Patient barriers and facilitators for making environmental and behavioral modifications for dry eye in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Managing dry eye disease (DED) is expensive. Often, prescribed treatments improve clinical signs but not patient-reported symptoms. In large surveys, clinicians and patients ranked environmental and behavioral modifications among the most important DED-related research priorities. Our purpose was to investigate the barriers to and facilitators of use of these modifications by patients with DED in the United States and how their use may be impacted by socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: Using Qualtrics, we conducted an anonymous online survey of adults with DED living in the United States in August to September 2022. Patients were identified through the Dry Eye Foundation, Sjögren's Foundation, and a DED clinic in Colorado. We used an established index for classifying respondent SES based on education, household income, and employment. Outcomes included use of environmental and behavioral modifications and barriers to and facilitators of their use. RESULTS: We included 754 respondents (SES: 382 low, 275 high, and 97 unclear). Most were aged 18 to 49 years (67%), female (68%), and White (76%) and reported dealing with DED for ≤5 years (67%). The most frequent modifications were taking breaks to rest eyes (68%), increasing water intake (68%), and using hot/cold compresses (52%). For these three, the biggest facilitators were as follows: belief that the modification works (27 to 37%), being recommended it (24 to 26%), and ease of use/performance (21 to 32%). Across modifications, the biggest barriers were difficulty of use (55%), lack of family/employer/social/community support (33%), and lack of awareness (32%). The data do not suggest discernible patterns of differences in barriers or facilitators by SES. CONCLUSIONS: Greater emphasis should be placed on explaining to patients how environmental and behavioral modifications might mitigate DED. Employers and members of patients' support systems should be guided regarding how best to support patients in managing DED symptoms.

Social Determinants of Dry Eye in the United States: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to summarize current evidence on associations between social determinants of health (SDOH) indicators and dry eye in the United States. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We followed a protocol registered on Open Science Framework to include studies that examined associations between SDOH indicators and dry eye. We mapped SDOH indicators to 1 of the 5 domains following the Healthy People 2030 framework and categorized dry eye measures into "dry eye diagnosis and care," "dry eye symptoms," or "ocular surface parameters." We summarized the direction of association between SDOH indicators and dry eye as worsening, beneficial, or null. We used items from the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Eighteen studies reporting 51 SDOH indicators, mostly mapped to the neighborhood and built environment domain, were included. Thirteen studies were judged at high risk of bias. Fifteen of 19 (79%) associations revealed an increase in the diagnosis of dry eye or delayed specialty care for it. Thirty-four of 56 (61%) associations unveiled exacerbated dry eye symptoms. Fifteen of 23 (65%) found null associations with corneal fluorescein staining. Ten of 22 (45%) associations revealed an increased tear break up time (45%) whereas another 10 (45%) showed null associations. CONCLUSIONS: Most SDOH indicators studied were associated with unfavorable dry eye measures, such as a higher disease burden, worse symptoms, or delayed referral, in the United States. Future investigations between SDOH and dry eye should use standardized instruments and address the domains in which there is an evidence gap.

Prevalence of dry eye and Meibomian gland dysfunction in Central and South America: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye is one of the most common ophthalmic conditions and can significantly impact quality of life. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of evaporative dry eye. We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in Central and South America and to identify factors associated with disease burden. METHODS: Data sources Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: A search conducted on August 16, 2021, identified studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 16, 2021, with no restrictions regarding participant age or language of publication. Case reports, case series, case-control studies, and interventional studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The review was based on a protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021256934). Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using a risk of bias tool designed for the purposes of descriptive epidemiological studies. Data were extracted by one investigator and verified by another for accuracy. Prevalence of dry eye and MGD were grouped based on study participant characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in Central and South America. Summary estimates from meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Fourteen studies (11,594 total participants) were included. The population prevalence of dry eye was 13% (95% CI, 12%-14%) in Brazil and 41% (95% CI, 39%-44%) in Mexico based on one study each. Meta-analyses suggested that dry eye prevalence was 70% among indoor workers (95% CI, 56%-80%; I2, 82%; 3 studies), 71% among students (95% CI, 65%-77%; I2, 92%; 3 studies), and 83% in general ophthalmology clinics (95% CI, 77%-88%; I2, 88%; 2 studies). MGD prevalence ranged from 23% among indoor workers (95% CI, 16%-31%; 1 study) to 68% in general ophthalmology clinics (95% CI, 62%-72%; 1 study). No studies reported incidence of dry eye or MGD. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated considerable variation in the published prevalence of dry eye and MGD among the general population and subpopulations in Central and South America. Local and subpopulation estimates of dry eye disease burden may be valuable to assist needs assessments and implementation of measures to mitigate the condition.

Interventions for Dry Eye: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Importance: Dry eye is a common ocular disease that can have substantial morbidity. Systematic reviews provide evidence for dry eye interventions and can be useful for patients, clinicians, and clinical guideline developers. Overviews of reviews use explicit and systematic methods to synthesize findings from multiple systematic reviews, but currently, there are no overviews of systematic reviews investigating interventions for dry eye. Objective: To summarize the results of reliable systematic reviews of dry eye interventions and to highlight the evidence gaps identified. Evidence Review: We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite database and included reliable systematic reviews evaluating dry eye interventions published from 2016 to 2022. We reported the proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable with reasons for unreliability. Critical and important outcomes from reliable systematic reviews were extracted and verified. Critical outcomes included dry eye-related patient-reported outcome measures. Results were synthesized from reliable systematic reviews to provide summaries of evidence for each intervention. Evidence for each intervention was defined as conclusive or inconclusive depending on whether high-certainty evidence across systematic reviews was available according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria and whether findings reached statistical or clinical significance. Recommendations were made for further research. Findings: Within the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite database, 138 potentially relevant systematic reviews were identified, 71 were considered eligible, and 26 (37%) were assessed as reliable. Among reliable systematic reviews, no conclusive evidence was identified for any dry eye intervention. Inconclusive evidence suggested that environmental modifications, dietary modifications, artificial tears and lubricants, punctal occlusion, intense pulsed light therapy, vectored thermal pulsation therapy (Lipiflow), topical corticosteroids, topical cyclosporine A, topical secretagogues, and autologous serum may be effective. Only unreliable systematic reviews evaluated lifitegrast, oral antibiotics, and moisture chamber devices. Conclusions and Relevance: This overview of systematic reviews found some evidence that dry eye interventions may be effective, but no conclusive evidence was available. The conduct and reporting of most systematic reviews for dry eye interventions warrant improvement, and reliable systematic reviews are needed to evaluate lifitegrast, oral antibiotics, and moisture chamber devices.

Prolonged facemask wearing among hospital workers and dry eye - a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged facemask wearing may have negatively affected essential workers with dry eye. We conducted a mixed-methods study to examine and understand the associations of the ocular surface, periocular environment, and dry eye-related symptoms among hospital workers across the job spectrum with prolonged facemask use. METHODS: We recruited clinical and non-clinical hospital workers with self-reported symptoms of dry eye and prolonged facemask use. We measured symptoms using the 5-item Dry Eye Questionnaire and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). Objective ocular signs included corneal and conjunctival staining, fluorescein tear break up time (TBUT), meibography, tear film interferometry, and periocular humidity. We compared symptoms and signs across levels of periocular humidity, dry eye severity, facemask type, and job type. Participants with moderate or severe dry eye symptoms (OSDI > = 23) were invited for a semi-structured, one-on-one interview. RESULTS: We enrolled 20 clinical and 21 non-clinical hospital workers: 27% were 40 years or older, 76% were female, 29% reported a race other than White, and 20% were Hispanic. Seventeen individuals participated in the semi-structured interviews. From the quantitative analyses, we found that 90% of participants reported worsened severity of dry eye at work due to facemasks. Although wearing facemasks resulted in higher periocular humidity levels compared with not wearing facemasks, 66% participants reported increased airflow over their eyes. Findings from the qualitative interviews supported the finding that use of facemasks worsened dry eye symptoms, especially when facemasks were not fitted around the nose. The data did not suggest that non-clinical hospital workers experienced a greater impact of dry eye than clinical workers. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers and patients with dry eye should be educated about the discomfort and the ocular surface health risks associated with inadequately fitted facemasks. Wearing a fitted facemask with a pliable nose wire appears to mitigate the upward airflow.

Lens extraction versus laser peripheral iridotomy for acute primary angle closure.

BACKGROUND: Acute primary angle closure (APAC) is a potentially blinding condition. It is one of the few ophthalmic emergencies and carries high rates of visual morbidity in the absence of timely intervention. Laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) has been the standard of care thus far. However, LPI does not eliminate the long-term risk of chronic angle closure glaucoma and other associated sequelae. There has been increasing interest in lens extraction as the primary treatment for the spectrum of primary angle closure disease, and it is as yet unclear whether these results can be extrapolated to APAC, and whether lens extraction provides better long-term outcomes. We therefore sought to evaluate the effectiveness of lens extraction in APAC to help inform the decision-making process.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of lens extraction compared to LPI in the treatment of APAC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE E-pub Ahead of Print, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to 10 January 2022), Embase (January 1947 to 10 January 2022), PubMed (1946 to 10 January 2022), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to 10 January 2022), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search. We last searched the electronic databases on 10 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing lens extraction against LPI in adult participants ( ≥ 35 years) with APAC in one or both eyes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for prespecified outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies conducted in Hong Kong and Singapore, comprising 99 eyes (99 participants) of predominantly Chinese origin. The two studies compared LPI with phacoemulsification performed by experienced surgeons. We assessed that both studies were at high risk of bias. There were no studies evaluating other types of lens extraction procedures.  Phacoemulsification may result in an increased proportion of participants with intraocular pressure (IOP) control compared with LPI at 18 to 24 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.15; 2 studies, n = 97; low certainty evidence) and may reduce the need for further IOP-lowering surgery within 24 months (RR 0.07, 96% CI 0.01 to 0.51; 2 studies, n = 99; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may result in a lower mean IOP at 12 months compared to LPI (mean difference (MD) -3.20, 95% CI -4.79 to -1.61; 1 study, n = 62; low certainty evidence) and a slightly lower mean number of IOP-lowering medications at 18 months (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.46; 1 study, n = 60; low certainty evidence), but this may not be clinically significant. Phacoemulsification may have little to no effect on the proportion of participants with one or more recurrent APAC episodes in the same eye (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.30; 1 study, n = 37; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may result in a wider iridocorneal angle assessed by Shaffer grading at six months (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.47; 1 study, n = 62; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may have little to no effect on logMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at six months (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.02; 2 studies, n = 94; very low certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the extent of peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) (clock hours) between intervention arms at 6 months (MD -1.86, 95% CI -7.03 to 3.32; 2 studies, n = 94; very low certainty evidence), although the phacoemulsification group may have less PAS (degrees) at 12 months (MD -94.20, 95% CI -140.37 to -48.03; 1 study, n = 62) and 18 months (MD -127.30, 95% CI -168.91 to -85.69; 1 study, n = 60).  In one study, there were 26 adverse events in the phacoemulsification group: intraoperative corneal edema (n = 12), posterior capsular rupture (n = 1), intraoperative bleeding from iris root (n = 1), postoperative fibrinous anterior chamber reaction (n = 7), and visually significant posterior capsular opacification (n = 5), and no cases of suprachoroidal hemorrhage or endophthalmitis. There were four adverse events in the LPI group: closed iridotomy (n = 1) and small iridotomies that required supplementary laser (n = 3). In the other study, there was one adverse event in the phacoemulsification group (IOP > 30 mmHg on day 1 postoperatively (n = 1)), and no intraoperative complications. There were five adverse events in the LPI group: transient hemorrhage (n = 1), corneal burn (n = 1), and repeated LPI because of non-patency (n = 3).  Neither study reported health- or vision-related quality of life measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low certainty evidence suggests that early lens extraction may produce more favorable outcomes compared to initial LPI in terms of IOP control. Evidence for other outcomes is less clear. Future high-quality and longer-term studies evaluating the effects of either intervention on the development of glaucomatous damage and visual field changes as well as health-related quality of life measures would be helpful.

Non-biologic, steroid-sparing therapies for non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated in the posterior structures of the eye. Because NIIPPU is typically a chronic condition, people with NIIPPU frequently require treatment with steroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy. Methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and tacrolimus are non-biologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) which have been used to treat people with NIIPPU. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) in the treatment of NIIPPU in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, most recently on 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) with placebo, standard of care (topical steroids, with or without oral steroids), or with each other. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with a total of 601 participants in this review. DMARDs versus control Two studies compared an experimental DMARD (cyclosporine A or enteric-coated mycophenolate [EC-MPS]) plus oral steroid with steroid monotherapy. We did not pool these results into a meta-analysis because the dose of cyclosporine used was much higher than that used in current clinical practice. The evidence is very uncertain about whether EC-MPS plus low-dose oral steroid results in a higher proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation over steroid monotherapy (risk ratio [RR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 7.17; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was reported separately for right and left eyes. The evidence for improvement (lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) indicates better vision) between the groups is very uncertain (mean difference [MD] -0.03 and -0.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.90 and -0.27 to 0.07 for right and left, respectively; 1 study, 82 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for the following outcomes: proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity, with confirmed macular edema, or achieving steroid-sparing control. The evidence for the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication in the DMARD versus control group is very uncertain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.51; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate We were able to combine two studies into a meta-analysis comparing methotrexate versus mycophenolate mofetil. Methotrexate probably results in a slight increase in the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control, compared to mycophenolate at six months (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.50; 2 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Change in BCVA was reported per eye and the treatments likely result in little to no difference in change in vision (MD 0.01 logMAR higher [worse] for methotrexate versus mycophenolate; 2 studies, 490 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema between methotrexate versus mycophenolate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.30; 2 studies, 35 eyes; very low-certainty). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.27; 2 studies, 296 participants; low-certainty evidence). Steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A Four studies compared steroids with or without azathioprine (oral steroids, intravenous [IV] steroids, or azathioprine) to cyclosporine A. We excluded two studies from the meta-analysis because the participants were treated with 8 mg to 15 mg/kg/day of cyclosporine A, a significantly higher dose than is utilized today because of concerns for nephrotoxicity. The remaining two studies were conducted in all Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (VKH) populations and compared cyclosporine A to azathioprine or IV pulse-dose steroids. The evidence is very uncertain for whether the steroids with or without azathioprine or cyclosporine A influenced the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; 2 studies, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence), achieving steroid-sparing control (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.85, 95% 0.21 to 3.45; 2 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for improvement in BCVA (MD 0.04 logMAR lower [better] with the steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A; 2 studies, 91 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available (with current cyclosporine A dosing) for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity or with confirmed macular edema. Studies not included in synthesis We were unable to include three studies in any of the comparisons (in addition to the aforementioned studies excluded based on historic doses of cyclosporine A). One was a dose-response study comparing cyclosporine A to cyclosporine G, a formulation which was never licensed and is not clinically available. We excluded another study from meta-analysis because it compared cyclosporine A and tacrolimus, considered to be of the same class (calcineurin inhibitors). We were unable to combine the third study, which examined tacrolimus monotherapy versus tacrolimus plus oral steroid, with any group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of data regarding which DMARD is most effective or safe in NIIPPU. Studies in general were small, heterogenous in terms of their design and outcome measures, and often did not compare different classes of DMARD with each other. Methotrexate is probably slightly more efficacious than mycophenolate in achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control (moderate-certainty evidence), although there was insufficient evidence to prefer one medication over the other in the VKH subgroup (very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate may result in little to no difference in safety outcomes compared to mycophenolate.

Prevalence and Incidence of Dry Eye and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Dry eye is a common clinical manifestation, a leading cause of eye clinic visits, and a significant societal and personal economic burden in the United States. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of evaporative dry eye. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain updated estimates of the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. Study Selection: A search conducted on August 16, 2021, identified studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 16, 2021, with no restrictions regarding participant age or language of publication. Case reports, case series, case-control studies, and interventional studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The conduct of review followed a protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021256934). PRISMA guidelines were followed for reporting. Joanna Briggs Institute and Newcastle Ottawa Scale tools were used to assess risk of bias. Data extraction was conducted by 1 reviewer and verified by another for accuracy. Prevalence of dry eye and MGD were combined in separate meta-analyses using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Summary estimates from meta-analysis of dry eye and MGD prevalence with 95% CI and 95% prediction intervals (95% PI). Results: Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review. Dry eye prevalence was reported by 10 studies, dry eye incidence by 2 studies, and MGD prevalence by 3 studies. Meta-analysis estimated a dry eye prevalence of 8.1% (95% CI, 4.9%-13.1%; 95% PI, 0%-98.9%; 3 studies; 9 808 758 participants) and MGD prevalence of 21.2% (95% CI, 7.2%-48.3%; 95% PI, 0%-100%; 3 studies; 19 648 participants). Dry eye incidence was 3.5% in a population 18 years and older and 7.8% in a population aged 68 years and older. No studies reported MGD incidence. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated uncertainty about the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Population-based epidemiological studies that use consistent and validated definitions of dry eye and MGD are needed for higher-certainty estimates of dry eye and MGD prevalence and incidence in the United States.

Effectiveness of interventions for dry eye: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Dry eye is a leading cause of ocular morbidity and economic and societal burden for patients and healthcare systems. There are several treatment options available for dry eye and high-quality systematic reviews synthesise the evidence for their effectiveness and potential harms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite (CEV@US) database of eyes and vision systematic reviews for systematic reviews on interventions for dry eye. CEV@US conducted an initial search of PubMed and Embase to populate the CEV@US database of eyes and vision systematic reviews in 2007, which was updated most recently in August 2021. We will search the database for systematic reviews published since 1 January 2016 because systematic reviews more than 5 years are unlikely to be up to date. We will consider Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews eligible for inclusion. Two authors will independently screen articles. We will include studies that evaluate interventions for dry eye and/or meibomian gland dysfunction with no restriction on types of participants or review language. We will select reliable systematic reviews (ie, those meeting pre-established methodological criteria) for inclusion, assessed by one investigator and verified by a second investigator. We will extract ratings of the certainty of evidence from within each review. We will report the degree of overlap for systematic reviews that answer similar questions and include overlapping primary studies. We will present results of the overview in alignment with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Online Chapter 5: Overviews of Reviews), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and an overview of reviews quality and transparency checklist. The anticipated start and completion dates for this overview are 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This overview will not require the approval of an Ethics Committee because it will use published studies. We will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021279880.

Prevalence and incidence of dry eye in the USA: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dry eye is a multifactorial chronic condition characterised by tear film insufficiency and instability, and ocular symptoms including foreign body sensation, itching, irritation, soreness and visual disturbance. The prevalence and incidence of dry eye are major determinants of the magnitude of economic and societal costs of the disease. This protocol proposes a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence and incidence of dry eye in the USA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Working with an information specialist, we will develop search strategies for Ovid Medline and Embase for population-based cross-sectional and cohort studies involving US-based populations that report the prevalence and/or incidence of dry eye. We will include studies involving persons of all ages from 1 January 2010 to the current date with no language restrictions. We will also hand-search references of included studies, dry eye epidemiology-related systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and literature provided by agencies and organisations. Two investigators will independently screen the titles and abstracts, and then full-text reports to determine eligibility. One investigator will extract study data and perform risk of bias assessments using tools designed specifically for prevalence and incidence studies. A second investigator will verify all extracted study data and risk of bias assessments. We will assess heterogeneity, qualitatively and quantitatively. When appropriate, we will meta-analyse prevalence and incidence estimates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require approval by an ethics committee because it will use published studies. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal and present at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021256934.

Intraocular pressure and circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness in the Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing (NICOLA): distributions and associations.

AIMS: To describe the distributions of and associations with intraocular pressure (IOP) and circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (cRNFL) thickness in a population-based study. METHODS: Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing participants underwent a computer-assisted personal interview, a self-completion questionnaire and a health assessment (HA). At the HA, participants underwent IOP measurement using Ocular Response Analyser and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography with Heidelberg Spectralis. Participants also underwent a range of anthropometric, ophthalmic, cardiovascular, cognition and blood tests. Participants who attended the HA and had a vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) measurement in at least one eye were eligible for the study. Participants without any IOP or cRNFL measurements were excluded from the respective analyses. RESULTS: There were 3221 participants eligible for this study (5753 eyes included in the IOP analysis and 5461 eyes included in the cRNFL analysis). The mean (SD) Goldmann correlated IOP (IOPg) was 15.39 mm Hg (3.55 mm Hg). The mean (SD) average global cRNFL thickness was 94.39 µm (11.18 µm). Increased IOPg was associated with increased age, male sex, hypertension, refractive error (myopic decrease in spherical equivalent) and increased corneal resistance factor, while beta-blocker drug use was associated with lower IOPg in the fully adjusted multivariate analysis. Thinner average global cRNFL was associated with Alzheimer's disease in the age-adjusted and sex-adjusted model. In the fully adjusted multivariate analysis, increased age, male sex, left eyes, hypertension, increased VCDR, refractive error (myopic decrease in spherical equivalent) and increased IOPg were associated with thinner average global cRNFL, while Parkinson's disease and current (vs never) smoking status were associated with thicker average global cRNFL. CONCLUSIONS: Increased IOP and reduced cRNFL were associated with increased age, myopic refractive error, male sex and hypertension. Alzheimer's disease was associated with thinner average global cRNFL, while Parkinson's disease was associated with thicker average global cRNFL.

Glaucoma in the Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing (NICOLA): cohort profile, prevalence, awareness and associations.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study aimed to describe the cohort profile of the Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing (NICOLA) and to report the prevalence of, awareness of and associations with glaucoma. METHODS: Using geographic stratification, a representative sample of non-institutionalised Northern Irish adults aged over 50 years was invited to participate. NICOLA participants underwent a Computer-Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI), a Self-Completion Questionnaire (SCQ) and a health assessment. The CAPI and SCQ collected comprehensive sociodemographic and health-related data. At the health assessment, participants underwent optic disc stereophotography, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement using ocular response analyser (ORA), autorefraction, spectral domain optical coherence tomography and self-reported history of glaucoma. We invited NICOLA participants suspected of having glaucoma due to optic disc appearance or raised IOP for clinical examination by a glaucoma expert and perimetry. Epidemiological definitions by the International Society Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology were used to define glaucoma. RESULTS: Of 3221 NICOLA participants (mean age 64.4, SD 8.5, female sex 51.7%) who attended the health assessment component of the NICOLA study (and had a vertical cup to disc ratio measurement in at least one eye), 91 participants had glaucoma. Overall, the crude prevalence of glaucoma was 2.83% (95% CI 2.31% to 3.46%) and 67% of affected individuals did not give a self-reported history of glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of glaucoma in Northern Ireland is comparable with other population-based studies of European populations. Approximately two-thirds of people with glaucoma were undiagnosed.

Comparison of Goldmann applanation and Ocular Response Analyser tonometry: intraocular pressure agreement and patient preference.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the agreement between Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Ocular Response Analyser (ORA) intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, and patients' preferences. METHODS: Both eyes of participants in the 'Glaucoma within the Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing' (GwNICOLA) were included. Participants underwent GAT by a glaucoma expert and ORA tonometry in a random order. Investigators were masked to measurements between devices. Participants were asked which tonometer, if any, they would prefer. We estimated the 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA) and the variables that influence agreement between tonometers. RESULTS: There were 228 eyes of 120 participants included in this study. Mean age of participants was 68.0 years (SD 8.79) and 52.5% were female. For GAT-ORA IOPcc the mean difference with GAT (95% CI) was -0.23 mmHg (-0.57 mmHg, 0.11 mmHg) and the 95% LoA (95% CIs) were from 4.82 mmHg (5.15 mmHg, 4.48 mmHg) to -5.28 mmHg (-5.61 mmHg, -4.94 mmHg). 40.8% of eyes had an IOP difference of 2 mmHg or more between GAT and ORA IOPcc. Corneal resistance factor (CRF) as estimated by ORA influenced the agreement between GAT and ORA IOPcc. There were no differences in preference for method of tonometry. CONCLUSIONS: Although ORA IOPcc measurements with ORA did not show significant bias compared with GAT, the relatively large proportion of measurement differences between ORA IOPcc and GAT that were >2 mmHg indicates that GAT and ORA IOP measurements may not be interchangeable. There were no differences in preference for method of tonometry.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Spectral-Domain OCT Circumpapillary, Optic Nerve Head, and Macular Parameters in the Detection of Perimetric Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cRNFL), optic nerve head, and macular parameters for the detection of glaucoma using Heidelberg Spectralis OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Inc., Heidelberg, Germany). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants of the Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing with a vertical cup-to-disc ratio of 0.7 or more, vertical cup-to-disc ratio asymmetry of 0.2 or more, vertical neuroretinal rim ratio of 0.1 or less, intraocular pressure of 25 mmHg or more, or a combination thereof were invited to the study. METHODS: Participants underwent clinical examination by a masked glaucoma expert and full-threshold visual field testing to define glaucoma. Five index tests were performed: (1) standard cRNFL thickness, (2) macular Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scans, (3) macular posterior pole asymmetry analysis (PPAA) scans, (4) Bruch's membrane opening minimum rim width (BMO MRW), and (5) Glaucoma Module Premium Edition (GMPE) cRNFL Anatomic Positioning System (APS) scans. We analyzed the eye with more advanced disease per participant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve; area under the ROC curve (AUC); and partial AUC (pAUC) at specificity of 0.80 to 1, 0.90 to 1, and 0.95 to 1. Sensitivity at 0.95 specificity and specificity at 0.95 sensitivity were reported. Primary analysis included all available scans. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight eyes from 128 participants were enrolled (52 eyes with perimetric glaucoma and 76 eyes without glaucoma). One hundred thirteen standard cRNFL thickness scans; 107 GMPE cRNFL APS 3.5-mm, 4.1-mm, and 4.7-mm scans; 107 BMO-MRW scans; 98 ETDRS scans; and 97 PPAA scans were available. Standard cRNFL mean global thickness showed highest AUC (0.869; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.800-0.938) and the highest pAUC at specificity of 0.80 to 1 (0.815; 95% CI, 0.742-0.887), at specificity of 0.90 to 1 (0.794; 95% CI, 0.713-0.875), and at specificity of 0.95 to 1 (0.765; 95% CI, 0.696-0.861). Standard cRNFL mean global thickness scans provided the highest sensitivity at 0.95 specificity (0.630), whereas ETDRS mGCL outer inferior sector provided the highest specificity at 0.95 sensitivity (0.522). CONCLUSIONS: Macular and optic nerve head OCT parameters were not better than cRNFL measurements to diagnose glaucoma in this population.

The Effect of Statins on Intraocular Pressure and on the Incidence and Progression of Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the effect of oral statins on intraocular pressure (IOP) and the incidence and progression of glaucoma. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Searches of PubMed/Medline and Embase were conducted to include all types of studies. Gray literature abstracts were also considered for inclusion. Last search date was February 2016. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale independently by two reviewers. Odds ratios (OR) or hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted from each study. Pooled ORs for incidence of glaucoma were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified seven cohort studies, three case-control studies, and one cross-sectional study with a total number of 583,615 participants. No randomized controlled trials were retrieved. Pooled ORs demonstrated a statistically significant association between short-term statin use (≤2 years) and reduced incidence of glaucoma (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.94, 0.99). Pooled ORs of long-term statin use (>2 years) did not demonstrate statistically significant reduction in incidence of glaucoma (OR 0.70, 95%CI 0.46, 1.06). There was inconsistent evidence for the protective effect of statins against the progression of glaucoma, although there was no standard definition for progression across studies. There was no significant difference in IOP associated with statin use. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term statin use is associated with a reduced incidence of glaucoma. The effect of statins on glaucoma progression and IOP is uncertain.

The safety and effectiveness of endoscopic and non-endoscopic approaches to the management of early esophageal cancer: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, management of early cancer (stages 0-IIA) has comprised esophagectomy, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Recent efforts to improve outcomes and minimize side-effects have focussed on minimally invasive, endoscopic treatments that remove lesions while sparing healthy tissue. This review assesses their safety and efficacy/effectiveness relative to traditional, non-endoscopic treatments for early esophageal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies was performed using Cochrane guidelines. Bibliographic databases searched to identify relevant English language studies published in the last 3 years included: PubMed (i.e., MEDLINE and additional sources), EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS EED, DARE and HTA) databases, EconLit and Web of Science. Web sites of professional associations, relevant cancer organizations, clinical practice guidelines, and clinical trials were also searched. Two independent reviewers selected, critically appraised, and extracted information from studies. RESULTS: The review included 75 studies spanning 3124 patients and 10 forms of treatment. Most studies were of short term duration and non-comparative. Adverse events reported across studies of endoscopic techniques were similar and less significant compared to those in the studies of non-endoscopic techniques. Complete response rates were slightly lower for photodynamic therapy (PDT) relative to the other endoscopic techniques, possibly due to differences in patient populations across studies. No studies compared overall or cause-specific survival in patients who received endoscopic treatments vs. those who received non-endoscopic treatments. DISCUSSION: Based on findings from this review, there is no single "best practice" approach to the treatment of early esophageal cancer.

Safety with access scaffolds: development of a prototype decision aid based on accident analysis.

PROBLEM: Accidents involving temporary access systems, particularly temporary scaffolds, account for a large proportion of injuries in the construction industry worldwide. METHOD: This paper outlines the development of a prototype decision aid (SCAFPASS, an abbreviation for Scaffold Planning Aid for System Safety) to promote access scaffold safety. It was guided by an examination of the root-causes and management deficiencies apparent in: (a) paper-based files of 186 access-related incidents held by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK; and (b) computer-based files of 2,910 incidents appearing in the HSE database between 1997 to 2000. RESULTS: The more frequent root-causes included the fitting of defective components, unauthorized modification of the structure, omission of barriers, and errors resulting in simple, readily detectable structural faults. Common managerial deficiencies included failure to control risk, unsafe methods and procedures, and inadequate training and supervision. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: SCAFPASS aims to avoid these root-causes by improving safety management from the outset and throughout all phases of a project.