Purpose To determine clinical and demographic risk factors for corneal transplantation in keratoconus patients. Design Case control study. Methods setting : Tertiary referral center. study population : All keratoconic eyes presenting to the Duke University Eye Center from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2002. observation procedure and outcome measures : Cases were defined as eyes undergoing transplantation during the study period for keratoconus. Controls were defined as eyes that did not undergo transplantation. Cases were compared with controls to determine clinical and demographic risk factors for corneal transplantation. Results A total of 131 eyes with keratoconus were studied; 59 cases were compared with 72 controls. Groups were similar with respect to sex and race. Significant univariate risk factors for corneal transplantation were best-corrected vision worse than 20/40 (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 9.8), cylinder >10.0 diopters (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 12.4), and average keratometry >55 diopters (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 21.9). In multivariate analysis, age 30 or younger conferred a sevenfold increased risk of transplantation compared with ages of more than 40 (OR 7.7 for ages 21 to 30 and OR 25.8 for ages ≤20). Multivariate analysis also showed duration of disease 5 years or less and steep average keratometry as significant risk factors. Conclusions A subset of young keratoconic patients with high keratometry values may represent an underrecognized risk group for corneal transplantation. Best-corrected visual acuity worse than 20/40 at presentation and astigmatism are other clinical indicators of increased risk of corneal transplantation in keratoconus patients.

Risk factors for progression to penetrating keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus

PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of a stepladder immunosuppression strategy, including the use of mycophenolate mofetil and combination therapy, in the treatment of ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid.


DESIGN
Retrospective, noncomparative, interventional case series.


PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred twenty-three eyes of 115 patients.


METHODS
Patients with a diagnosis of ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid commencing immunosuppression between January 1994 and July 2005 were identified. A treatment episode was defined by the use of a particular therapy or combination of therapies.


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
For each treatment episode, success of immunosuppressive therapy in controlling ocular inflammation was graded as a success (S), qualified success (QS), or failure (F). Initial and final visual acuities (VAs), stage of cicatrization (Foster, Mondino), grade of conjunctival inflammation, and side effects were recorded.


RESULTS
In 70% (80/115) of patients, inflammation was controlled by the end of the study. At least 6 months remission off treatment occurred in 16 patients (14%). Of the 388 treatment episodes, 50% were classified as S; 27%, QS; and 23%, F. The most successful therapies were based on cyclophosphamide (S, 69%; QS, 21%; F, 10%), followed by mycophenolate (S, 59%; QS, 22%; F, 19%), azathioprine (S, 47%; QS, 24%; F, 29%), dapsone (S, 47%; QS, 30%; F, 23%), and sulfapyridine (S, 38%; QS, 27%; F, 35%). Combination sulfa-steroid-myelosuppressive agent therapy increased the response from 73% with single-agent therapy to 87%. Side effects were the reason for 29% of changes in therapy. These were most prominent with azathioprine (40%) and least with mycophenolate (15%). Initial best-corrected VA (BCVA) was 6/60 or less in 17% (37/223) of eyes, pemphigoid being the cause in 13% (29/223). Final BCVA was 6/60 or less in 34% (76/223) of eyes, pemphigoid being the cause in 26% (57/223). By the end of the study, Mondino stage cicatrization had progressed in 41% (92/223) of eyes and 53% (61/115) of patients.


CONCLUSIONS
Mycophenolate mofetil seems to be an effective and well-tolerated immunosuppressant for moderately active ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid. Combination sulfa-steroid-myelosuppressive agent therapy in a stepladder regimen is a useful strategy to improve disease control. Cicatrization and VA may still progress and worsen despite adequate control of inflammation.

Immunosuppressive Therapy for Ocular Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid– Strategies and Outcomes

PURPOSE\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of the combination therapy of rituximab (RTX) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) to other immunosuppressive regimens in the treatment of ocular cicatricial pemphigoid (OCP).\n\n\nDESIGN\nRetrospective, comparative, interventional case series.\n\n\nPARTICIPANTS\nTwelve patients with OCP.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe reviewed medical records of 12 patients with OCP. Ten of the 12 patients were blind in 1 eye after initial systemic immunosuppressive therapies (phase 1 treatment). The patients were then divided into 2 groups based on treatments received during phase 2. The study group consisted of 6 patients who received the combination of RTX and IVIg during phase 2 of their treatment. For comparison purposes, the control group consisted of 6 patients who during phase 2 of their treatment received more aggressive immunosuppressive therapies, but not RTX and IVIg, because the insurance carriers refused to pay for the combination therapy.\n\n\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\nBlindness (best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA] < or =20/200) and OCP staging (Foster).\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe median total follow-up periods were 57.5 and 55.5 months in the control group and the study group, respectively. After phase 1 treatment, all 6 patients in the control group were blind in 1 eye. Similarly, 4 of the patients in the study group were blind in 1 eye, whereas 2 had good BCVA bilaterally but experienced persistent conjunctival inflammation despite phase 1 treatment. After phase 2 treatment, all 6 patients in the control group had OCP progression and became blind in both eyes. In contrast, BCVA was stable and no further progression of OCP staging was observed in all 6 patients in the study group. In the study group, the median follow-up from completion of the RTX and IVIg treatment protocol was 11 months. No adverse events, immediate or delayed, were reported in any of the patients who received the combination therapy of RTX and IVIg.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nIn this preliminary study, the combination therapy of RTX and IVIg arrested disease progression and prevented total blindness in patients with recalcitrant OCP.

Combination of Rituximab and Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Recalcitrant Ocular Cicatricial Pemphigoid

Over the past decades, the number of patients with dry eye disease (DED) has increased dramatically. The incidence of DED is higher in Asia than in Europe and North America, suggesting the involvement of cultural or racial factors in DED etiology. Although many definitions of DED have been used, discrepancies exist between the various definitions of dry eye disease (DED) used across the globe. This article presents a clinical consensus on the definition of DED, as formulated in four meetings with global DED experts. The proposed new definition is as follows: "Dry eye is a multifactorial disease characterized by a persistently unstable and/or deficient tear film (TF) causing discomfort and/or visual impairment, accompanied by variable degrees of ocular surface epitheliopathy, inflammation and neurosensory abnormalities." The key criteria for the diagnosis of DED are unstable TF, inflammation, ocular discomfort and visual impairment. This definition also recommends the assessment of ocular surface epitheliopathy and neurosensory abnormalities in each patient with suspected DED. It is easily applicable in clinical practice and should help practitioners diagnose DED consistently. This consensus definition of DED should also help to guide research and clinical trials that, to date, have been hampered by the lack of an established surrogate endpoint.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/23/9271/pdf

Defining Dry Eye from a Clinical Perspective

Since December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic caused by the highly transmissible severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1] There have been several reports of eye redness and irritation in COVID-19 patients, both anecdotal and published, suggesting that conjunctivitis may be an ocular manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection A study conducted during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak detected SARS-CoV in tear samples in SARS patients in Singapore [2] Lack of eye protection was a primary risk factor of SARS-CoV transmission from SARS patients to healthcare workers in Toronto, prompting a concern that respiratory illness could be transmitted through ocular secretions [3][[4] Similar concerns have been raised with SARS-CoV-2, especially among eye care providers and those on the front lines triaging what could be initial symptoms of COVID-19 As conjunctivitis is a common eye condition, ophthalmologists may be the first medical professionals to evaluate a patient with COVID-19 Indeed, one of the first providers to voice concerns regarding the spread of Coronavirus in Chinese patients was Li Wenliang, MD, an ophthalmologist He later died from COVID-19 and was believed to have contracted the virus from an asymptomatic glaucoma patient in his clinic The authors of this article have attempted to collect the most up-to-date information on ophthalmic manifestations of COVID-19 as a resource for identifying symptoms, providing diagnostic pearls, and mitigating transmission

Divya M Varu

Papers

Bacterial Keratitis Preferred Practice Pattern

Dry Eye Syndrome Preferred Practice Pattern

Blepharitis Preferred Practice Pattern

Conjunctivitis Preferred Practice Pattern

Corneal Ectasia Preferred Practice Pattern