Proof-of-concept calculations to determine the health-adjusted life-year trade-off between intravitreal anti-VEGF injections and transmission of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical ophthalmological guidelines encourage the assessment of potential benefits and harms when deciding whether to perform elective ophthalmology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to minimize the risk of disease transmission. METHOD: We performed probability calculations to estimate COVID-19 infection status and likelihood of disease transmission among neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients and health-care workers during anti-VEGF procedures, at various community prevalence levels of COVID-19. We then applied the expected burden of COVID-19 illness and death expressed through health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) lost. We compared these results to the expected disease burden of severe visual impairment if sight protecting anti-VEGF injections were not performed. RESULTS: Our calculations suggest a wide range of contexts where the benefits of treatment to prevent progression to severe visual impairment or blindness are greater than the expected harms to the patient and immediate health care team due to COVID-19. For example, with appropriate protective equipment the benefits of treatment outweigh harms when the chance of progression to severe visual impairment is >0.044% for all scenarios where COVID-19 prevalence was 1/1000, even when the attack rate in the clinical setting is very high (5-43%). CONCLUSION: Unless COVID-19 prevalence is very high, the reduced disease burden from avoiding visual impairment outweighs the expected HALYs lost from COVID-19 transmission. This finding is driven by the fact that HALYs lost when someone suffers severe visual impairment for 5 years are equivalent to nearly 400 moderate cases of infectious disease lasting 2 weeks each.

Herpes Zoster Ophthalmicus Recurrence: Risk Factors and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To examine the frequency of recurrences, risk factors, and long-term clinical outcomes in subjects with herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: All subjects with acute HZO seen at a single center from 2006 to 2016 were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was eye disease recurrence. The secondary outcome measure was moderate vision loss (≤20/50). RESULTS: A total of 869 patients with acute HZO were identified, with a median follow-up time of 6.3 years (interquartile range 3.7-8.9 years). In all, 551 recurrences were observed, and at least 1 recurrence was seen in 200 subjects (23.0%), with uveitis (34.8%) being the most common. The median time to first recurrence was 3.5 months. Predictors of disease recurrence included immunosuppression (P = .026), higher presenting intraocular pressure (P = .001), corneal involvement (P = .001), and uveitis (P < .001) on multivariate analysis. Topical steroids were initiated in the first month of presentation in 437 subjects, and recurrence was observed in 184 (42.1%) of these subjects. Following cessation of topical steroid treatment, recurrence occurred after a median of 1.4 months (90% within 7 months). Moderate vision loss (≤20/50) occurred in 15.5%, 28.6%, 31.4%, 50.0%, and 57.4% of eyes with 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 or more recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence of HZO eye disease is common, with an increased risk of vision loss with more recurrences. These findings indicate the need for close monitoring for potential recurrences, especially after cessation of topical steroid treatment, and in individuals with identified risk factors for recurrence.

Ocular manifestations of COVID-19.

There is an increasing body of knowledge regarding how COVID-19 may be associated with ocular disease of varying severity and duration. This article discusses the literature on the ocular manifestations associated with COVID-19, including appraisal of the current evidence, suggested mechanisms of action, associated comorbidities and risk factors, timing from initial infection to diagnosis and clinical red flags. The current literature primarily comprises case reports and case series which inevitably lack control groups and evidence to support causality. However, these early data have prompted the development of larger population-based and laboratory studies that are emerging. As new data become available, a better appraisal of the true effects of COVID-19 on the eye will be possible. While the COVID-19 pandemic was officially declared no longer a "global health emergency" by the World Health Organization (WHO) in May 2023, case numbers continue to rise. Reinfection with different variants is predicted to lead to a growing cumulative burden of disease, particularly as more chronic, multi-organ sequelae become apparent with potentially significant ocular implications. COVID-19 ocular manifestations are postulated to be due to three main mechanisms: firstly, there is a dysregulated immune response to the initial infection linked to inflammatory eye disease; secondly, patients with COVID-19 have a greater tendency towards a hypercoagulable state, leading to prothrombotic events; thirdly, patients with severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation and are immunosuppressed due to administered corticosteroids or comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus are at an increased risk of secondary infections, including endophthalmitis and rhino-orbital-mucormycosis. Reported ophthalmic associations with COVID-19, therefore, include a range of conditions such as conjunctivitis, scleritis, uveitis, endogenous endophthalmitis, corneal graft rejection, retinal artery and vein occlusion, non-arteritic ischaemic optic neuropathy, glaucoma, neurological and orbital sequelae. With the need to consider telemedicine consultation in view of COVID-19's infectivity, understanding the range of ocular conditions that may present during or following infection is essential to ensure patients are appropriately triaged, with prompt in-person ocular examination for management of potentially sight-threatening and life-threatening diseases.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on public sector ophthalmic work by New Zealand's ophthalmologists.

AIM: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the New Zealand government enforced a nationwide 'alert level 4' lockdown from 26 March to 27 April 2020. We assessed the impact of this lockdown on New Zealand's public ophthalmology service. METHOD: An anonymous online survey was sent to all New Zealand-based fellows of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists (RANZCO) after lockdown. Respondents provided retrospective assessment of practice patterns and their personal health during the COVID-19 lockdown. This was supported by national-level administrative data, allowing survey findings to be contextualised. RESULTS: Fifty-seven respondents (response rate 49%) working in the public health system participated. A large majority of respondents reduced elective clinic and surgical volumes by at least 75% (82% and 98%, respectively). National-level information confirmed clinic reduced to 38.2% of normal and elective operating volumes to 11.5%, with virtual visits increasing 17.9-fold. Elective clinic and elective operating volumes promptly recovered to usual volumes on the second month post lockdown. Most respondents (58%) followed the RANZCO triaging guideline, and 28% triaged emergencies only. At a personal level, respondents reported a significant physical health benefit (p<0.001) associated with the lockdown experience, but no change in mental health or social wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Publicly employed ophthalmologists experienced dramatic reductions to elective clinic and operating volumes during the COVID-19 lockdown. The prompt recovery of service delivery volumes back to pre-lockdown levels supports the value of a COVID-19 elimination strategy in New Zealand. Virtual visits for selected patients allowed ongoing management without risking virus transmission.

Clinical Reproducibility of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale for Patients With Suspected Sleep Apnea.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the reproducibility of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score in a clinical population referred for diagnostic testing with suspected obstructive sleep apnea. METHODS: A retrospective audit of patients referred for a diagnostic sleep study with suspected sleep apnea was undertaken. Data collection was two 3-month time periods from January to March in 2012 and 2014. To evaluate reproducibility, the ESS score at primary care referral was compared to the ESS score at first specialist assessment/sleep assessment. The proportion of scores changing by more than 2, 3, 5, or 7 points was determined. Data were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots and paired t tests. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (68% male) with a mean ± standard deviation age of 51 ± 13 years, body mass index 36 ± 10 kg/m2, and apnea-hypopnea index 43 ± 40 events/h were included. The average ESS score change was -0.2 with a standard deviation of 3.9 reflecting a wide scatter. A difference between the sequential ESS scores of 5 or more was seen in 21% of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical obstructive sleep apnea referral population, the ESS score was variable when administered sequentially. Given this variability the ESS should not be used as the sole tool to prioritize patients for obstructive sleep apnea assessment. COMMENTARY: A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 711.