-
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research 2020Conjunctivitis is a commonly encountered condition in ophthalmology clinics throughout the world. In the management of suspected cases of conjunctivitis, alarming signs... (Review)
Review
Conjunctivitis is a commonly encountered condition in ophthalmology clinics throughout the world. In the management of suspected cases of conjunctivitis, alarming signs for more serious intraocular conditions, such as severe pain, decreased vision, and painful pupillary reaction, must be considered. Additionally, a thorough medical and ophthalmic history should be obtained and a thorough physical examination should be done in patients with atypical findings and chronic course. Concurrent physical exam findings with relevant history may reveal the presence of a systemic condition with involvement of the conjunctiva. Viral conjunctivitis remains to be the most common overall cause of conjunctivitis. Bacterial conjunctivitis is encountered less frequently and it is the second most common cause of infectious conjunctivitis. Allergic conjunctivitis is encountered in nearly half of the population and the findings include itching, mucoid discharge, chemosis, and eyelid edema. Long-term usage of eye drops with preservatives in a patient with conjunctival irritation and discharge points to the toxic conjunctivitis as the underlying etiology. Effective management of conjunctivitis includes timely diagnosis, appropriate differentiation of the various etiologies, and appropriate treatment.
PubMed: 32864068
DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v15i3.7456 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is an infection of the conjunctiva and is one of the most common ocular disorders in primary care. Antibiotics are generally prescribed on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is an infection of the conjunctiva and is one of the most common ocular disorders in primary care. Antibiotics are generally prescribed on the basis that they may speed recovery, reduce persistence, and prevent keratitis. However, many cases of acute bacterial conjunctivitis are self-limited, resolving without antibiotic therapy. This Cochrane Review was first published in The Cochrane Library in 1999, then updated in 2006, 2012, and 2022.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and side effects of antibiotic therapy in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2022, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May 2022), Embase (January 1980 to May 2022), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov), and the 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 in May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which any form of antibiotic treatment, with or without steroid, had been compared with placebo/vehicle in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. This included topical and systemic antibiotic treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies. We assessed the full text of all potentially relevant studies and determined the included RCTs, which were further assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. We performed data extraction in a standardized manner and conducted random-effects meta-analyses using RevMan Web.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 eligible RCTs, 10 of which were newly identified in this update. A total of 8805 participants were randomized. All treatments were topical in the form of drops or ointment. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of their eligibility criteria, the nature of the intervention (antibiotic drug class, which included fluoroquinolones [FQs] and non-FQs; dosage frequency; duration of treatment), the outcomes assessed and the time points of assessment. We judged one trial to be of high risk of bias, four as low risk of bias, and the others as raising some concerns. Based on intention-to-treat (ITT) population, antibiotics likely improved clinical cure (resolution of clinical symptoms or signs) by 26% (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.46; 5 trials, 1474 participants; moderate certainty) as compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed no differences by antibiotic class (P = 0.67) or treatment duration (P = 0.60). In the placebo group, 55.5% (408/735) of participants had spontaneous clinical resolution by days 4 to 9 versus 68.2% (504/739) of participants treated with an antibiotic. Based on modified ITT population, in which participants were analyzed after randomization on the basis of positive microbiological culture, antibiotics likely increased microbiological cure (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 10 trials, 2827 participants) compared with placebo at the end of therapy; there were no subgroup differences by drug class (P = 0.60). No study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatment. Patients receiving antibiotics had a lower risk of treatment incompletion than those in the placebo group (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78; 13 trials, 5573 participants; moderate certainty) and were 27% less likely to have persistent clinical infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81; 19 trials, 5280 participants; moderate certainty). There was no evidence of serious systemic side effects reported in either the antibiotic or placebo group (very low certainty). When compared with placebo, FQs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90) but not non-FQs (RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.36 to 12.00) may result in fewer participants with ocular side effects. However, the estimated effects were of very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this update suggest that the use of topical antibiotics is associated with a modestly improved chance of resolution in comparison to the use of placebo. Since no evidence of serious side effects was reported, use of antibiotics may therefore be considered to achieve better clinical and microbiologic efficacy than placebo. Increasing the proportion of participants with clinical cure or increasing the speed of recovery or both are important for individual return to work or school, allowing people to regain quality of life. Future studies may examine antiseptic treatments with topical antibiotics for reasons of cost and growing antibiotic resistance.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Conjunctivitis, Bacterial; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36912752
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001211.pub4 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2016Active trachoma is caused by chronic infection of the conjunctiva by Chlamydia trachomatis, and is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. Infection can lead... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Active trachoma is caused by chronic infection of the conjunctiva by Chlamydia trachomatis, and is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. Infection can lead to: scarring of the tarsal conjunctiva; inversion of the eyelashes (trichiasis), so that they abrade the cornea; and corneal opacity, resulting in blindness. Trachoma is a disease of poverty, overcrowding, and poor sanitation. Active disease affects mainly children, but adults are at increased risk of scarring.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to prevent scarring trachoma by reducing the prevalence of active trachoma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 170 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 96 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 61 studies and the further review of 35 full publications. Of the 35 full articles evaluated, three previously included systematic reviews were updated, one systematic review and two RCTs were added at this update, and two RCTs and one further report were added the Comment sections. We performed a GRADE evaluation for nine PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for seven interventions based on information about the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics, face washing (alone or plus topical tetracycline), fly control (through the provision of pit latrines, and using insecticide alone or plus antibiotics), and health education.
Topics: Chlamydia trachomatis; Health Education; Humans; Insect Control; Sanitation; Tetracycline; Trachoma
PubMed: 26860629
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2007Active trachoma is caused by chronic infection of the conjunctiva by Chlamydia trachomatis, and is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. Infection can lead... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Active trachoma is caused by chronic infection of the conjunctiva by Chlamydia trachomatis, and is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. Infection can lead to scarring of the tarsal conjunctiva, inversion of the eyelashes so that they abrade the cornea (trichiasis), and corneal opacity, leading to blindness. Trachoma is a disease of poverty, overcrowding, and poor sanitation. Active disease affects mainly children, but adults are at increased risk of scarring.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent scarring trachoma by reducing the prevalence of active trachoma? What are the effects of eye lid surgery for entropion and trichiasis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to January 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 23 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, face washing (alone or plus topical tetracycline), fly control (through the provision of pit latrines, and using insecticide), health education, and lid surgery (bilamellar tarsal rotation, or tarsal advance and rotation).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Blindness; Chlamydia trachomatis; Entropion; Eyelashes; Humans; Sanitation; Trachoma
PubMed: 19450349
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids which can affect children and adults. BKC involves changes of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids which can affect children and adults. BKC 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 which include irritation, watering, photophobia and loss of vision. Loss of vision in children with BKC may be due to corneal opacity, refractive error or amblyopia.BKC treatment is directed towards the obstruction of meibomian gland openings, the bacterial flora of lid margin and conjunctiva, and ocular surface inflammation. Dietary modifications that involve increased intake in essential fatty acids (EFAs) may also be beneficial. Both topical and systemic treatments are used; this Cochrane review focuses on systemic treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare data on the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments (including antibiotics, nutritional supplements and immunosuppressants), alone or in combination, for BKC in children aged between zero to 16 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 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 21 April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials that involved systemic treatments in children aged between zero to 16 years with a clinical diagnosis of BKC. We planned to include studies that evaluated a single systemic medication versus placebo, and studies that compared two or multiple active treatments. We planned to include studies in which participants receive additional treatments, such as topical antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and lubricants, warm lid compresses and lid margin cleaning.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the literature search results (titles and abstracts) to identify studies that possibly met the inclusion criteria of the review. We divided studies into 'definitely include', 'definitely exclude' and 'possibly include' categories. We made a final judgement as to the inclusion or exclusion of studies in the 'possibly include' category after we obtained the full text of each article.
MAIN RESULTS
No report or trial met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review; no randomised controlled trials have been carried out on this topic. There is a lack of standardised outcome measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence from clinical trials regarding the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for BKC. Trials are required to test efficacy and safety of current and future treatments. Outcome measures need to be developed which can capture both objective clinical and patient-reported aspects of the condition and treatments.
Topics: Adolescent; Blepharitis; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Keratoconjunctivitis
PubMed: 27236587
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011750.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the...
BACKGROUND
Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective), Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva, antibiotic resistance, and adverse effects (secondary objectives).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers. The date of the last search was 4 January 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. We also included studies addressing different dosing strategies in the population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies where individuals with trachoma were randomised and 12 cluster-randomised studies. Any antibiotic versus control (individuals)Nine studies (1961 participants) randomised individuals with trachoma to antibiotic or control (no treatment or placebo). All of these studies enrolled children and young people with active trachoma. The antibiotics used in these studies included topical (oxy)tetracycline (5 studies), doxycycline (2 studies), and sulfonamides (4 studies). Four studies had more than two study arms. In general these studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.These studies provided low-certainty evidence that people with active trachoma treated with antibiotics experienced a reduction in active trachoma at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 1961 people; 9 RCTs; I = 73%) and 12 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; 1035 people; 4 RCTs; I = 90%). Low-certainty evidence was available for ocular infection at three months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; 297 people; 4 RCTs; I = 0%) and 12 months (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78; 129 people; 1 RCT). None of these studies assessed antimicrobial resistance. In those studies that reported harms, no serious adverse effects were reported (low-certainty evidence).Oral versus topical antibiotics (individuals)Eight studies (1583 participants) compared oral and topical antibiotics. Only one study included people older than 21 years of age. Oral antibiotics included azithromycin (5 studies), sulfonamides (2 studies), and doxycycline (1 study). Topical antibiotics included (oxy)tetracycline (6 studies), azithromycin (1 study), and sulfonamide (1 study). These studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in effect between oral and topical antibiotics on active trachoma at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 953 people; 6 RCTs; I = 63%) and 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 886 people; 5 RCTs; I = 56%). There was very low-certainty evidence for ocular infection at three or 12 months. Antimicrobial resistance was not assessed. In those studies that reported adverse effects, no serious adverse effects were reported; one study reported abdominal pain with azithromycin; one study reported a couple of cases of nausea with azithromycin; and one study reported three cases of reaction to sulfonamides (low-certainty evidence).Oral azithromycin versus control (communities)Four cluster-randomised studies compared antibiotic with no or delayed treatment. Data were available on active trachoma at 12 months from two studies but could not be pooled because of reporting differences. One study at low risk of bias found a reduced prevalence of active trachoma 12 months after a single dose of azithromycin in communities with a high prevalence of infection (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; 1247 people). The other, lower quality, study in low-prevalence communities reported similar median prevalences of infection at 12 months: 9.3% in communities treated with azithromycin and 8.2% in untreated communities. We judged this moderate-certainty evidence for a reduction in active trachoma with treatment, downgrading one level for inconsistency between the two studies. Two studies reported ocular infection at 12 months and data could be pooled. There was a reduction in ocular infection (RR 0.36, 0.31 to 0.43; 2139 people) 12 months after mass treatment with a single dose compared with no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). There was high-certainty evidence of an increased risk of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli to azithromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin in communities treated with azithromycin, with approximately 5-fold risk ratios at 12 months. The evidence did not support increased resistance to penicillin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. None of the studies measured resistance to C trachomatis. No serious adverse events were reported. The main adverse effect noted for azithromycin (˜10%) was abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea.Oral azithromycin versus topical tetracycline (communities)Three cluster-randomised studies compared oral azithromycin with topical tetracycline. The evidence was inconsistent for active trachoma and ocular infection at three and 12 months (low-certainty evidence) and was not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity. Antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects were not reported.Different dosing strategiesSix studies compared different strategies for dosing. There were: mass treatment at different dosing intervals; applying cessation or stopping rules to mass treatment; strategies to increase mass treatment coverage. There was no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended annual mass treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of active trachoma and ocular infection in people infected with C trachomatis, compared to no treatment/placebo, but the size of the treatment effect in individuals is uncertain. Mass antibiotic treatment with single dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities. There is no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended periodicity of annual mass treatment. There is evidence of an increased risk of antibiotic resistance at 12 months in communities treated with antibiotics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlamydia trachomatis; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trachoma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31554017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001860.pub4 -
Complementary Therapies in Clinical... May 2022Conjunctivitis is the inflammation of the conjunctiva. Although data on clinical efficacy and safety of various ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis is published,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Conjunctivitis is the inflammation of the conjunctiva. Although data on clinical efficacy and safety of various ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis is published, systematic review is not done. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis.
METHODS
A literature search of the Cochrane Library (Cochrane central register of controlled trials: issue 6 of 12, June 2018), Pub Med, AYUSH research portal (Govt. of India), DHARA portal, Google scholar and online clinical trials registers was done. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized controlled trials (QRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and multiple arms clinical trials were identified in which Ayurveda treatments with any dose, type, schedule, drug, dosage form, and advised Pathayapathya (lifestyle changes) were selected.
RESULTS
We identified 13 eligible RCTs, five CCTs and two multiple arms clinical trials which includes a total of 816 participants. Meta analysis of data from five trials showed that ayurvedic treatments benefitted more compared with non-ayurveda interventions in symptoms like itching (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.30,-0.65) p < 0.00001, I = 38%), pain (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.87, -0.29, P = 0.0001, I = 0%), ropy discharge (SMD = -1.02, 95% CI(-1.45, -0.59), P < 0.00001, I = 0%), conjunctival congestion (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.91, -0.43), p < 0.00001, I = 0%), foreign body sensation (SMD = -0.68, 95% CI(-1.06, -0.29), p = 0.0006, I = 46%, Fig. 8) and lid heaviness (SMD = -0.66, 95% CI(- 0.98, -0.33), p < 0.0001, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Although some findings confirm the benefit of ayurveda as opposed to non ayurveda for the treatment of conjunctivitis, since the studies have high risk of bias and are of lower quality, the findings could not be generalized. There is a need for high quality studies in ayurveda in this regard.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42019129436.
Topics: Conjunctivitis; Humans; India; Medicine, Ayurvedic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35259570
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101568 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016A pterygium is a fleshy, wing-shaped growth from the conjunctiva, crossing over the limbus onto the cornea. Prevalence ranges widely around the world. Evidence suggests... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A pterygium is a fleshy, wing-shaped growth from the conjunctiva, crossing over the limbus onto the cornea. Prevalence ranges widely around the world. Evidence suggests that ultraviolet light is a major contributor in the formation of pterygia. Pterygia impair vision, limit eye movements, and can cause eye irritation, foreign body sensation, and dryness. In some susceptible patients, the pterygium can grow over the entire corneal surface, blocking the visual axis.Surgery is the only effective treatment for pterygium, though recurrences are common. With simple excision techniques (that is, excising the pterygium and leaving bare sclera), the risk of recurrence has been reported to be upwards of 80%. Pterygium excision combined with a tissue graft has a lower risk of recurrence. In conjunctival autograft surgery, conjunctival tissue from another part of the person's eye along with limbal tissue is resected in one piece and used to cover the area from which the pterygium was excised. Another type of tissue graft surgery for pterygium is amniotic membrane graft, whereby a piece of donor amniotic membrane is fixed to the remaining limbus and bare sclera area after the pterygium has been excised.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the safety and effectiveness of conjunctival autograft (with or without adjunctive therapy) compared with amniotic membrane graft (with or without adjunctive therapy) for pterygium. We also planned to determine whether use of MMC yielded better surgical results and to assess the direct and indirect comparative costs of these procedures.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 10, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 21 November 2014), 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 search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 23 November 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included in this review randomized controlled trials that had compared conjunctival autograft surgery (with or without adjunctive therapy) with amniotic membrane graft surgery (with or without adjunctive therapy) in people with primary or recurrent pterygium.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results and assessed full-text reports from among the potentially eligible trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials and assessed the trial characteristics and risk of bias. The primary outcome was the risk of recurrence of pterygium at 3 months and 6 months after surgery. We combined results from individual studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models. Risk of recurrence of pterygium was reported using risk ratios to compare conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplant.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 20 studies that had analyzed a total of 1947 eyes of 1866 participants (individual studies ranged from 8 to 346 participants who were randomized). The studies were conducted in eight different countries: one in Brazil, three in China, three in Cuba, one in Egypt, two in Iran, two in Thailand, seven in Turkey, and one in Venezuela. Overall risk of bias was unclear, as many studies did not provide information on randomization methods or masking to prevent performance and detection bias.The risk ratio for recurrence of pterygium using conjunctival autograft versus amniotic membrane transplant was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.77) and 0.53 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.85) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. These estimates include participants with primary and recurrent pterygia. We performed a subgroup analysis to compare participants with primary pterygia with participants with recurrent pterygia. For participants with primary pterygia, the risk ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.37 to 2.30) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.27) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. We were only able to estimate the recurrence of pterygia at 6 months for participants with recurrent pterygia, and the risk ratio comparing conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplant was 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99). One included study was a doctoral thesis and did not use allocation concealment. When this study was excluded in a sensitivity analysis, the risk ratio for pterygium recurrence at 6 months' follow-up was 0.43 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) for participants with primary and recurrent pterygium. One of the secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with clinical improvement, was analyzed in only one study. This study reported clinical outcome as the risk of non-recurrence, which was seen in 93.8% of participants in the conjunctival limbal autograft group and 93.3% in the amniotic membrane transplant group at 3 months after surgery.We did not analyze data on the need for repeat surgery, vision-related quality of life, and direct and indirect costs of surgery due to an insufficient number of studies reporting these outcomes.Thirteen studies reported adverse events associated with conjunctival autograft surgery and amniotic membrane transplant surgery. Adverse events that occurred in more than one study were granuloma and pyogenic granuloma and increased intraocular pressure. None of the included studies reported that participants had developed induced astigmatism.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In association with pterygium excision, conjunctival autograft is associated with a lower risk of recurrence at six months' after surgery than amniotic membrane transplant. Participants with recurrent pterygia in particular have a lower risk of recurrence when they receive conjunctival autograft surgery compared with amniotic membrane transplant. There are few studies comparing the two techniques with respect to visual acuity outcomes, and we identified no studies that reported on vision-related quality of life or direct or indirect costs. Comparison of these two procedures in such outcome measures bears further investigation. There were an insufficient number of studies that used adjunctive mitomycin C to estimate the effects on pterygium recurrence following conjunctival autograft or amniotic membrane transplant.
Topics: Amnion; Autografts; Conjunctiva; Humans; Pterygium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Time Factors
PubMed: 26867004
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011349.pub2 -
Tropical Medicine & International... Dec 2013To describe the epidemiology and an aetiological model of ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN) in Africa. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To describe the epidemiology and an aetiological model of ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN) in Africa.
METHODS
Systematic and non-systematic review methods were used. Incidence was obtained from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the reference lists of articles retrieved. Meta-analyses were conducted using a fixed-effects model for HIV and cigarette smoking and random effects for human papilloma virus (HPV).
RESULTS
The incidence of OSSN is highest in the Southern Hemisphere (16° South), with the highest age-standardised rate (ASR) reported from Zimbabwe (3.4 and 3.0 cases/year/100 000 population for males and females, respectively). The mean ASR worldwide is 0.18 and 0.08 cases/year/100 000 among males and females, respectively. The risk increases with exposure to direct daylight (2-4 h, OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2-2.4 and ≥5 h OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1) and outdoor occupations (OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.6). Meta-analysis also shows a strong association with HIV (6 studies: OR = 6.17, 95% CI: 4.83-7.89) and HPV (7 studies: OR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.27-5.49) but not cigarette smoking (2 studies: OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 0.94-2.09). The effect of atopy, xeroderma pigmentosa and vitamin A deficiency is unclear.
CONCLUSIONS
Africa has the highest incidence of OSSN in the world, where males and females are equally affected, unlike other continents where male disease predominates. African women probably have increased risk due to their higher prevalence of HIV and HPV infections. As the survival of HIV-infected people increases, and given no evidence that anti-retroviral therapy (ART) reduces the risk of OSSN, the incidence of OSSN may increase in coming years.
Topics: Adult; Africa; Age Factors; Aged; Conjunctiva; Conjunctival Neoplasms; Cornea; Eye Neoplasms; Female; Geography, Medical; HIV Infections; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasms, Squamous Cell; Papillomavirus Infections; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Sunlight
PubMed: 24237784
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12203