-
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary... Sep 2022The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the development and rollout of several vaccines worldwide at unprecedented pace. This systematic review of published literature has been... (Review)
Review
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the development and rollout of several vaccines worldwide at unprecedented pace. This systematic review of published literature has been undertaken to spread awareness among general physicians and ophthalmologists about the various reported adverse effects in the eye following COVID-19 vaccination. A systematic search was performed on 25 January 2022 through PuBMed, Medline and Google scholar for publications on ocular adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination. One brief communication, four retrospective case series, sixteen case reports, and five letters to editors were included. Ocular manifestations most commonly appear in the uvea and retina. Other manifestations are seen on the eyelid, cornea and ocular surface, and in cranial nerves innervating the eye. The incidence rate of these manifestations is quite low after COVID-19 vaccinations. Our systematic review meticulously enumerates various adverse effects of COVID -19 vaccine on the eye. Most of these adverse effects are transient and observed to resolve without any sequelae except for cases of retinal and ophthalmic vascular occlusions and corneal graft rejections. An emphasis on close follow-up and a need to delay vaccination and modified therapy to control flare up of signs and symptoms in certain sub-populations, Graves' disease (autoimmune etiology), pre-existing uveal inflammation and corneal graft cases are warranted. We need long-term, larger, multicentric studies to substantiate our findings and establish the causal relationship with certainty. Mass vaccinations to curb this pandemic after outweighing the ocular risks associated with it is warranted.
PubMed: 36505575
DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_747_22 -
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 -
Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology :... 2022Artificial intelligence (AI) offers considerable promise for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening and diagnosis. The development of deep-learning algorithms to...
PURPOSE
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers considerable promise for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening and diagnosis. The development of deep-learning algorithms to detect the presence of disease may contribute to sufficient screening, early detection, and timely treatment for this preventable blinding disease. This review aimed to systematically examine the literature in AI algorithms in detecting ROP. Specifically, we focused on the performance of deep-learning algorithms through sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for both the detection and grade of ROP.
METHODS
We searched Medline OVID, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for studies published from January 1, 2012, to September 20, 2021. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of deep-learning models based on retinal fundus images with expert ophthalmologists' judgment as reference standard were included. Studies which did not investigate the presence or absence of disease were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS
Twelve studies out of the 175 studies identified were included. Five studies measured the performance of detecting the presence of ROP and seven studies determined the presence of plus disease. The average AUROC out of 11 studies was 0.98. The average sensitivity and specificity for detecting ROP was 95.72% and 98.15%, respectively, and for detecting plus disease was 91.13% and 95.92%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The diagnostic performance of deep-learning algorithms in published studies was high. Few studies presented externally validated results or compared performance to expert human graders. Large scale prospective validation alongside robust study design could improve future studies.
PubMed: 36276252
DOI: 10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_219_21 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Dry eye disease (DED), arising from various etiologic factors, leads to tear film instability, ocular surface damage, and neurosensory changes. DED causes symptoms such... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dry eye disease (DED), arising from various etiologic factors, leads to tear film instability, ocular surface damage, and neurosensory changes. DED causes symptoms such as ocular dryness, burning, itching, pain, and visual impairment. Given their well-established anti-inflammatory effects, topical steroid preparations have been widely used as a short-term treatment option for DED. Because of potential risks of ocular hypertension, cataracts, and infections associated with the long-term use of topical steroids, published trials comparing the efficacy and safety of topical steroids (versus placebo) have mostly been of short duration (three to eight weeks).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids compared with no treatment, placebo, other steroidal or non-steroidal therapies, or a combination of therapies for DED.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 20 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which topical corticosteroids, alone or in combination with tobramycin, were compared with no treatment, artificial tears (AT), vehicles, AT plus tobramycin, or cyclosporine A (CsA).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We applied standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 22 RCTs conducted in the USA, Italy, Spain, China, South Korea, and India. These RCTs reported outcome data from a total of 4169 participants with DED. Study characteristics and risk of bias All trials recruited adults aged 18 years or older, except one trial that enrolled children and adolescents aged between 3 and 14 years. Half of these trials involved predominantly female participants (median 79%, interquartile range [IQR] 76% to 80%). On average, each trial enrolled 86 participants (IQR 40 to 158). The treatment duration of topical steroids ranged between one week and three months; trial duration lasted between one week and six months. Eight trials were sponsored exclusively by industry, and four trials were co-sponsored by industry and institutional or governmental funds. We assessed the risk of bias of both subjective and objective outcomes using RoB 2, finding nearly half of the trials to be at high risk of bias associated with selective outcome reporting. Findings Of the 22 trials, 16 evaluated effects of topical steroids, alone or in combination with tobramycin, as compared with lubricants (AT, vehicle), AT plus tobramycin, or no treatment. Corticosteroids probably have a small to moderate effect on improving patient-reported symptoms by 0.29 standardized mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.42) as compared with lubricants (moderate certainty evidence). Topical steroids also likely have a small to moderate effect on lowering corneal staining scores by 0.4 SMDs (95% CI 0.18 to 0.62) (moderate certainty evidence). However, steroids may increase tear film break-up time (TBUT) slightly (mean difference [MD] 0.70 s, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.34; low certainty evidence) but not tear osmolarity (MD 1.60 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -10.47 to 13.67; very low certainty evidence). Six trials examined topical steroids, either alone or in combination with CsA, against CsA alone. Low certainty evidence indicates that steroid-based interventions may have a small to moderate effect on improving participants' symptoms (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.15), but little to no effect on corneal staining scores (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.35) as compared with CsA. The effect of topical steroids compared to CsA alone on TBUT (MD 0.37 s, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.87) or tear osmolarity (MD 5.80 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -0.94 to 12.54; loteprednol etabonate alone) is uncertain because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life scores. Adverse effects The evidence for adverse ocular effects of topical corticosteroids is very uncertain. Topical corticosteroids may increase participants' risk of intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (risk ratio [RR] 5.96, 95% CI 1.30 to 27.38) as compared with lubricants. However, when compared with CsA, steroids alone or combined with CsA may decrease or increase IOP elevation (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.33). It is also uncertain whether topical steroids may increase risk of cataract formation when compared with lubricants (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.22), given the short-term use and study duration (four weeks or less) to observe longer-term adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence for the specified review outcomes was of moderate to very low certainty, mostly due to high risk of bias associated with selective results reporting. For dry eye patients whose symptoms require anti-inflammatory control, topical corticosteroids probably provide small to moderate degrees of symptom relief beyond lubricants, and may provide small to moderate degrees of symptom relief beyond CsA. However, the current evidence is less certain about the effects of steroids on improved tear film quality or quantity. The available evidence is also very uncertain regarding the adverse effects of topical corticosteroids on IOP elevation or cataract formation or progression. Future trials should generate high certainty evidence to inform physicians and patients of the optimal treatment strategies with topical corticosteroids in terms of regimen (types, formulations, dosages), duration, and its time-dependent adverse profile.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Male; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cataract; Cyclosporine; Dry Eye Syndromes; Glucocorticoids; Loteprednol Etabonate; Lubricant Eye Drops; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tobramycin
PubMed: 36269562
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015070.pub2 -
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 -
The Australasian Journal of Dermatology Nov 2022Dupilumab-associated ocular surface disease (DAOSD) is of particular relevance in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). Guidance on DAOSD assessment and management in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
Dupilumab-associated ocular surface disease (DAOSD) is of particular relevance in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). Guidance on DAOSD assessment and management in the Australian setting is needed to reduce its impact and minimise disruption to treatment.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify data pertaining to the incidence, pathophysiology, risk factors and management of DAOSD. A critical review of this literature was used to inform a decision framework for dupilumab-prescribers and develop a graded severity scoring tool to guide appropriate management options.
RESULTS
DAOSD typically emerges within 4 months of commencing dupilumab and the occurrence of new events diminishes over time. The reported incidence varies widely depending on the nature and source of the data: 8.6-22.1% (clinical trials programme), 0.5-70% (real-world data; differences in study size, duration of follow-up, ophthalmologist intervention, use of prophylaxis). Occurrence increases with AD severity and in patients with prior history of ocular disease; pathophysiology is still to be fully characterised. Management options have evolved over time and include lubricants/artificial tears, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, antihistamines, anti-inflammatory agents and antimicrobial agents. Current therapies aim to resolve symptoms or reduce severity to levels sufficiently tolerable to enable continuation of dupilumab therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations for DAOSD assessment and management include identification of high-risk patients, vigilance for red flags (keratoconus, herpetic and bacterial keratitis), regular assessment of symptom severity (before and during dupilumab therapy), conservative management of mild DAOSD by the prescribing physician and ophthalmologist referral for collaborative care of moderate-severe DAOSD and high-risk patients.
Topics: Humans; Australia; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eye Diseases; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36125089
DOI: 10.1111/ajd.13924 -
Journal of Ophthalmology 2022Alport syndrome (AS) is a severe, rare hereditary disorder that can lead to end-stage renal disease, auditory degeneration, and ocular abnormalities. Despite extensive... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Alport syndrome (AS) is a severe, rare hereditary disorder that can lead to end-stage renal disease, auditory degeneration, and ocular abnormalities. Despite extensive research on AS in relation to auditory and renal disorders, more research is needed on the ocular presentations of AS. This systematic review aims to summarize the common ocular abnormalities in patients with AS and to explore the potential treatment options for these irregularities.
METHODS
The PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from January 1977 to April 2022. Only papers that were published in the English language and explored the ocular abnormalities in AS patients were selected. We manually searched reference lists of included papers for additional studies.
RESULTS
A total of 23 articles involving 195 patients were included in this review. The common ocular manifestations in AS patients are lenticonus, macular holes, fleck retinopathy, and thinning of the macula. Although published literature has described the use of cataract surgeries and vitrectomies as standard surgical techniques to alleviate ocular abnormalities in non-AS patients, it must be noted that surgical techniques have not been evaluated in a large research study as a solution for AS abnormalities. Another prospective treatment for AS is gene therapy through the reversion of causative variants to wild type or exon-skipping therapy for -linked AS with truncating mutations. Gene therapy, however, remains unable to treat alterations that occur in the fetal and early development phase of the disease.
CONCLUSIONS
The review found no definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of surgical techniques and gene therapy in AS patients. Recognition of ocular abnormalities through an ophthalmic examination with an optical coherence tomography (OCT) and slit-lamp examination is critical to the medical field, as ophthalmologists can aid nephrologists and other physicians in diagnosing AS. Early diagnosis and care can minimize the risk of detrimental ocular outcomes, such as blindness and retinal detachment.
PubMed: 36119140
DOI: 10.1155/2022/9250367 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Aug 2022Adjunctive treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis with intravitreal steroids is a topic of controversy among many ophthalmologists. The objective of this study is to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adjunctive treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis with intravitreal steroids is a topic of controversy among many ophthalmologists. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of intravitreal dexamethasone on the visual outcomes of patients with acute bacterial endophthalmitis through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to include studies on the visual outcomes of adjuvant intravitreal dexamethasone in patients with acute bacterial endophthalmitis. The review is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol. A total of 1545 articles met our search criteria and after further review, two randomized controlled trials and three retrospective case series were included in the final analysis. A total of 126 eyes were treated with intravitreal dexamethasone combined with antibiotics, and another 139 eyes were treated with antibiotics alone. All cases of endophthalmitis were post-operative or post-intravitreal injection, with pooled results demonstrating no visual benefit with supplementation of intravitreal dexamethasone. Our meta-analysis does not show any visual benefit from steroid supplementation and yet, considering a relatively small number of patients included in each study, larger randomized controlled trials are required to further clarify the role of steroids in the treatment of acute bacterial endophthalmitis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Dexamethasone; Endophthalmitis; Eye Infections, Bacterial; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35918923
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_955_21 -
Clinics and Practice Jun 2022Diabetic retinopathy is a vascular disease of the retina that affects patients with uncontrolled diabetes. Untreated diabetic retinopathy (DR) can eventually lead to... (Review)
Review
Diabetic retinopathy is a vascular disease of the retina that affects patients with uncontrolled diabetes. Untreated diabetic retinopathy (DR) can eventually lead to blindness. To date, diabetic retinopathy is the third leading cause of vision loss in the working class globally. Frequent retinal screening for all diabetic people is an effective method of preventing diabetic retinopathy blindness. This has relied on the use of ophthalmologists, but due to scarce resources, such as a shortage of human resources for eye health, this has denied many patients quality eye health care in a resource-limited setting. The recent advances on the use of teleophthalmology are promising to close this gap. This study aimed to map available evidence on the use of teleophthalmology in the screening of DR globally and to explore how this can be used to complement short-staffed eye clinics, especially in resource-constrained contexts. Studies were sourced from Google Scholar, PubMed, Science Direct, and EBSCO host. The final study selection was presented using a PRISMA chart. The mixed method appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of the nine studies included. The random effect model was used to estimate pooled prevalence estimates. Levels of heterogeneity were evaluated using Cochran's Q statistic and I. Of nine included studies, eight were from high-income countries. The screening was performed at the primary healthcare level in eight of nine included studies. Only one study used a mydriatic agent, and the commonly used fundus camera was the non-mydriatic fundus camera. The overall estimated pooled prevalence of DR was 29 (95%CI: 10-34). Teleophthalmology at the primary health care level showed that early intervention in diabetic retinopathy reduced avoidable blindness and ensured remote access to eye health professionals, thus alleviating the burden on them.
PubMed: 35892436
DOI: 10.3390/clinpract12040050 -
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