Comparison of Endophthalmitis Rates after Alcohol-Based Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine Antisepsis for Intravitreal Injections.

OBJECTIVE: Intravitreal injections (IVIs) are the most frequently performed intraocular procedure in Canada. Povidone-iodine (PI) is the current gold standard for antisepsis for IVI and is widely used; chlorhexidine (CH) is a possible alternative antiseptic agent. This study aims to compare rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 0.05% chlorhexidine with a 4% alcohol base antisepsis to rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 10% PI antisepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Eyes that received IVI between May 2019 and October 2022 at a group retina practice in Edmonton, Canada. METHODS: Eyes at a single center received focal conjunctival application of either 10% PI antisepsis or 0.05% CH in 4% alcohol antisepsis for 30 seconds before each IVI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rates of endophthalmitis between the PI and CH groups. RESULTS: A total of 170 952 IVIs were performed during the study period. A total of 31 135 were performed using CH prophylaxis compared with 139 817 with PI prophylaxis. Among all IVIs there were 49 total cases of endophthalmitis, 29 in the PI group (0.021%) and 20 in the CH group (0.064%). There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of endophthalmitis between the 2 groups (P < 0.001). The odds ratio for developing endophthalmitis with CH antisepsis was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-5.2) compared with PI antisepsis. There were increased odds of developing endophthalmitis with aflibercept injection compared with bevacizumab (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-7.24). CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant difference in rates of endophthalmitis between alcohol-based CH and PI antisepsis for IVI in our patient population utilizing the methods discussed. In our center, alcohol-based CH is now considered a second-line antiseptic agent. Further studies are warranted to further assess the endophthalmitis rate utilizing these 2 antiseptic agents. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Quantifying the cost of single-use minims and multidose bottles for eye drops in routine ophthalmic practice: a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs between two different eye drop delivery modalities: multidose bottles and single-use minims. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Monthly dilating eye drop costs and quantities (tropicamide 1%, phenylephrine 2.5%, cyclopentolate 1%) were studied over a 2-year period between April 2013 and March 2015 at 2 tertiary ophthalmic centres (Royal Alexandra Hospital [RAH, Edmonton] and Rockyview General Hospital [RGH, Calgary]). In April 2014, RAH switched its dilating eye drop practice from predominantly multidose bottles to single-use minims, whereas RGH continued using predominantly multidose bottles. Eye drop volume and total and per-patient eye drop costs were quantified at RAH before switching (pre-intervention) and after (post-intervention) using an interrupted time-series analysis with RGH as a control. A counterfactual analysis was also performed. Significance was obtained using independent t-testing. RESULTS: After switching to single-use minims, RAH experienced changes in the following: an increase in single-use minims as a proportion of total eye drop utilization (from 5.6% to 89.1%; p = 0.001), an increase in total eye drop cost by $2117 per month (95% confidence interval [CI], $1354-$2880; p < 0.001), an increase in per-patient costs by $984 per 1000 patients per month (95% CI, $674-$1293). Contrastingly, RGH did not experience similar changes. Ultimately, the cost of switching to single-use minims was $22 481 (95% CI, $7830-$31 336) over a 12-month period. CONCLUSIONS: If safe eye drop practices are enforced via proper protocols, the use of multidose bottles may be a more cost-effective option than single-use minims for routine clinical practice.

Assessing personal financial management in patients with bipolar disorder and its relation to impulsivity and response inhibition.

INTRODUCTION: Impulsivity and risk-taking behaviours are reported in bipolar disorder (BD). We examined whether financial management skills are related to impulsivity in patients with BD. METHODS: We assessed financial management skills using the Executive Personal Finance Scale (EPFS), impulsivity using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) and response inhibition using an emotional go/no-go task in bipolar individuals (N = 21) and healthy controls (HC; N = 23). RESULTS: Patients had fewer financial management skills and higher levels of impulsivity than HC. In patients and controls, increased impulsivity was associated with poorer personal financial management. Patients and HC performed equally on the emotional go/no-go task. Higher BIS scores were associated with faster reaction times in HC. In patients, however, higher BIS scores were associated with slower reaction times, possibly indicating compensatory cognitive strategies to counter increased impulsivity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BD may have reduced abilities to manage personal finances, when compared against healthy participants. Difficulty with personal finance management may arise in part as a result of increased levels of impulsivity. Patients may learn to compensate for increased impulsivity by modulating response times in our experimental situations although whether such compensatory strategies generalize to real-world situations is unknown.