment; Retinal Detachment; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 32074291
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.21460 -
Acta Ophthalmologica Dec 2020Asteroid hyalosis is defined by the presence of white, snowball-like non-crystalline vitreous opacities that move with the vitreous and appear to be anchored to its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Asteroid hyalosis is defined by the presence of white, snowball-like non-crystalline vitreous opacities that move with the vitreous and appear to be anchored to its matrix. Asteroid hyalosis commonly occurs in the absence of other identifiable ocular abnormalities and is usually an incidental finding. The vitreous opacities are usually invisible to the patient and asymptomatic, but asteroid hyalosis can be a significant obstacle to the examination of the fundus. The prevalence increases dramatically with age. The aetiology is unknown. We systematically reviewed the literature for epidemiological data, qualitatively reviewed available studies, conducted meta-analyses with demographical stratifications, evaluated temporal changes and estimated the future prevalence using forecasting analysis. Nine eligible studies were identified with data on 104 569 individuals. The overall population prevalence of asteroid hyalosis was 0.75% (95% confidence interval: 0.39-1.21%); however, the prevalence was highly age-dependent, ranging from 0.27% (95% confidence interval 0.12-0.49%) in individuals aged 0-39 years and gradually increasing to 3.07% (95% confidence interval 1.90-4.50%) in individuals aged ≥80 years. Male gender was an additional risk factor (odds ratio 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.32-2.45, p = 0.00017). The estimated global prevalence was 10.7 million subjects in year 1950, which is expected to increase to 41.5 million in year 2020 and 91.2 million in year 2100. The prevalence of asteroid hyalosis is relevant because it impacts the utility of diagnostic strategies, especially screening methods for conditions such as diabetic retinopathy.
Topics: Eye Diseases; Global Health; Humans; Prevalence; Vitreous Body
PubMed: 32410360
DOI: 10.1111/aos.14465 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bevacizumab; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Dexamethasone; Diabetic Retinopathy; Drug Implants; Fluocinolone Acetonide; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Steroids; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity; Vitreous Body
PubMed: 33206392
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005656.pub3 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Dec 2021Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a type of retinopathy caused by diabetes, and the 2 main clinical treatment modalities are drug therapy intravitreal triamcinolone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide injection combined with laser photocoagulation in the treatment of diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a type of retinopathy caused by diabetes, and the 2 main clinical treatment modalities are drug therapy intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection (IVTA) and laser photocoagulation. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of combining both the 2 treatment modalities.
METHODS
The Embase, Cochrane library, PubMed, and Ovid databases were searched for English literatures. The literatures were screened and assessed for the risk of bias, after that the Revman 5.4 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 8 articles, including 549 patients, were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that the effect of (IVTA + laser) on early central macular thickness (CMT) was not significantly different with IVTA alone [mean difference (MD) =-5.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): -17.06 to 6.80, P=0.40], however, significantly different with laser alone (MD =-94.31, 95% CI: -135.04 to -53.58, P<0.00001). Similarly, the effect of (IVTA + laser) on early best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was not significantly different with IVTA alone (MD =0.02, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.07, Z=0.79, P=0.43). but different with laser alone [MD =-0.20, 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.16, Z=10.16, P<0.00001). The effect of (IVTA + laser) on long-term CMT was not significantly different with IVTA alone (MD =-66.90, 95% CI: -132.66 to -1.15, Z=1.99, P=0.05) nor with laser alone (MD =-15.86, 95% CI: -31.37 to -0.35, Z=2.00, P=0.05). Similarly, the effect of combined intervention (IVTA + laser) on long-term BCVA was not significantly different with IVTA alone (MD =-0.18, 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.03, Z=1.71, P=0.09) nor with laser alone (MD =-0.11, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.01, Z=1.74, P=0.08). Administration of IVTA before laser was superior to laser alone (MD =-0.19, 95% CI: -0.31 to -0.07, Z=3.09, P=0.002).
DISCUSSION
The effect of IVTA + laser therapy is similar to IVTA alone, but superior to laser alone for the early treatment of DME. However, the long-term effect is similar to IVTA alone or laser alone, a better therapeutic effect can be achieved if IVTA is administered before laser treatment.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Light Coagulation; Macular Edema; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Visual Acuity; Vitreous Body
PubMed: 35016410
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-3274 -
Romanian Journal of Ophthalmology 2020Endogenous endophthalmitis, EE, a less common form of endophthalmitis, occurs when the microorganisms spread to the eye through the bloodstream, from a septic focus...
Endogenous endophthalmitis, EE, a less common form of endophthalmitis, occurs when the microorganisms spread to the eye through the bloodstream, from a septic focus elsewhere in the body, that breaches into the integrity of the eyeball itself. The etiopathogenesis of endogenous endophthalmitis has changed over the past two decades, the aim of this review being to study the changing trends in causative organism in the era of modern antibiotics.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Endophthalmitis; Eye Infections, Bacterial; Humans; Vitreous Body
PubMed: 32685775
DOI: No ID Found