A Case Report and Pediatric Literature Review: Povidone as a Rare Cause of Anaphylaxis in Children.

Background: Povidone, a synthetic polymer commonly used in various products such as antiseptics, cosmetics, and medications, has been associated with allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Despite its widespread use, cases of povidone-induced anaphylaxis, especially in children, are under-recognized. This case report aims to highlight the importance of considering povidone allergy in pediatric patients presenting with anaphylaxis. Case Presentation: We describe a 3-year-old boy who experienced anaphylaxis following the application of povidone-iodine antiseptic solution to a leg wound. He presented with generalized urticaria, angioedema, dyspnea, and cough. Prompt diagnosis and management were initiated in the emergency department. He experienced the second anaphylaxis with povidone-containing eye drops prescribed during an ophthalmology visit. Conclusions: Povidone allergy should be considered in pediatric patients presenting with anaphylaxis, especially those with idiopathic reactions or multiple drug allergies. Clinicians should emphasize patient education on label reading and the provision of adrenaline autoinjectors to prevent life-threatening reactions associated with povidone exposure.

Multiple use of preservative-free single dose unit dexamethasone 0.1% eye drops is safe within 24 hours.

BACKGROUND: Unpreserved single-dose unit (SDU) eye drops are commonly used to avoid benzalkonium chloride-related toxicity. Although intended for single use, many patients report off-label repeated use of SDUs over a prolonged period. We investigated whether repeated use of dexamethasone 0.1% SDUs in the same patient increases the bacterial contamination rate. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled for inpatient corneal and glaucoma surgery receiving dexamethasone 0.1% SDU four times per day from the same vial. To assess contamination rates, one drop from the vial was cultured immediately after opening the SDU (t0), 10 hours later after four drop applications (t10) and 24 hours after opening without further drop applications (t24). Conjunctival swabs were taken before and after drop application. Contamination rate was assessed with a standard clinical culturing protocol without introducing a positive control. RESULTS: 110 eyes of 109 patients were evaluated. Drops collected immediately after opening the SDU (t0) were contaminated in 9/110 cultures (8.1%). At t10, 13/110 cultures were contaminated (11.8%; p=0.267) and 11/110 at t24 (10.0%; t24 vs t0; p=1.00). In 5 of 21 cases of contaminated drops at t10 and/or t24, the same isolates were cultured from the initial conjunctival swab and the SDU. In three cases, the same bacterial species was found in consecutive samples. CONCLUSION: The contamination rate of the SDU did not increase after multiple use within 24 hours. Contamination from fingertip flora was more likely than from ocular surface flora. Reuse of dexamethasone 0.1% SDU in the same patient within 24 hours appears to be safe.

AG-920 (Articaine) Ophthalmic Solution: A Masked, Active-Controlled Evaluation of Its Local Anesthetic Efficacy and Safety in Pediatric Patients.

Purpose: The safety and efficacy of a novel topical ocular anesthetic (AG-920 sterile ophthalmic solution, 8%) was previously evaluated in adults. For both clinical and regulatory purposes, this new agent was evaluated in children. Methods: This was a Phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, single-masked, parallel-group design study in healthy pediatric subjects performed at a private practice retina clinic in the United States. The safety and anesthetic efficacy of AG-920 was compared with proparacaine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.5% in 60 children undergoing ophthalmic examinations. The primary efficacy endpoint was whether the investigator was able to perform the eye examination. Results: In all subjects in each treatment group, the investigator was able to perform the eye examination without additional local anesthetic. There were no adverse events reported in this study. In both the study eye and fellow eye, there were no notable changes after dosing, and both treatment groups were similar. All external eye exams in all subjects in both treatment groups were normal. Conclusions: In this pediatric population aged 7 months to >11 years, AG-920 was therapeutically equivalent to marketed proparacaine with respect to having an ophthalmic examination performed without needing additional local anesthetic. Further, AG-920 was well tolerated, and there were no clinically significant safety findings.

[Clinical case of anaphylaxis due to eye drops]. / Caso clínico de anafilaxia por gotas oftálmicas.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a severe systemic allergic reaction that can be life-threatening, timely diagnosis and treatment is required in these patients, one of the most frequent triggers is pharmacological. OBJECTIVE: To report the case of a patient who presented anaphylaxis due to eye drops. CASE REPORT: A 7-year-old male with a history of rhinitis and asthma with good control. It started with itchy eyes, ophthalmic drops were administered, composition: Polyethylene glycol 400, 0.4%, Propylene glycol 3 mg, polyquad 0.001%, presenting at 15 minutes an episode of anaphylaxis initially characterized by pruritus and intense conjunctival erythema, later nausea, vomiting, sweating, weakness, urticaria/facial angioedema and dyspnea were added, this episode was controlled opportunely with Levocetirizine 5 mg sublingual and Betametasona 4 mg intramuscular, progressively improving over the next 2 hours. The patient was evaluated by the Allergist, written recommendations were given to the mother in case this reaction occurred again, the use of the drops was prohibited, and the performance of skin test and a probable conjunctival provocation protocolized with the ophthalmic drops were pending. Accidentally 2 months later the patient was re-exposed with the same eye drops, presenting a similar reaction 15 minutes after the administration of the medication, they went to the emergency room where he received antihistamine and corticosteroid intravenous treatment, after this re-exposure is confirmed to the ophthalmic drops mentioned above as a trigger of anaphylaxis in this patient. CONCLUSIONS: We present a case of conjunctival anaphylaxis after application of eye drops, confirmed by re-exposure to the drug. It is essential to give diagnoses, recommendations with treatments and avoidance of the probable triggering agent of the reaction. The administration of immediate medication when the allergic episode begins in these patients can be vital, even more so when they live far from a health center, as was the case in this patient.

ANTECEDENTES: La anafilaxia es una reacción alérgica sistémica severa que puede llegar a comprometer la vida. Se requiere de un diagnóstico y tratamiento oportuno en estos pacientes, uno de los desencadenantes más frecuente es el farmacológico. OBJETIVO: Reportar el caso de un paciente que presentó anafilaxia a gotas oftálmicas. REPORTE DE CASO: Varón de siete años de edad con antecedentes de rinitis y asma con buen control. Inició con picor ocular, se le administraron gotas oftálmicas, composición: Polietilenglicol 400, 0,4%, Propilenglicol 3 mg, polyquad 0,001%, y a los 15 minutos presentó un episodio de anafilaxia caracterizado, inicialmente, por prurito y eritema conjuntival intenso; posteriormente, presentó náuseas, vómito, sudoración, debilidad, urticaria/angioedema facial y disnea. Este episodio fue controlado en el momento, con tratamiento de Levoceterizina 5 mg s.l. y Betametasona 4 mg i.m., con mejoría progresiva en las siguientes dos horas. El paciente fue evaluado por la especialidad de alergología. A su madre se dieron recomendaciones por escrito, por si se presentaba nuevamente la reacción. Se prohibió la utilización de las gotas, y quedó pendiente la realización de las pruebas cutáneas y una probable provocación conjuntival protocolizada con las gotas oftálmicas. Accidentalmente, dos meses después se reexpuso al paciente con las mismas gotas oftálmicas, y a los 15 minutos de la administración del medicamento, presentó una reacción similar, por lo que acudieron a emergencias donde recibió tratamiento antihistamínico y corticoides vía i.m.; tras esta reexposición, se confirma a las gotas oftálmicas mencionadas anteriomente, como desencadenantes de anafilaxia en el paciente. CONCLUSIONES: Presentamos un caso sobre anafilaxia por vía conjuntival tras aplicación de gotas oftálmicas, confirmado por la reexposición al fármaco. Es esencial dar diagnósticos, recomendaciones con tratamientos y evitar el probable agente desencadenante de la reacción. La administración de medicación inmediata cuando inicia el episodio alérgico en estos pacientes, puede ser vital, más aún cuando viven lejos de un centro de salud, como era el caso referenciado.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of atropine oral gel formulation in healthy volunteers.

Sialorrhea or drooling is a common problem in children and adults with neurodevelopmental disorders. It can negatively impact the quality of life due to its physical and psychological manifestations. Providers commonly prescribe atropine eye drops for topical administration to the oral mucosa, as an off-label treatment to manage sialorrhea. However, the off-label use of atropine eye drops can be associated with medication and dosing errors and systemic side effects. To address these limitations of treatment, we developed a mucoadhesive topical oral gel formulation of atropine as an alternative route to off-label administration of atropine eye drops. In this clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) study, we evaluated the safety and PK of atropine gel (0.01% w/w) formulation after single-dose administration to the oral mucosa in 10 healthy volunteers. The PK data showed that after topical administration to the oral mucosa, atropine followed a two-compartment PK profile. The maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve extrapolated to infinite time were 0.14 ng/mL and 0.74 h·ng·mL-1 , respectively. The absorption rate constant calculated by the compartmental analysis was 0.4 h-1 . Safety parameters, such as heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation, did not significantly change before and after administration of the gel formulation, and no adverse events were observed in all participants who received atropine gel. These data indicate that atropine gel formulation has a satisfactory PK profile, is well-tolerated at the dose studied, and can be further considered for clinical development as a drug product to treat sialorrhea.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Topical Ophthalmic Drugs: Review of Frequently Used Allergens in Spain. / Dermatitis alérgica de contacto a productos oftalmológicos: revisión de los alérgenos de uso frecuente en España.

Allergic contact dermatitis induced by the use of ophthalmic topical drugs is one of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis. The introduction of new formulations, both of active ingredients and excipients, and the lack of marketing in some of them, makes patch testing in patients whose source of contact are topical ophthalmic drugs truly challenging. Across this manuscript, most, if not all, topical ophthalmic drugs used in our national health system have been collected, including information on the allergens available, and the concentration and vehicle advised for those that still remain unavailable.

Efficacy and Safety of CSF-1 (0.4% Pilocarpine Hydrochloride) in Presbyopia: Pooled Results of the NEAR Phase 3 Randomized, Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSF-1 (0.4% pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution) for use in individuals with presbyopia. METHODS: Two Phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials were conducted in 35 private ophthalmology clinics in the United States from October 2020 to February 2022. Key inclusion criteria were the following: (1) age 45-64 years, (2) distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm ≥0.40 and ≤0.90 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR, approximately 20/50-20/160 Snellen) in at least 1 eye, (3) manifest refraction (MR) between -4.50 and +2.00 diopter (D) sphere in each eye with ≤2.00D difference between eyes, (4) <2.00D of cylinder MR in each eye, (5) ≤0.04 logMAR (20/20-2 or better) corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at 4 m in each eye. Key exclusion criteria were the following: (1) >0.14 logMAR (7 letters) improvement in post-vehicle treatment in monocular DCNVA in either eye at visit 1, (2) introcular pressure (IOP) <9 or >22 mm Hg, (3) average dark-adapted pupillometry <3.5 mm in either eye, (4) prior refractive surgery or intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Participants applied CSF-1 or vehicle twice per day for 2 weeks. Efficacy and safety assessments were performed at several times on days 1, 8, and 15. Response was defined as ≥3-line gain in DCNVA without loss of ≥1-line in CDVA in the study eye under mesopic room lighting conditions. The primary efficacy endpoint was measured 1 hour post-dose 1 on day 8. Key secondary endpoints were 2 hours post-dose 1, and 1 and 2 hours post-dose 2, also on day 8. Safety endpoints were ocular and non-ocular treatment-related adverse events (TRAE), conjunctival redness, drop comfort, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure, indirect fundoscopy, and CDVA at 4 m. FINDINGS: Six hundred thirteen participants were randomized to CSF-1 (n = 309) or vehicle (n = 304). Participants were predominantly White (80.8%) and female (62.0%), with mean age (standard deviation) of 54.7 (4.8). CSF-1 met the primary and key secondary endpoints. At the primary endpoint, 40.1% of the CSF-1 group achieved response versus 19.1% of the vehicle group (P < 0.0001). The percentage of responders was significantly greater in CSF-1 compared with vehicle at all tested times. Changes from baseline in all safety endpoints were comparable between groups. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild and transient. Neither serious nor severe AEs were reported with CSF-1. IMPLICATIONS: CSF-1, a low-dose pilocarpine ophthalmic solution, demonstrated superiority to vehicle in improving near vision in individuals with presbyopia without compromising distance vision. CSF-1 demonstrated a favorable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04599933 (NEAR-1), NCT04599972 (NEAR-2).

Symptomatic Netarsudil-Induced Verticillata.

This case report discusses a diagnosis of bilateral corneal verticillata in a woman aged 80 years who was using netarsudil eye drops for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma.

Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma and autologous-serum eye drops for dry eye in primary Sjögren's syndrome: a randomized trial.

We compared the efficacy and safety of autologous-serum (AS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) eye drops for dry eye (DE) treatment in primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS). This prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical study included patients diagnosed with primary SS DE. Thirty-eight participants were randomly assigned to the AS or PRP groups. Corneal and conjunctival staining scores, Schirmer I test, tear film break-up time (TBUT), and ocular surface disease index (OSDI) scores were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks. Conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) metaplasia grade and goblet cell density grade at 12 weeks were compared with those at baseline. Corneal and conjunctival staining scores and TBUT significantly improved at 4 and 12 weeks in both groups (all p < 0.005). No significant difference between the AS and PRP groups was observed at 4 and 12 weeks. The Schirmer I values, OSDI scores, CIC metaplasia grade, and goblet cell density grade did not significantly change at 4 and 12 weeks in either group. Both AS and PRP eye drops are effective for primary SS DE without a significant difference. Considering that the preparation time of PRP is shorter than that of AS, PRP can be a good alternative treatment for primary SS DE.

Steroid-induced glaucoma: an avoidable cause of irreversible blindness.

A man in his 70s on regular follow-up with an ophthalmologist for 10 years presented with blurry vision in his right eye for 4 days. He was diagnosed with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) bilaterally 18 months earlier and treated with antiglaucoma eye-drops. On direct questioning, he admitted to using fixed combination tobramycin 0.3%/dexamethasone 0.1% eye-drops frequently to relieve ocular redness and discomfort in both eyes for 3.5 years without his ophthalmologist's knowledge. Examination disclosed markedly elevated IOP, advanced optic disc cupping and tunnel vision due to steroid-induced glaucoma bilaterally. After cessation of the eye-drops and 2 weeks of antiglaucoma therapy, his IOP returned to normal and his visual field remained stable for 4 years.Our case highlights the danger of habitual self-treatment of prescription medications containing corticosteroids and the importance of taking a detailed medication history in the diagnosis and management of steroid-induced glaucoma.

Efficacy and Safety of the Melanocortin Pan-Agonist PL9643 in a Phase 2 Study of Patients with Dry Eye Disease.

Purpose: The melanocortin receptor pan-agonist PL9643, a potential therapy for ocular diseases, was investigated in a phase 2, 12-week study in patients with dry eye disease (DED). Methods: This was a placebo-controlled study evaluating efficacy and safety of thrice-daily PL9643. Placebo (vehicle) was similar to tears. Primary endpoints were intra-patient changes in inferior corneal fluorescein staining and ocular discomfort after 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were changes in additional DED signs or symptoms. Multiple secondary endpoints were not adjusted for multiplicity. Patients with moderate or severe DED were analyzed in addition to the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: In the ITT population (n = 160) the PL9643 group did not demonstrate significant treatment difference versus placebo at week 12/day 85 for the primary endpoints (P > 0.05). In patients with moderate or severe DED (n = 53), PL9643 treatment demonstrated either nominally significant (P < 0.05) or trending (P < 0.1) improvement over placebo in mean change from baseline at week 12/day 85 in several sign endpoints, including fluorescein staining in inferior, superior, corneal sum, and total sum regions; Lissamine Green staining in temporal, nasal, conjunctival sum, and total sum regions; and tear film breakup time. Conjunctival redness also showed (nonsignificant) improvement at week 12/day 85. There were no drug-related adverse events (AEs) and no drug-related discontinuations. Conclusions: PL9643 showed no significant efficacy for the ITT population; however, efficacy results across several signs and symptoms in the subpopulation of moderate to severe DED patients, the low number of ocular AEs, and no tolerability issues suggest that PL9643 shows promise as a therapeutic for DED. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04268069.

Incidence of Adverse Events Induced by Atropine in Myopic Children: A Meta-Analysis.

A large number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose atropine in preventing or slowing myopic progression. However, it is challenging to evaluate the ocular safety from these studies. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of adverse events induced by atropine in children with myopia. We performed a systematic literature search in several databases for studies published until November 2022. The incidence of adverse events induced by atropine was pooled by a common-effect (fixed-effect) or random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to drug doses, types of adverse events, and ethnicity. A total of 31 articles were ultimately included in the study. The overall incidence of adverse events for atropine was 5.9%, and the incidence of severe adverse events was 0.0%. The most commonly reported adverse events were photophobia (9.1%) and blurred near vision (2.9%). Other adverse events including eye irritation/discomfort, allergic reactions, headache, stye/chalazion, glare, and dizziness occurred in less than 1% of the patients. The incidence of atropine-induced adverse events varied depending on the drug doses. A lower dose of atropine was associated with a lower incidence of adverse events. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events for low-dose atropine between Asian and White children. Our study suggests photophobia and blurred near vision are the most frequently reported adverse events induced by atropine. Low-dose atropine is safer than moderate- and high-dose atropine. Our study could provide a safe reference for ophthalmologists to prescribe atropine for myopic children.

Atropine Ophthalmic Solution to Reduce Myopia Progression in Pediatric Subjects: The Randomized, Double-Blind Multicenter Phase II APPLE Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the dose-response effects of low-dose atropine on myopia progression and safety in pediatric subjects with mild-to-moderate myopia. METHODS: This phase II, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of atropine 0.0025%, 0.005%, and 0.01% with placebo in 99 children, aged 6-11 years, with mild-to-moderate myopia. Subjects received 1 drop in each eye at bedtime. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in spherical equivalent (SE), while secondary endpoints included changes in axial length (AL) and near logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) visual acuity and adverse effects. RESULTS: The mean±SD changes in SE from baseline to 12 months in the placebo and atropine 0.0025%, 0.005%, and 0.01% groups were -0.55±0.471, -0.55±0.337, -0.33±0.473, and -0.39±0.519 D, respectively. The least squares mean differences (atropine-placebo) in the atropine 0.0025%, 0.005%, and 0.01% groups were 0.11 D ( P =0.246), 0.23 D ( P =0.009), and 0.25 D ( P =0.006), respectively. Compared with placebo, the mean change in AL was significantly greater for atropine 0.005% (-0.09 mm, P =0.012) and 0.01% (-0.10 mm, P =0.003). There were no significant changes in near visual acuity in any of the treatment groups. The most common ocular adverse events were pruritus and blurred vision, each occurring in 4 (5.5%) atropine-treated children. Changes in mean pupil size and amplitude of accommodation were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Atropine doses of 0.005% and 0.01% effectively reduced myopia progression in children but no effect was noted with 0.0025%. All doses of atropine were safe and well tolerated.

Role of ripasudil as an adjunct treatment in the management of pseudoexfoliative glaucoma.

Purpose: Ripasudil is a class of drug which alters the trabecular meshwork to increase the aqueous outflow and has been shown to be effective in pseudoexfoliative glaucoma (PXF G). This study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety profile of ripasudil as an adjunct treatment in patients with PXF G at maximal tolerated antiglaucoma medications. Methods: In this prospective, interventional study, 40 patients with PXF G were enrolled between May 2021 and Jan 2022. Ripasudil 0.4% was started as an adjunctive drug to the ongoing antiglaucoma medications. On follow-up visits at 1, 3, and 6 months, the visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), anterior segment, and fundus findings were evaluated. The premedication and postmedication IOP values were compared by paired t-test, and a P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Average age at recruitment was 60.02 ± 8.74 years. Baseline premedication IOP was 25.375 ± 3.276 mmHg. IOP reduction at 6 months was found to be statistically significant in all patients, with the maximal response being 24.13%. Also, 87.5% (35/40) of patients reached target IOP or even lower IOP at the end of study. There was no statistically significant association between the PXF grade and IOP. However, the grade of inferior iridocorneal angle pigmentation was found to be higher in eyes with elevated IOP (P < 0.05). Only three patients developed conjunctival hyperemia as an adverse reaction, which was mild and transient. Conclusion: Ripasudil showed additional IOP-lowering effect with other antiglaucoma medications and exhibited no significant side effects.

Contact Dermatitis to Ophthalmic Solutions: An Update.

Eyelid and periorbital dermatitis remains a distressing and recalcitrant disease. Contact dermatitis remains the most common cause of eyelid and periorbital dermatitis. Ophthalmic solutions used in the treatment of ophthalmic conditions can often be the cause. This article is an update of our previous study, summarizing the contact allergens involved and the new test concentrations reported to investigate through patch testing. New insights found during the review are also documented.

Efficacy and safety of atropine in myopic children: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of atropine for childhood myopia and further explore the optimal concentration of atropine, so as to provide more reference for clinical application. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to October 14, 2021. The efficacy outcomes were progression of spherical equivalent (SE) and axial length (AL). The safety outcomes included accommodation amplitude, pupil size and adverse effects. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs involving 3002 eyes were included. The results showed that at 6-36 months of treatment, atropine was effective in slowing the progression of myopia in children. At 12 months, the WMD of SE and AL of low-dose atropine was 0.25 diopters (D) and 0.1 millimeter (mm), moderate-dose atropine was 0.44 D and 0.16mm, high-dose atropine was 1.21 D and 0.82mm, respectively, compared with the control group. Similarly, at 24 months, low-dose atropine was 0.22 D and 0.14mm, moderate-dose atropine was 0.60 D, high-dose atropine was 0.66 D and 0.24mm, respectively. Interestingly, we also found that there was no significant difference in the effects of low-dose atropine on accommodation amplitude and photopic pupil size compared with the control group, and the rate of photophobia, allergy, blurred vision and other side effects was similar between the low-dose atropine group and the control group. In addition, atropine appears to be more effective in myopic children in China than in other countries. CONCLUSIONS: Atropine in various concentrations can effectively slow myopia progression in children, and its effect is dose-dependent, while low-dose atropine (0.01% atropine) appears to be safer.