Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biosimilars for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

RATIONALE: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive eye disease characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and is a leading cause of vision loss and disability worldwide. Although intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is an effective treatment option that helps to prevent vision loss or to improve visual acuity in people with neovascular AMD, treatment imposes a significant financial burden on patients and healthcare systems. A biosimilar is a biological product that has been developed to be nearly identical to a previously approved biological product. The use of biosimilars may help reduce costs and so may increase patient access to effective biologic medicines with similar levels of safety to the drugs on which they are based. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anti-VEGF biosimilar agents compared with their corresponding anti-VEGF agents (i.e. the reference products) that have obtained regulatory approval for intravitreal injections in people with neovascular AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trials registries together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was 2 June 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared approved anti-VEGF biosimilars with their reference products for treating the eyes of adult participants (≥ 50 years) who had an active primary or recurrent choroidal neovascularization lesion secondary to neovascular AMD. OUTCOMES: Our outcomes were: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), vision-related quality of life, serious ocular and non-ocular adverse events (AE), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and serum concentrations of biosimilars and reference drugs. RISK OF BIAS: We assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for seven outcomes reported in a summary of findings table by using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analysis, where possible, by calculating risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we summarized the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for prespecified outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included nine parallel-group multi-center RCTs that enrolled a total of 3814 participants (3814 participating eyes), with sample sizes that ranged from 160 to 705 participants per study. The mean age of the participants in these studies ranged from 67 to 76 years, and the proportion of women ranged from 26.5% to 58.7%. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) was the reference product in seven studies, and aflibercept (Eyelea) was the reference product in two others. All the included studies had been supported by industry. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (median 48 weeks). Five studies (56%) were conducted in multi-country settings across Europe, North America and Asia, two studies in India, and one each in Japan and the Republic of Korea. We judged all the included studies to have met high methodological standards. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: With regard to efficacy, our meta-analyses demonstrated that anti-VEGF biosimilars for neovascular AMD resulted in little to no difference compared with the reference products for BCVA change at 8 to 12 weeks (MD -0.55 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.07; 8 studies, 3603 participants; high-certainty evidence) and the proportion of participants who lost fewer than 15 letters in BCVA at 24 to 48 weeks (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; 7 studies, 2658 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Almost all participants (96.6% in the biosimilar group and 97.0% in the reference product group) lost fewer than 15 letters in BCVA. The evidence from two studies suggested that there was no evidence of difference between biosimilars and reference products in vision-related quality of life measured by the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) summary scores at 24 to 48 weeks (MD 0.82, 95% CI -0.70 to 2.35; 2 studies, 894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). With regard to the safety profile, meta-analyses also revealed little to no difference between anti-VEGF biosimilars and the reference products for the proportion of participants who experienced serious ocular AEs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.26; 7 studies, 3292 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and for TEAEs leading to investigational product discontinuation or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.46; 8 studies, 3497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, 1.4% of participants in the biosimilar group and 1.2% in the reference product group experienced serious ocular adverse events. The most frequently documented serious ocular AEs were retinal hemorrhage and endophthalmitis. Although the evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision, meta-analysis suggested that anti-VEGF biosimilars led to no difference compared with the reference products for cumulative incidence of ADAs (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; 8 studies, 3066 participants; low-certainty evidence) or mean maximum serum concentrations (MD 0.42 ng/mL, 95% CI -0.22 to 1.05; subgroup of 3 studies, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). We judged the overall risk of bias to be low for all studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In our review, low to high certainty evidence suggests that there is little to no difference, to date, between the anti-VEGF biosimilars approved for treating neovascular AMD and their reference products in terms of benefits and harms. While anti-VEGF biosimilars may be a viable alternative to reference products, current evidence for their use is based on a limited number of studies - particularly for comparison with aflibercept - with sparse long-term safety data, and infrequent assessment of quality of life outcomes. Our effect estimates and conclusions may be modified once findings have been reported from studies that are currently ongoing, and studies of biosimilar agents that are currently in development. FUNDING: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Project is supported by grant UG1EY020522, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. Takeshi Hasegawa and Hisashi Noma were supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant numbers: 22H03554, 19K03092, 24K06239). REGISTRATION: Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015804.

Artificial intelligence for diagnosing exudative age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a retinal disorder characterized by central retinal (macular) damage. Approximately 10% to 20% of non-exudative AMD cases progress to the exudative form, which may result in rapid deterioration of central vision. Individuals with exudative AMD (eAMD) need prompt consultation with retinal specialists to minimize the risk and extent of vision loss. Traditional methods of diagnosing ophthalmic disease rely on clinical evaluation and multiple imaging techniques, which can be resource-consuming. Tests leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) hold the promise of automatically identifying and categorizing pathological features, enabling the timely diagnosis and treatment of eAMD. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) as a triaging tool for exudative age-related macular degeneration (eAMD). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three clinical trials registries, and Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) for gray literature. We did not restrict searches by language or publication date. The date of the last search was April 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies compared the test performance of algorithms with that of human readers to detect eAMD on retinal images collected from people with AMD who were evaluated at eye clinics in community or academic medical centers, and who were not receiving treatment for eAMD when the images were taken. We included algorithms that were either internally or externally validated or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool with revised signaling questions. For studies that reported more than one set of performance results, we extracted only one set of diagnostic accuracy data per study based on the last development stage or the optimal algorithm as indicated by the study authors. For two-class algorithms, we collected data from the 2x2 table whenever feasible. For multi-class algorithms, we first consolidated data from all classes other than eAMD before constructing the corresponding 2x2 tables. Assuming a common positivity threshold applied by the included studies, we chose random-effects, bivariate logistic models to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity as the primary performance metrics. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 36 eligible studies that reported 40 sets of algorithm performance data, encompassing over 16,000 participants and 62,000 images. We included 28 studies (78%) that reported 31 algorithms with performance data in the meta-analysis. The remaining nine studies (25%) reported eight algorithms that lacked usable performance data; we reported them in the qualitative synthesis. Study characteristics and risk of bias Most studies were conducted in Asia, followed by Europe, the USA, and collaborative efforts spanning multiple countries. Most studies identified study participants from the hospital setting, while others used retinal images from public repositories; a few studies did not specify image sources. Based on four of the 36 studies reporting demographic information, the age of the study participants ranged from 62 to 82 years. The included algorithms used various retinal image types as model input, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) images (N = 15), fundus images (N = 6), and multi-modal imaging (N = 7). The predominant core method used was deep neural networks. All studies that reported externally validated algorithms were at high risk of bias mainly due to potential selection bias from either a two-gate design or the inappropriate exclusion of potentially eligible retinal images (or participants). Findings Only three of the 40 included algorithms were externally validated (7.5%, 3/40). The summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.97) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.00), respectively, when compared to human graders (3 studies; 27,872 images; low-certainty evidence). The prevalence of images with eAMD ranged from 0.3% to 49%. Twenty-eight algorithms were reportedly either internally validated (20%, 8/40) or tested on a development set (50%, 20/40); the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98), respectively, when compared to human graders (28 studies; 33,409 images; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify significant sources of heterogeneity among these 28 algorithms. Although algorithms using OCT images appeared more homogeneous and had the highest summary specificity (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98), they were not superior to algorithms using fundus images alone (0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) or multimodal imaging (0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; P for meta-regression = 0.239). The median prevalence of images with eAMD was 30% (interquartile range [IQR] 22% to 39%). We did not include eight studies that described nine algorithms (one study reported two sets of algorithm results) to distinguish eAMD from normal images, images of other AMD, or other non-AMD retinal lesions in the meta-analysis. Five of these algorithms were generally based on smaller datasets (range 21 to 218 participants per study) yet with a higher prevalence of eAMD images (range 33% to 66%). Relative to human graders, the reported sensitivity in these studies ranged from 0.95 and 0.97, while the specificity ranged from 0.94 to 0.99. Similarly, using small datasets (range 46 to 106), an additional four algorithms for detecting eAMD from other retinal lesions showed high sensitivity (range 0.96 to 1.00) and specificity (range 0.77 to 1.00). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that an algorithm-based test may correctly identify most individuals with eAMD without increasing unnecessary referrals (false positives) in either the primary or the specialty care settings. There were significant concerns for applying the review findings due to variations in the eAMD prevalence in the included studies. In addition, among the included algorithm-based tests, diagnostic accuracy estimates were at risk of bias due to study participants not reflecting real-world characteristics, inadequate model validation, and the likelihood of selective results reporting. Limited quality and quantity of externally validated algorithms highlighted the need for high-certainty evidence. This evidence will require a standardized definition for eAMD on different imaging modalities and external validation of the algorithm to assess generalizability.

Interventions for infantile esotropia.

BACKGROUND: Infantile esotropia (IE) is the inward deviation of the eye. Various aspects of the clinical management of IE are unclear; mainly, the most effective type of intervention and the age at intervention. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and optimal timing of surgical and non-surgical treatment options for IE to improve ocular alignment and achieve or allow the development of binocular single vision. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and three trials registers (November 2021). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials and quasi-randomized trials comparing any surgical or non-surgical intervention for IE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for six outcomes using the GRADE classification. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 234 children with IE. The first study enrolled 110 children (mean age 26.9 ± 14.5 months) with an onset of esotropia before six months of age, and large-angle IE defined as esotropia of ≥ 40 prism diopters. It was conducted between 2015 and 2018 in a tertiary care hospital in South Africa. It compared a maximum of three botulinum toxin injections with surgical intervention of bimedial rectus muscle recession, and children were followed for six months. There were limitations in study design and implementation; the risk of bias was high, or we had some concerns for most domains.  Surgery may increase the incidence of treatment success, defined as orthophoria or residual esotropia of ≤ 10 prism diopters, compared with botulinum toxin injections, but the evidence was very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of treatment success 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.77; 1 study, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results should be read with caution because 23 children with > 60 prism diopters at baseline in the surgery arm also received botulinum toxin at the time of surgery to augment the recessions. There was no evidence of an important difference between surgery and botulinum toxin injections for over-correction (> 10 prism diopters) of deviation (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.37; 1 study, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or additional interventions required (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.19; 1 study, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No major complications of surgery were observed in the surgery arm, while children experienced various complications in the botulinum toxin arm, including partial transient ptosis in 9 (16.7%) children, transient vertical deviation in 3 (5.6%) children, and consecutive exotropia in 13 (24.1%) children. No other outcome data for our prespecified outcomes were reported.  The second study enrolled 124 children with onset of esotropia before one year of age in 12 university hospitals in Germany and the Netherlands. It compared bilateral recession with unilateral recession surgeries, and followed children for three months postoperatively. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that there was no evidence of an important difference between bilateral and unilateral surgeries in the presence of binocular vision (numbers with event unclear, P = 0.35), and over-correction (RR of having exotropia 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.63; 1 study, 118 participants). Dissociated vertical deviation, latent nystagmus, or both were observed in 8% to 21% of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Medial rectus recessions may increase the incidence of treatment success compared with botulinum toxin injections alone, but the evidence was very uncertain. No evidence of important difference was found between bilateral surgery and unilateral surgery.  Due to insufficient evidence, it was not possible to resolve the controversies regarding type of surgery, non-surgical intervention, or age of intervention in this review. There is clearly a need to conduct good quality trials in these areas to improve the evidence base for the management of IE.

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia.

BACKGROUND: Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among people with presbyopia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; 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 for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 March 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years of age or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence according to the GRADE classification. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven studies conducted in Europe and Turkey with a total of 331 participants. All included studies assessed visual acuity using a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR chart). Of them, six (86%) studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (the primary outcome of this review). Some studies also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 55 to 74 years. Three studies reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all of the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I2 = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study examined vision-related quality of life using the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) at six months, and suggested no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOLs (MD 1.41, 95% CI -1.78 to 4.60; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Of five studies reporting information on adverse events, two studies observed no intraoperative and postoperative complications or no posterior capsular opacification at six months. One study reported that glare and halos were similar to the preoperative measurements. One study reported that 4 (20%) and 10 (50%) participants had glare complaints at 6 months in trifocal and bifocal group, respectively (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.07; 40 participants). One study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal group and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy at one year. The certainty of the evidence for adverse events was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty of evidence that compared with bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there was no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity, quality of life, and vision-related adverse effects.

Interventions for acute non-arteritic central retinal artery occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Acute non-arteritic central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) occurs as a sudden interruption of the blood supply to the retina and typically results in severe loss of vision in the affected eye. Although many therapeutic interventions have been proposed, there is no generally agreed upon treatment regimen. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treatments for acute non-arteritic CRAO. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); 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 for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any interventions with another treatment in participants with acute non-arteritic CRAO in one or both eyes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for primary (mean change in best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA]) and secondary (quality of life and adverse events) outcomes using the GRADE classification. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 223 total participants with acute non-arteritic CRAO; the studies ranged in size from 10 to 84 participants. The included studies varied geographically: one in Australia, one in Austria and Germany, two in China, one in Germany, and one in Italy. We were unable to conduct any meta-analyses due to study heterogeneity. None of the included studies compared the same pair of interventions: 1) tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) versus intravenous saline; 2) t-PA versus isovolemic hemodilution, eyeball massage, intraocular pressure reduction, and anticoagulation; 3) nitroglycerin, methazolamide, mecobalamin tablets, vitamin B1 and B12 injections, puerarin and compound anisodine (also known as 654-2) along with oxygen inhalation, eyeball massage, tube expansion, and anticoagulation compared with and without intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA); 4) transcorneal electrical stimulation (TES) with 0 mA versus with 66% of the participant's individual electrical phosphene threshold (EPT) at 20 Hz (66%) versus with 150% of the participant's individual EPT (150%) at 20 Hz; 5) ophthalmic artery branch retrograde thrombolysis versus superselective ophthalmic artery thrombolysis; and 6) pentoxifylline versus placebo. There was no evidence of an important difference in visual acuity between participants treated with t-PA versus intravenous saline (mean difference [MD] at 1 month -0.15 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.48 to 0.18; 1 study, 16 participants; low certainty evidence); t-PA versus isovolemic hemodilution, eyeball massage, intraocular pressure reduction, and anticoagulation (MD at 1 month -0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.23; 1 study, 82 participants; low certainty evidence); and TES with 0 mA versus TES with 66% of EPT at 20 Hz versus TES with 150% of EPT at 20 Hz. Participants treated with t-PA experienced higher rates of serious adverse effects. The other three comparisons did not report statistically significant differences. Other studies reported no data on secondary outcomes (quality of life or adverse events).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current research suggests that proposed interventions for acute non-arteritic CRAO may not be better than observation or treatments of any kind such as eyeball massage, oxygen inhalation, tube expansion, and anticoagulation, but the evidence is uncertain. Large, well-designed RCTs are necessary to determine the most effective treatment for acute non-arteritic CRAO.

Medical interventions for traumatic hyphema.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic hyphema is the entry of blood into the anterior chamber, the space between the cornea and iris, following significant injury to the eye. Hyphema may be associated with significant complications that uncommonly cause permanent vision loss. Complications include elevated intraocular pressure, corneal blood staining, anterior and posterior synechiae, and optic nerve atrophy. People with sickle cell trait or disease may be particularly susceptible to increases in intraocular pressure and optic atrophy. Rebleeding is associated with an increase in the rate and severity of complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of various medical interventions in the management of traumatic hyphema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 3); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase.com; PubMed (1948 to March 2022); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The last date of the search was 22 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all reports identified by the electronic and manual searches. We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared various medical (non-surgical) interventions versus other medical interventions or control groups for the treatment of traumatic hyphema following closed-globe trauma. We applied no restrictions on age, gender, severity of the closed-globe trauma, or level of visual acuity at time of enrollment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 randomized and seven quasi-randomized studies with a total of 2969 participants. Interventions included antifibrinolytic agents (systemic and topical aminocaproic acid, tranexamic acid, and aminomethylbenzoic acid), corticosteroids (systemic and topical), cycloplegics, miotics, aspirin, conjugated estrogens, traditional Chinese medicine, monocular versus bilateral patching, elevation of the head, and bed rest. We found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity for any intervention, whether measured within two weeks (short term) or for longer periods. In a meta-analysis of two trials, we found no evidence of an effect of aminocaproic acid on long-term visual acuity (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.29) or final visual acuity measured up to three years after the hyphema (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18). Oral tranexamic acid appeared to provide little to no benefit on visual acuity in four trials (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25). The remaining trials evaluated the effects of various interventions on short-term visual acuity; none of these interventions was measured in more than one trial. No intervention showed a statistically significant effect (RRs ranged from 0.75 to 1.10). Similarly, visual acuity measured for longer periods in four trials evaluating different interventions was also not statistically significant (RRs ranged from 0.82 to 1.02). The evidence supporting these findings was of low or very low certainty. Systemic aminocaproic acid reduced the rate of recurrent hemorrhage (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60), as assessed in six trials with 330 participants. A sensitivity analysis omitting two studies not using an intention-to-treat analysis reduced the strength of the evidence (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.08). We obtained similar results for topical aminocaproic acid (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10) in two trials with 131 participants. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Systemic tranexamic acid had a significant effect in reducing the rate of secondary hemorrhage (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.53) in seven trials with 754 participants, as did aminomethylbenzoic acid (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41), as reported in one study. Evidence to support an associated reduction in risk of complications from secondary hemorrhage (i.e. corneal blood staining, peripheral anterior synechiae, elevated intraocular pressure, and development of optic atrophy) by antifibrinolytics was limited by the small number of these events. Use of aminocaproic acid was associated with increased nausea, vomiting, and other adverse events compared with placebo. We found no evidence of an effect on the number of adverse events with the use of systemic versus topical aminocaproic acid or with standard versus lower drug dose.  The number of days for the primary hyphema to resolve appeared to be longer with the use of systemic aminocaproic acid compared with no use, but this outcome was not altered by any other intervention. The available evidence on usage of systemic or topical corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or aspirin in traumatic hyphema was limited due to the small numbers of participants and events in the trials. We found no evidence of an effect between a single versus binocular patch on the risk of secondary hemorrhage or time to rebleed. We also found no evidence of an effect on the risk of secondary hemorrhage between ambulation and complete bed rest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity of any of the interventions evaluated in this review. Although the evidence was limited, people with traumatic hyphema who receive aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid are less likely to experience secondary hemorrhage. However, hyphema took longer to clear in people treated with systemic aminocaproic acid. There is no good evidence to support the use of antifibrinolytic agents in the management of traumatic hyphema, other than possibly to reduce the rate of secondary hemorrhage. The potentially long-term deleterious effects of secondary hemorrhage are unknown. Similarly, there is no evidence to support the use of corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or non-drug interventions (such as patching, bed rest, or head elevation) in the management of traumatic hyphema. As these multiple interventions are rarely used in isolation, further research to assess the additive effect of these interventions might be of value.

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.

Botulinum toxin for the treatment of strabismus.

BACKGROUND: The use of botulinum toxin as an investigative and treatment modality for strabismus is well reported in the medical literature. However, it is unclear how effective it is in comparison with other treatment options for strabismus. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to examine the efficacy of botulinum toxin therapy in the treatment of strabismus compared with alternative conservative or surgical treatment options. This review sought to ascertain those types of strabismus that particularly benefit from the use of botulinum toxin as a treatment option (such as small angle strabismus or strabismus with binocular potential, i.e. the potential to use both eyes together as a pair). The secondary objectives were to investigate the dose effect and complication rates associated with botulinum toxin. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and three trials registers on 6 July 2022, together with reference checking to identify additional studies. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing botulinum toxin with strabismus surgery, botulinum toxin alternatives (i.e. bupivacaine) and conservative therapy such as orthoptic exercises, prisms, or lens therapy for people of any age with strabismus. All relevant RCTs identified in this update compared botulinum toxin with strabismus surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 242 participants that enrolled adults with esotropia or exotropia, children with acquired esotropia, and children with infantile esotropia. The follow-up period ranged from six to 36 months. Two studies were conducted in Spain, and one each in Canada and South Africa. We judged the included studies to have a mixture of low, unclear and high risk of bias. We did not consider any of the included studies to be at low risk of bias for all domains. All four studies reported the proportion of participants who improved or corrected strabismus, defined as ≤ 10 prism diopters (PD) at six months (two studies) or ≤ 8 PD at one year (two studies). Low-certainty evidence suggested that participants treated with the surgery may be more likely to improve or correct strabismus compared with those who treated with botulinum toxin (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.99; I² = 50%; 4 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study, which enrolled 110 children with infantile esotropia, suggested that surgery may reduce the incidence of additional surgical intervention required, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 3.05, 95% CI 1.34 to 6.91; 1 study, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies conducted in Spain compared botulinum toxin with surgery in children who required retreatment for acquired or infantile esotropia. These two studies provided low-certainty evidence that botulinum toxin may have little to no effect on achieving sensory fusion (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.23; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 102 participants) and stereopsis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 102 participants) compared with surgery. Three studies reported non-serious adverse events. Partial transient ptosis (range 16.7% to 37.0%) and transient vertical deviation (range 5.6% to 18.5%) were observed among participants treated with botulinum toxin in three studies. In one study, 44.7% participants in the surgery group experienced discomfort. No studies reported serious adverse events or postintervention quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It remains unclear whether botulinum toxin may be an alternative to strabismus surgery as an independent treatment modality among certain types of strabismus because we found only low and very low-certainty evidence in this review update. Low-certainty evidence suggests that strabismus surgery may be preferable to botulinum toxin injection to improve or correct strabismus when types of strabismus and different age groups are combined. We found low-certainty evidence suggesting botulinum toxin may have little to no effect on achievement of binocular single vision compared with surgery in children with acquired or infantile esotropia. We did not find sufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions with respect to need for additional surgery, quality of life, and serious adverse events. We identified three ongoing trials comparing botulinum toxin with conventional surgeries in the varying types of strabismus, whose results will provide relevant evidence for our stated objectives. Future trials should be rigorously designed, and investigators should analyze outcome data appropriately and report adequate information to provide evidence of high certainty. Quality of life and cost-effectiveness should be examined in addition to clinical and safety outcomes.

Topical pharmacologic interventions versus placebo for epidemic keratoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75% of all causes of infectious keratoconjunctivitis worldwide. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious subset of adenoviral conjunctivitis that has been associated with large outbreaks at military installations and at medical facilities. It is accompanied by severe conjunctival inflammation, watery discharge, and light sensitivity, and can lead to chronic complications such as corneal and conjunctival scarring with discomfort and poor quality of vision. Due to a lack of consensus on the efficacy of any pharmacotherapy to alter the clinical course of EKC, no standard of care exists, therefore many clinicians offer only supportive care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pharmacological therapies versus placebo, an active control, or no treatment for adults with EKC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 27 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials in which antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or topical immune-modulating therapy was compared with placebo, an active control, or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 studies conducted in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa with a total of 892 participants who were treated for 7 days to 6 months and followed for 7 days up to 1.5 years. Study characteristics and risk of bias In most studies participants were predominantly men (range: 44% to 90%), with an age range from 9 to 82 years. Three studies reported information on trial registration, but we found no published study protocol. The majority of trials had small sample sizes, ranging from 18 to 90 participants enrolled per study; the only exception was a trial that enrolled 350 participants. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias across risk of bias domains. Findings We included 10 studies of 892 EKC participants and estimated combined intervention effects in analyses stratified by steroid-containing control treatment or artificial tears. Six trials contributed to the comparisons of topical interventions (povidone-iodine [PVP-I], trifluridine, ganciclovir, dexamethasone plus neomycin) with artificial tears (or saline). Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing trifluridine or ganciclovir with artificial tears showed inconsistent effects on shortening the mean duration of cardinal symptoms or signs of EKC. Low certainty evidence based on two studies (409 participants) indicated that participants treated with PVP-I alone more often experienced resolution of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.24) and signs (RR 3.19, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.45) during the first week of treatment compared with those treated with artificial tears. Very low certainty evidence from two studies (77 participants) suggested that PVP-I or ganciclovir prevented the development of subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) when compared with artificial tears within 30 days of treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56). Four studies compared topical interventions (tacrolimus, cyclosporin A [CsA], trifluridine, PVP-I + dexamethasone) with topical steroids, and one trial compared fluorometholone (FML) plus polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) with FML plus levofloxacin. Evidence from one trial showed that more eyes receiving PVP-I 1.0% plus dexamethasone 0.1% had symptoms resolved by day seven compared with those receiving dexamethasone alone (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.23 to 66.05; 52 eyes). In two trials, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or PVA-I plus steroid developed SEI within 15 days of treatment compared with steroid alone or steroid plus levofloxacin (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; 69 eyes). One study found that CsA was no more effective than steroid for resolving SEI within four weeks of treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; N = 88). The evidence from trials comparing topical interventions with steroids was overall of very low level certainty. Adverse effects Antiviral or antimicrobial agents plus steroid did not differ from artificial tears in terms of ocular discomfort upon instillation (RR 9.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 140.67; N = 19). CsA and tacrolimus eye drops were associated with more cases of severe ocular discomfort, and sometimes intolerance, when compared with steroids (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.15 to 18.71; 2 studies; N = 141). Compared with steroids, tacrolimus did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0 to 1.13; 1 study; N = 80), while trifluridine conferred no additional risk compared to tear substitute (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 96.49; 1 study; N = 97). Overall, bacterial superinfection was rare (one in 23 CsA users) and not associated with use of the intervention steroid (RR 3.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 84.98; N = 51). The evidence for all estimates was of low or very low certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the seven specified outcomes was of low or very low certainty due to imprecision and high risk of bias. The evidence that antiviral agents shorten the duration of symptoms or signs when compared with artificial tears was inconclusive. Low certainty evidence suggests that PVP-I alone resolves signs and symptoms by seven days relative to artificial tears. PVP-I or PVA-I, alone or with steroid, is associated with lower risks of SEI development than artificial tears or steroid (very low certainty evidence). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine whether any of the evaluated interventions confers an advantage over steroids or artificial tears with respect to virus eradication or its spread to initially uninvolved fellow eyes. Future updates of this review should provide evidence of high-level certainty from trials with larger sample sizes, enrollment of participants with similar durations of signs and symptoms, and validated methods to assess short- and long-term outcomes.

Lens extraction for chronic angle-closure glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) is characterized by a rise in intraocular pressure (IOP) secondary to aqueous outflow obstruction, with relative pupillary block being the most common underlying mechanism. There is increasing evidence that lens extraction may relieve pupillary block and thereby improve IOP control. As such, comparing the effectiveness of lens extraction against other commonly used treatment modalities can help inform the decision-making process. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of lens extraction compared with other interventions in the treatment of chronic PACG in people without previous acute angle-closure attacks. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and two trials registers (December 2019). We also screened the reference lists of included studies and the Science Citation Index database. We had no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing lens extraction with other treatment modalities for chronic PACG. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs with 914 eyes. We obtained data for participants meeting our inclusion criteria for these studies (PACG only, no previous acute angle-closure attacks), resulting in 513 eyes included in this review. The participants were recruited from a diverse range of countries. We were unable to conduct meta-analyses due to different follow-up periods and insufficient data. One study compared phacoemulsification with laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) as standard care. Participants in the phacoemulsification group were less likely to experience progression of visual field loss (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13 to 0.91; 216 eyes; moderate certainty evidence), and required fewer IOP-lowering medications (mean difference [MD] -0.70, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.51; 263 eyes; moderate certainty evidence) compared with standard care at 12 months. Moderate certainty evidence also suggested that phacoemulsification improved gonioscopic findings at 12 months or later (MD -84.93, 95% CI -131.25 to -38.61; 106 eyes). There was little to no difference in health-related quality of life measures (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.24; 254 eyes; moderate certainty evidence), and visual acuity (VA) (MD 2.03 ETDRS letter, 95% CI -0.77 to 4.84; 242 eyes) at 12 months, and no observable difference in mean IOP (MD -0.03mmHg, 95% CI -2.34 to 2.32; 257 eyes; moderate certainty evidence) compared to standard care. Irreversible loss of vision was observed in one participant in the phacoemulsification group, and three participants in standard care at 36 months (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (91 eyes) compared phacoemulsification with phaco-viscogonioplasty (phaco-VGP). Low-certainty evidence suggested that fewer IOP-lowering medications were needed at 12 months with phacoemulsification (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05). Low-certainty evidence also suggested that phacoemulsification may have improved gonioscopic findings at 12 months or later compared to phaco-VGP (angle grading MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; TISA500 MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01; TISA750 MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01; 91 eyes). Phacoemulsification may result in little to no difference in best corrected VA at 12 months (MD -0.01 log MAR units, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.08; low certainty evidence), and the evidence is very uncertain about its effect on IOP at 12 months (MD 0.50 mmHg, 95% CI -2.64 to 3.64; very low certainty evidence). Postoperative fibrin reaction was observed in two participants in the phacoemulsification group and four in the phaco-VGP group. Three participants in the phaco-VGP group experienced hyphema. No data were available for progression of visual field loss and quality of life measurements at 12 months. Two studies compared phacoemulsification with phaco-goniosynechialysis (phaco-GSL). Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be little to no difference in mean IOP at 12 months (MD -0.12 mmHg, 95% CI -4.72 to 4.48; 1 study, 32 eyes) between the interventions. Phacoemulsification did not reduce the number of IOP-lowering medications compared to phaco-GSL at 12 months (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.47; 1 study, 32 eyes; moderate certainty evidence). Three eyes in the phaco-GSL group developed hyphemas. No data were available at 12 months for progression of visual field loss, gonioscopic findings, visual acuity, and quality of life measures. Three studies compared phacoemulsification with combined phaco-trabeculectomy, but the data were only available for one study (63 eyes). In this study, low-certainty evidence suggested that there was little to no difference between groups in mean change in IOP from baseline (MD -0.60 mmHg, 95% CI -1.99 to 0.79), number of IOP-lowering medications at 12 months (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.42), and VA measured by the Snellen chart (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.12). Participants in the phacoemulsification group had fewer complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.04), and the phaco-trabeculectomy group required more IOP-lowering procedures (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.41 to 23.88), but the evidence was very uncertain. No data were available for other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence showed that lens extraction has an advantage over LPI in treating chronic PACG with clear crystalline lenses over three years of follow-up; ultimately, the decision for intervention should be part of a shared decision-making process between the clinician and the patient. For people with chronic PACG and visually significant cataracts, low certainty evidence suggested that combining phacoemulsification with either viscogonioplasty or goniosynechialysis does not confer any additional benefit over phacoemulsification alone. There was insufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding phacoemulsification versus trabeculectomy. Low certainty evidence suggested that combining phacoemulsification with trabeculectomy does not confer any additional benefit over phacoemulsification alone, and may cause more complications instead. These conclusions only apply to short- to medium-term outcomes; studies with longer follow-up periods can help assess whether these effects persist in the long term.

Oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis.

BACKGROUND: Posterior blepharitis is common and causes ocular surface and lid damage as well as discomfort. It affects 37% to 47% of all ophthalmology patients; its incidence increasing with age. It is a multifactorial disease associated with multiple other pathologies, such as rosacea, meibomianitis, and infections. Treatment usually focuses on reliefing the symptoms by using artificial tears, lid scrubs, and warm compresses. The condition may be notoriously difficult to manage adequately once it becomes chronic. One such management approach for chronic blepharitis is the use of oral antibiotics for both their antibacterial as well as anti-inflammatory properties. There are currently no guidelines regarding the use of oral antibiotics, including antibiotic type, dosage, and treatment duration, for the treatment of chronic blepharitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of oral antibiotic use for people with chronic blepharitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); 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 for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antibiotics with placebo in adult participants with chronic blepharitis (including staphylococcal, seborrhoeic, or Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for six outcomes using the GRADE classification. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 220 participants (numbers of eyes unclear). One parallel-group RCT comparing oral doxycycline (40 mg once a day) with placebo enrolled 70 participants with blepharitis and facial rosacea in the USA. Follow-up duration was three months. One three-arm RCT conducted in South Korea investigated the effect of high-dose (200 mg twice a day) and low-dose (20 mg twice a day) doxycycline versus placebo after one month of study medication. It enrolled 50 participants with chronic MGD in each study arm (i.e. 150 participants enrolled in total). The two studies did not evaluate the same outcome measurements, which precluded any meta-analysis. The evidence for the effect of oral antibiotics on subjective improvement in symptoms was very uncertain. One study suggested that there was little to no effect of oral doxycycline on subjective symptoms based on the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores ranging from 0 to 100 (higher score indicates worse condition) (mean difference (MD) 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.61 to 11.71; n = 70) and bulbar conjunctival hyperemia ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe) (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.36; n = 70) at 12 weeks. The three-arm RCT showed that oral doxycycline may slightly improve number of symptoms (MD -0.56, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.17; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.10; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)) and proportion of participants with symptom improvement (risk ratio (RR) 6.13, 95% CI 2.61 to 14.42; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); RR 6.54, 95% CI 2.79 to 15.30; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)) at one month, but the evidence is very uncertain. We judged the certainty of evidence for subjective symptoms as very low. One study evaluated aqueous tear production by Schirmer's test (mm/5 min) (higher score indicates better condition) and tear film stability by measuring tear film break-up time (TBUT) in seconds (higher score indicates better condition) at one month. We found very low certainty evidence that oral doxycycline may improve these clinical signs. The estimated MD in Schirmer's test score after one month of treatment was 4.09 mm (95% CI 2.38 to 5.80; n = 93) in the high-dose doxycycline group versus the placebo group and 3.76 mm (95% CI 1.85 to 5.67; n = 93) in the low-dose doxycycline group versus the placebo group. The estimated MD in TBUT after one month was 1.58 seconds (95% CI 0.57 to 2.59; n = 93) when comparing the high-dose doxycycline group with the placebo group, and 1.70 seconds (95% CI 0.96 to 2.44; n = 93) when comparing the low-dose doxycycline group with the placebo group. Although there was a noted improvement in these scores, their clinical importance remains uncertain. One study suggested that oral doxycycline may increase the incidence of serious side effects: 18 (39%) participants in the high-dose doxycycline group, 8 (17%) in the low-dose doxycycline group, and 3 (6%) out of 47 participants in the placebo group experienced serious side effects (RR 6.13, 95% CI 1.94 to 19.41; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); RR 2.72, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.64; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)). Additionally, one study reported that one case of migraine headache and five cases of headache were observed in the oral doxycycline group, and one case of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was observed in the placebo group. We judged the certainty of evidence for adverse events as very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions on the use of oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis. Very low certainty evidence suggests that oral antibiotics may improve clinical signs, but may cause more adverse events. The evidence for the effect of oral antibiotics on subjective symptoms is very uncertain. Further trials are needed to provide high quality evidence on the use of oral antibiotics in the treatment of chronic blepharitis.

Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus.

BACKGROUND: Keratoconus is the most common corneal dystrophy. It can cause loss of uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity through ectasia (thinning) of the central or paracentral cornea, irregular corneal scarring, or corneal perforation. Disease onset usually occurs in the second to fourth decade of life, periods of peak educational attainment or career development. The condition is lifelong and sight-threatening. Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) using ultraviolet A (UVA) light applied to the cornea is the only treatment that has been shown to slow progression of disease. The original, more widely known technique involves application of UVA light to de-epithelialized cornea, to which a photosensitizer (riboflavin) is added topically throughout the irradiation process. Transepithelial CXL is a recently advocated alternative to the standard CXL procedure, in that the epithelium is kept intact during CXL. Retention of the epithelium offers the putative advantages of faster healing, less patient discomfort, faster visual rehabilitation, and less risk of corneal haze. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of transepithelial CXL compared with epithelium-off CXL for progressive keratoconus. SEARCH METHODS: To identify potentially eligible studies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not impose any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which transepithelial CXL had been compared with epithelium-off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies with 723 eyes of 578 participants enrolled; 13 to 119 participants were enrolled per study. Seven studies were conducted in Europe, three in the Middle East, and one each in India, Russia, and Turkey. Seven studies were parallel-group RCTs, one study was an RCT with a paired-eyes design, and five studies were RCTs in which both eyes of some or all participants were assigned to the same intervention. Eleven studies compared transepithelial CXL with epithelium-off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus. There was no evidence of an important difference between intervention groups in maximum keratometry (denoted 'maximum K' or 'Kmax'; also known as steepest keratometry measurement) at 12 months or later (mean difference (MD) 0.99 diopters (D), 95% CI -0.11 to 2.09; 5 studies; 177 eyes; I2 = 41%; very low certainty evidence). Few studies described other outcomes of interest. The evidence is very uncertain that epithelium-off CXL may have a small (data from two studies were not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 92%)) or no effect on stabilization of progressive keratoconus compared with transepithelial CXL; comparison of the estimated proportions of eyes with decreases or increases of 2 or more diopters in maximum K at 12 months from one study with 61 eyes was RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.12) and RR (non-event) 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.00), respectively (very low certainty). We did not estimate an overall effect on corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA) because substantial heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 70%). No study evaluated CDVA gain or loss of 10 or more letters on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) chart. Transepithelial CXL may result in little to no difference in CDVA at 12 months or beyond. Four studies reported that either no adverse events or no serious adverse events had been observed. Another study noted no change in endothelial cell count after either procedure. Moderate certainty evidence from 4 studies (221 eyes) found that epithelium-off CXL resulted in a slight increase in corneal haze or scarring when compared to transepithelial CXL (RR (non-event) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Three studies, one of which had three arms, compared outcomes among participants assigned to transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis versus those assigned to epithelium-off CXL. No conclusive evidence was found for either keratometry or visual acuity outcomes at 12 months or later after surgery. Low certainty evidence suggests that transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis results in no difference in logMAR CDVA (MD 0.00 letter, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04; 2 studies; 51 eyes). Only one study examined gain or loss of 10 or more logMAR letters. In terms of adverse events, one case of subepithelial infiltrate was reported after transepithelial CXL with iontophoresis, whereas two cases of faint corneal scars and four cases of permanent haze were observed after epithelium-off CXL. Vogt's striae were found in one eye after each intervention. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison due to imprecision of estimates for all outcomes and risk of bias in the studies from which data have been reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of lack of precision, frequent indeterminate risk of bias due to inadequate reporting, and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported among studies in this systematic review, it remains unknown whether transepithelial CXL, or any other approach, may confer an advantage over epithelium-off CXL for patients with progressive keratoconus with respect to further progression of keratoconus, visual acuity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Arrest of the progression of keratoconus should be the primary outcome of interest in future trials of CXL, particularly when comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to CXL. Furthermore, methods of assessing and defining progressive keratoconus should be standardized. Trials with longer follow-up are required in order to assure that outcomes are measured after corneal wound-healing and stabilization of keratoconus. In addition, perioperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care should be standardized to permit meaningful comparisons of CXL methods. Methods to increase penetration of riboflavin through intact epithelium as well as delivery of increased dose of UVA may be needed to improve outcomes. PROs should be measured and reported. The visual significance of adverse outcomes, such as corneal haze, should be assessed and correlated with other outcomes, including PROs.

Artificial corneas versus donor corneas for repeat corneal transplants.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who have failed one or more full thickness penetrating keratoplasties may be offered repeat corneal surgery using an artificial or donor cornea. An artificial or prosthetic cornea is known as a keratoprosthesis. Both donor and artificial corneal transplantations involve removal of the diseased and opaque recipient cornea (or the previously failed cornea) and replacement with another donor or prosthetic cornea. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of artificial versus donor corneas in individuals who have had one or more failed donor corneal transplantations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database); 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 for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently assessed reports from the electronic searches to identify randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or consultation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For discussion purposes, we summarized findings from relevant comparative case series. We performed no data synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing artificial corneas with donor corneas for repeat corneal transplantations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management for those individuals who have failed a conventional corneal transplantation is unknown. Currently, in some centers, artificial corneal devices are routinely recommended after just one graft failure, while in other centers, they are not recommended until after multiple graft failures, or not at all. To date, there have been no controlled trials comparing the visual outcomes and complications of artificial corneal devices (particularly the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis, which is the most commonly implanted artificial corneal device) with repeat donor corneal transplantation, in order to guide surgeons and their patients. Such a trial is needed and would offer significant benefit to an ever-increasing pool of people with visual disability due to corneal opacification, most of whom are still in productive stages of their lives.

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children.

BACKGROUND: Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when one is looking at distant objects. Interventions to slow the progression of myopia in children include multifocal spectacles, contact lenses, and pharmaceutical agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions, including spectacles, contact lenses, and pharmaceutical agents in slowing myopia progression in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; the LILACS Database; and two trial registrations up to February 2018. A top up search was done in February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We excluded studies when most participants were older than 18 years at baseline. We also excluded studies when participants had less than -0.25 diopters (D) spherical equivalent myopia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 studies (6772 participants). Twenty-one studies contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. Interventions included spectacles, contact lenses, pharmaceutical agents, and combination treatments. Most studies were conducted in Asia or in the United States. Except one, all studies included children 18 years or younger. Many studies were at high risk of performance and attrition bias. Spectacle lenses: undercorrection of myopia increased myopia progression slightly in two studies; children whose vision was undercorrected progressed on average -0.15 D (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.29 to 0.00; n = 142; low-certainty evidence) more than those wearing fully corrected single vision lenses (SVLs). In one study, axial length increased 0.05 mm (95% CI -0.01 to 0.11) more in the undercorrected group than in the fully corrected group (n = 94; low-certainty evidence). Multifocal lenses (bifocal spectacles or progressive addition lenses) yielded small effect in slowing myopia progression; children wearing multifocal lenses progressed on average 0.14 D (95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; n = 1463; moderate-certainty evidence) less than children wearing SVLs. In four studies, axial elongation was less for multifocal lens wearers than for SVL wearers (-0.06 mm, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; n = 896; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluating different peripheral plus spectacle lenses versus SVLs reported inconsistent results for refractive error and axial length outcomes (n = 597; low-certainty evidence). Contact lenses: there may be little or no difference between vision of children wearing bifocal soft contact lenses (SCLs) and children wearing single vision SCLs (mean difference (MD) 0.20D, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.47; n = 300; low-certainty evidence). Axial elongation was less for bifocal SCL wearers than for single vision SCL wearers (MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.08; n = 300; low-certainty evidence). Two studies investigating rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPCLs) showed inconsistent results in myopia progression; these two studies also found no evidence of difference in axial elongation (MD 0.02mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; n = 415; very low-certainty evidence). Orthokeratology contact lenses were more effective than SVLs in slowing axial elongation (MD -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.19; n = 106; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies comparing spherical aberration SCLs with single vision SCLs reported no difference in myopia progression nor in axial length (n = 209; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical agents: at one year, children receiving atropine eye drops (3 studies; n = 629), pirenzepine gel (2 studies; n = 326), or cyclopentolate eye drops (1 study; n = 64) showed significantly less myopic progression compared with children receiving placebo: MD 1.00 D (95% CI 0.93 to 1.07), 0.31 D (95% CI 0.17 to 0.44), and 0.34 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.60), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). Axial elongation was less for children treated with atropine (MD -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.31; n = 502) and pirenzepine (MD -0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.12; n = 326) than for those treated with placebo (moderate-certainty evidence) in two studies. Another study showed favorable results for three different doses of atropine eye drops compared with tropicamide eye drops (MD 0.78 D, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.07 for 0.1% atropine; MD 0.81 D, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05 for 0.25% atropine; and MD 1.01 D, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28 for 0.5% atropine; n = 196; low-certainty evidence) but did not report axial length. Systemic 7-methylxanthine had little to no effect on myopic progression (MD 0.07 D, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.24) nor on axial elongation (MD -0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.03) compared with placebo in one study (n = 77; moderate-certainty evidence). One study did not find slowed myopia progression when comparing timolol eye drops with no drops (MD -0.05 D, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.11; n = 95; low-certainty evidence). Combinations of interventions: two studies found that children treated with atropine plus multifocal spectacles progressed 0.78 D (95% CI 0.54 to 1.02) less than children treated with placebo plus SVLs (n = 191; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported -0.37 mm (95% CI -0.47 to -0.27) axial elongation for atropine and multifocal spectacles when compared with placebo plus SVLs (n = 127; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with children treated with cyclopentolate plus SVLs, those treated with atropine plus multifocal spectacles progressed 0.36 D less (95% CI 0.11 to 0.61; n = 64; moderate-certainty evidence). Bifocal spectacles showed small or negligible effect compared with SVLs plus timolol drops in one study (MD 0.19 D, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32; n = 97; moderate-certainty evidence). One study comparing tropicamide plus bifocal spectacles versus SVLs reported no statistically significant differences between groups without quantitative results. No serious adverse events were reported across all interventions. Participants receiving antimuscarinic topical medications were more likely to experience accommodation difficulties (Risk Ratio [RR] 9.05, 95% CI 4.09 to 20.01) and papillae and follicles (RR 3.22, 95% CI 2.11 to 4.90) than participants receiving placebo (n=387; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antimuscarinic topical medication is effective in slowing myopia progression in children. Multifocal lenses, either spectacles or contact lenses, may also confer a small benefit. Orthokeratology contact lenses, although not intended to modify refractive error, were more effective than SVLs in slowing axial elongation. We found only low or very low-certainty evidence to support RGPCLs and sperical aberration SCLs.

Topical cyclosporine A therapy for dry eye syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Topical cyclosporine A (also known as ciclosporin A) (CsA) is an anti-inflammatory that has been widely used to treat inflammatory ocular surface diseases. Two CsA eyedrops have been approved by US Food and Drug Administration for managing dry eye: Restasis (CsA 0.05%, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA, USA), approved in 2002, and Cequa (CsA 0.09%, Sun Pharma, Cranbury, NJ, USA), approved in 2018. Numerous clinical trials have been performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of CsA for dry eye; however, there is no universal consensus with regard to its effect. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical CsA in the treatment of dry eye. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); 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 for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people with dry eye regardless of age, sex, severity, etiology, or classification of dry eye. We included RCTs in which different concentrations of topical CsA were compared with one another or with artificial tears, placebo, or vehicle. We also included RCTs in which CsA in combination with artificial tears was compared to artificial tears alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 RCTs (4009 participants) with follow-up periods ranging from 6 weeks to 12 months. We studied dry eye of various severity and underlying causes. The interventions investigated also varied across RCTs: CsA versus artificial tears; CsA with artificial tears versus artificial tears alone; and in some studies, more than one concentration of CsA. Artificial tears were used as adjunctive to study medication in all but five trials. Almost all trials had deficiencies in the reporting of results (e.g. reporting P values or direction only), precluding the calculation of between-group estimates of effect or meta-analysis.Eighteen trials compared topical CsA 0.05% plus artificial tears versus vehicle plus artificial tears or artificial tears alone. One trial reported subjective symptoms of dry eye at 6 months and the results were in favor of CsA (mean difference (MD) -4.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.41 to -3.19; low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported MD in ocular surface dye staining at 6 months, but the results were inconsistent in these two trials (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.01 in one and MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.10 in the other; low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported MD in Schirmer test scores at 6 months and the estimates ranged from -4.05 (95% CI -6.67 to -1.73) to 3.26 (95% CI -1.52 to 5.00) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported risk ratio (RR) of improved Schirmer test scores at 6 months; estimates ranged from 0.98 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.17) to 3.50 (95% CI 2.09 to 5.85) (low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported MD in tear film stability measured by tear break-up time at 6 months and the estimates ranged from -1.98 (95% CI -3.59 to -0.37) to 1.90 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.36) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported RR of improved tear break-up time at 6 months and the estimates ranged from 0.90 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.04) to 4.00 (95% CI 2.25 to 7.12) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported frequency of artificial tear usage at 6 months without providing any estimates of effect; the direction of effect seem to be in favor of CsA (low-certainty evidence). Because of incomplete reporting of the results data or considerable statistical heterogeneity, we were only able to perform a meta-analysis on mean conjunctival goblet cell density. Mean conjunctival goblet cell density in the CsA treated group may be greater than that in the control group at the end of follow-up at four and 12 months (MD 22.5 cells per unit, 95% CI 16.3 to 28.8; low-certainty evidence). All but two trials reported adverse events that included burning and stinging. Participants treated with CsA may be more likely to have treatment-related adverse events than those who treated with vehicle (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.78; low-certainty evidence).Other comparisons evaluated were CsA 0.05% plus artificial tears versus higher concentrations of CsA plus artificial tears (4 trials); CsA 0.05% versus placebo or vehicle (4 trials); CsA 0.1% plus artificial tears versus placebo or vehicle plus artificial tears (2 trials);CsA 0.1% cationic emulsion plus artificial tears versus vehicle plus artificial tears (2 trials); CsA 1% plus artificial tears versus placebo plus artificial tears (3 trials); and CsA 2% plus artificial tears versus placebo plus artificial tears (3 trials). Almost all of these trials reported P value or direction of effect only (mostly in favor of CsA), precluding calculation of between-group effect estimates or meta-analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widespread use of topical CsA to treat dry eye, we found that evidence on the effect of CsA on ocular discomfort and ocular surface and tear film parameters such as corneal fluorescein staining, Schirmer's test, and TBUT is inconsistent and sometimes may not be different from vehicle or artificial tears for the time periods reported in the trials. There may be an increase in non-serious, treatment-related adverse effects (particularly burning) in the CsA group. Topical CsA may increase the number of conjunctival goblet cells. However, current evidence does not support that improvements in conjunctival mucus production (through increased conjunctival goblet cells) translate to improved symptoms or ocular surface and tear film parameters. All published trials were short term and did not assess whether CsA has longer-term disease-modifying effects. Well-planned, long-term, large clinical trials are needed to better assess CsA on long-term dry eye-modifying effects. A core outcome set, which ideally includes both biomarkers and patient-reported outcomes in the field of dry eye, is needed.

Omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids for dry eye disease.

BACKGROUND: Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements, involving omega-3 and/or omega-6 components, have been proposed as a therapy for dry eye. Omega-3 PUFAs exist in both short- (alpha-linolenic acid [ALA]) and long-chain (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) forms, which largely derive from certain plant- and marine-based foods respectively. Omega-6 PUFAs are present in some vegetable oils, meats, and other animal products. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements on dry eye signs and symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, two other databases and three trial registries were searched in February 2018, together with reference checking. A top-up search was conducted in October 2019, but the results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving dry eye participants, in which omega-3 and/or omega-6 supplements were compared with a placebo/control supplement, artificial tears, or no treatment. We included head-to-head trials comparing different forms or doses of PUFAs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 RCTs, involving 4314 adult participants from 13 countries with dry eye of variable severity and etiology. Follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. Nine (26.5%) studies had published protocols and/or were registered. Over half of studies had high risk of bias in one or more domains. Long-chain omega-3 (EPA and DHA) versus placebo or no treatment (10 RCTs) We found low certainty evidence that there may be little to no reduction in dry eye symptoms with long-chain omega-3 versus placebo (four studies, 677 participants; mean difference [MD] -2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.14 to 0.19 units). We found moderate certainty evidence for a probable benefit of long-chain omega-3 supplements in increasing aqueous tear production relative to placebo (six studies, 1704 participants; MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.09 mm/5 min using the Schirmer test), although we did not judge this difference to be clinically meaningful. We found low certainty evidence for a possible reduction in tear osmolarity (one study, 54 participants; MD -17.71, 95% CI -28.07 to -7.35 mOsmol/L). Heterogeneity was too substantial to pool data on tear break-up time (TBUT) and adverse effects. Combined omega-3 and omega-6 versus placebo (four RCTs) For symptoms (low certainty) and ocular surface staining (moderate certainty), data from the four included trials could not be meta-analyzed, and thus effects on these outcomes were unclear. For the Schirmer test, we found moderate certainty evidence that there was no intergroup difference (four studies, 455 participants; MD: 0.66, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.77 mm/5 min). There was moderate certainty for a probable improvement in TBUT with the PUFA intervention relative to placebo (four studies, 455 participants; MD 0.55, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.07 seconds). Effects on tear osmolarity and adverse events were unclear, with data only available from a single small study for each outcome. Omega-3 plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone (two RCTs) For omega-3 plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone, we found low certainty evidence suggesting an intergroup difference in symptoms favoring the omega-3 group (two studies, 70 participants; MD -7.16, 95% CI -13.97 to -0.34 OSDI units). Data could not be combined for all other outcomes. Long-chain omega-3 (EPA and DHA) versus omega-6 (five RCTs) For long-chain omega-3 versus omega-6 supplementation, we found moderate certainty evidence for a probable improvement in dry eye symptoms (two studies, 130 participants; MD -11.88, 95% CI -18.85 to -4.92 OSDI units). Meta-analysis was not possible for outcomes relating to ocular surface staining, Schirmer test or TBUT. We found low certainty evidence for a potential improvement in tear osmolarity (one study, 105 participants; MD -11.10, 95% CI -12.15 to -10.05 mOsmol/L). There was low level certainty regarding any potential effect on gastrointestinal side effects (two studies, 91 participants; RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.35 to 15.54). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings in this review suggest a possible role for long-chain omega-3 supplementation in managing dry eye disease, although the evidence is uncertain and inconsistent. A core outcome set would work toward improving the consistency of reporting and the capacity to synthesize evidence.

Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis versus Repeat Donor Keratoplasty for Corneal Graft Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PK) with Boston type I keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation for full-thickness donor corneal graft failure. DESIGN: Previous donor graft failure is a common indication for both PK and KPro implantation. Selection of the surgical procedure is entirely dependent on the surgeon because there are no studies available for guidance. Therefore, a systematic review was undertaken to examine vision, device retention, graft clarity, and postoperative glaucoma and infection outcomes after repeat PK versus KPro implantation. METHODS: Articles with data regarding repeat PK published between 1990 and 2014 were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and were reviewed. Results were compared with a retrospective review of consecutive, nonrandomized, longitudinal case series of KPro implantations performed at 5 tertiary care centers in the United States. Visual acuity at 2 years was the primary outcome measure. The proportion of clear grafts in the repeat PK group, device retention in the KPro group, and the development of postoperative glaucoma and infection were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 17 128 articles in the PK analysis. After screening, 26 studies (21 case series and 5 cohort studies) were included in the review. Pooled analysis of the 26 unique studies demonstrated a 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-56%) likelihood of maintaining 20/200 or better at 2 years after repeat PK, compared with an 80% (95% CI, 68%-88%) probability with KPro implantation. The probability of maintaining a clear graft at 5 years was 47% (95% CI, 40%-54%) after repeat PK, whereas the probability of retention of the KPro at 5 years was 75% (95% CI, 64%-84%). The rate of progression of glaucoma at 3 years was 25% (95% CI, 10%-44%) after repeat PK and 30% in the KPro cohort. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate favorable outcomes of KPro surgery for donor corneal graft failure with a greater likelihood of maintaining visual improvement without higher risk of postoperative glaucoma compared with repeat donor PK.

Over the counter (OTC) artificial tear drops for dry eye syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Over the counter (OTC) artificial tears historically have been the first line of treatment for dry eye syndrome and dry eye-related conditions like contact lens discomfort, yet currently we know little regarding the overall efficacy of individual, commercially available artificial tears. This review provides a much needed meta-analytical look at all randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials that have analyzed head-to-head comparisons of OTC artificial tears. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of OTC artificial tear applications in the treatment of dry eye syndrome compared with another class of OTC artificial tears, no treatment, or placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2015, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) website (www.fda.gov). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 December 2015. We searched reference lists of included trials for any additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes randomized controlled trials with adult participants who were diagnosed with dry eye, regardless of race and gender. We included trials in which the age of participants was not reported, and clinical trials comparing OTC artificial tears with another class of OTC artificial tears, placebo, or no treatment. This review did not consider head-to-head comparisons of artificial tears with another type of dry-eye therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened the search results, reviewed full-text copies for eligibility, examined risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data. We summarized all other included trial results in the text. MAIN RESULTS: We included 43 randomized controlled trials (3497 participants with dry eye). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included trials with respect to types of diagnostic criteria, interventions, comparisons, and measurements taken, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. The review found that, in general, there was uncertainty whether different OTC artificial tears provide similar relief of signs and symptoms when compared with each other or placebo. Nevertheless, we found that 0.2% polyacrylic acid-based artificial tears were consistently more effective at treating dry eye symptoms than 1.4% polyvinyl alcohol-based artificial tears in two trials assessing this comparison (175 participants). All other included artificial tears produced contradictory between-group results or found no between-group differences. Our review also found that OTC artificial tears may be generally safe, but not without adverse events. Overall, we assessed the quality of evidence as low due to high risks of bias among included trials and poor reporting of outcome measures which were insufficient for quantitative analysis. Furthermore, we identified an additional 18 potentially eligible trials that were reported only in clinical trial registers with no associated results or publications. These trials reportedly enrolled 2079 total participants for whom no data are available. Such lack of reporting of trial results represents a high risk of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: OTC artificial tears may be safe and effective means for treating dry eye syndrome; the literature indicates that the majority of OTC artificial tears may have similar efficacies. This conclusion could be greatly skewed by the inconsistencies in study designs and inconsistencies in reporting trial results. Additional research is therefore needed before we can draw robust conclusions about the effectiveness of individual OTC artificial tear formulations.

Optic nerve head and fibre layer imaging for diagnosing glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of glaucoma is traditionally based on the finding of optic nerve head (ONH) damage assessed subjectively by ophthalmoscopy or photography or by corresponding damage to the visual field assessed by automated perimetry, or both. Diagnostic assessments are usually required when ophthalmologists or primary eye care professionals find elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) or a suspect appearance of the ONH. Imaging tests such as confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (HRT), optical coherence tomography (OCT) and scanning laser polarimetry (SLP, as used by the GDx instrument), provide an objective measure of the structural changes of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and ONH parameters occurring in glaucoma. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HRT, OCT and GDx for diagnosing manifest glaucoma by detecting ONH and RNFL damage. SEARCH METHODS: We searched several databases for this review. The most recent searches were on 19 February 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies that evaluated the accuracy of OCT, HRT or the GDx for diagnosing glaucoma. We excluded population-based screening studies, since we planned to consider studies on self-referred people or participants in whom a risk factor for glaucoma had already been identified in primary care, such as elevated IOP or a family history of glaucoma. We only considered recent commercial versions of the tests: spectral domain OCT, HRT III and GDx VCC or ECC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We adopted standard Cochrane methods. We fitted a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) model using the METADAS macro in SAS software. After studies were selected, we decided to use 2 x 2 data at 0.95 specificity or closer in meta-analyses, since this was the most commonly-reported level. MAIN RESULTS: We included 106 studies in this review, which analysed 16,260 eyes (8353 cases, 7907 controls) in total. Forty studies (5574 participants) assessed GDx, 18 studies (3550 participants) HRT, and 63 (9390 participants) OCT, with 12 of these studies comparing two or three tests. Regarding study quality, a case-control design in 103 studies raised concerns as it can overestimate accuracy and reduce the applicability of the results to daily practice. Twenty-four studies were sponsored by the manufacturer, and in 15 the potential conflict of interest was unclear.Comparisons made within each test were more reliable than those between tests, as they were mostly based on direct comparisons within each study.The Nerve Fibre Indicator yielded the highest accuracy (estimate, 95% confidence interval (CI)) among GDx parameters (sensitivity: 0.67, 0.55 to 0.77; specificity: 0.94, 0.92 to 0.95). For HRT measures, the Vertical Cup/Disc (C/D) ratio (sensitivity: 0.72, 0.60 to 0.68; specificity: 0.94, 0.92 to 0.95) was no different from other parameters. With OCT, the accuracy of average RNFL retinal thickness was similar to the inferior sector (0.72, 0.65 to 0.77; specificity: 0.93, 0.92 to 0.95) and, in different studies, to the vertical C/D ratio.Comparing the parameters with the highest diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for each device in a single HSROC model, the performance of GDx, HRT and OCT was remarkably similar. At a sensitivity of 0.70 and a high specificity close to 0.95 as in most of these studies, in 1000 people referred by primary eye care, of whom 200 have manifest glaucoma, such as in those who have already undergone some functional or anatomic testing by optometrists, the best measures of GDx, HRT and OCT would miss about 60 cases out of the 200 patients with glaucoma, and would incorrectly refer 50 out of 800 patients without glaucoma. If prevalence were 5%, e.g. such as in people referred only because of family history of glaucoma, the corresponding figures would be 15 patients missed out of 50 with manifest glaucoma, avoiding referral of about 890 out of 950 non-glaucomatous people.Heterogeneity investigations found that sensitivity estimate was higher for studies with more severe glaucoma, expressed as worse average mean deviation (MD): 0.79 (0.74 to 0.83) for MD < -6 db versus 0.64 (0.60 to 0.69) for MD ≥ -6 db, at a similar summary specificity (0.93, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.94 and, respectively, 0.94; 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95; P < 0.0001 for the difference in relative DOR). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of imaging tests for detecting manifest glaucoma was variable across studies, but overall similar for different devices. Accuracy may have been overestimated due to the case-control design, which is a serious limitation of the current evidence base.We recommend that further diagnostic accuracy studies are carried out on patients selected consecutively at a defined step of the clinical pathway, providing a description of risk factors leading to referral and bearing in mind the consequences of false positives and false negatives in the setting in which the diagnostic question is made. Future research should report accuracy for each threshold of these continuous measures, or publish raw data.

Artificial corneas versus donor corneas for repeat corneal transplants.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who have failed one or more full thickness penetrating keratoplasties (PKs) may be offered repeat corneal surgery using an artificial or donor cornea. An artificial or prosthetic cornea is known as a keratoprosthesis. Both donor and artificial corneal transplantations involve removal of the diseased and opaque recipient cornea (or the previously failed cornea) and replacement with another donor or prosthetic cornea. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of artificial versus donor corneas in individuals who have had one or more failed donor corneal transplantations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to November 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 27 November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently assessed reports from the electronic searches to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). We resolved discrepancies by discussion or consultation with a third review author. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For discussion purposes, we assessed findings from observational cohort studies and non-comparative case series. No data synthesis was performed. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any RCTs or CCTs comparing artificial corneas with donor corneas for repeat corneal transplantations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management for those individuals who have failed a conventional corneal transplantation is not known. Currently, in some centers, artificial corneal devices routinely are recommended after just one graft failure, and in others, not until after multiple graft failures, or not at all. To date, there have been no controlled trials comparing the visual outcomes and complications of artificial corneal devices (particularly the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis which is the most commonly implanted artificial corneal device) with repeat donor corneal transplantation, in order to guide surgeons and their patients. It is apparent that such a trial is needed and would offer significant benefit to an ever-increasing pool of people with visual disability due to corneal opacification, most of whom are still in productive stages of their lives.