Safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in the Netherlands (BICAT-NL study): a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In an ageing population, efficiency improvements are required to assure future accessibility of cataract care. We aim to address remaining knowledge gaps by evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). We hypothesised that ISBCS is non-inferior to DSBCS, regarding safety and effectiveness, and being superior in cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, which included participants from ten Dutch hospitals. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, underwent expected uncomplicated surgery, and had no increased risk of endophthalmitis or refractive surprise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the ISBCS (intervention) group or DSBCS (conventional procedure) group, using a web-based system stratified by centre and axial length. Participants and outcome assessors were not masked to the treatment groups because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of second eyes with a target refractive outcome of 1·0 dioptre (D) or less 4 weeks postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of -5% for ISBCS versus DSBCS. For the trial-based economic evaluation, the primary endpoint was the incremental societal costs per quality-adjusted life-year. All analyses were done by a modified intention-to-treat principle. Costs were calculated by multiplying volumes of resource use with unit cost prices and converted to 2020 Euros (€) and US$. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03400124, and is now closed for recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2018, and July 10, 2020, a total of 865 patients were randomly assigned to either the ISBCS group (427 [49%] patients; 854 eyes) or DSBCS group (438 [51%] patients; 876 eyes). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of second eyes with a target refraction of 1·0 D or less was 97% (404 of 417 patients) in the ISBCS group versus 98% (407 of 417) in the DSBCS group. The percentage difference was -1% (90% CI -3 to 1; p=0·526), thereby establishing non-inferiority for ISBCS compared with DSBCS. Endophthalmitis was not observed or reported in either group. Adverse events were comparable between groups, with only a significant difference in disturbing anisometropia (p=0·0001). Societal costs were €403 (US$507) lower with ISBCS than with DSBCS. The cost-effectiveness probability of ISBCS versus DSBCS was 100% across the willingness-to-pay range of €2500-80 000 (US$3145-100 629) per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: Our results showed non-inferiority of ISBCS versus DSBCS regarding effectiveness outcomes, comparable safety, and superior cost-effectiveness of ISBCS. National cost savings could amount to €27·4 million (US$34·5 million) annually, advocating for ISBCS if strict inclusion criteria are applied. FUNDING: Research grant from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and Dutch Ophthalmological Society.

(Pre)diabetes and a higher level of glycaemic measures are continuously associated with corneal neurodegeneration assessed by corneal confocal microscopy: the Maastricht Study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the associations between glucose metabolism status and a range of continuous measures of glycaemia with corneal nerve fibre measures, as assessed using corneal confocal microscopy. METHODS: We used population-based observational cross-sectional data from the Maastricht Study of N=3471 participants (mean age 59.4 years, 48.4% men, 14.7% with prediabetes, 21.0% with type 2 diabetes) to study the associations, after adjustment for demographic, cardiovascular risk and lifestyle factors, between glucose metabolism status (prediabetes and type 2 diabetes vs normal glucose metabolism) plus measures of glycaemia (fasting plasma glucose, 2 h post-load glucose, HbA1c, skin autofluorescence [SAF] and duration of diabetes) and composite Z-scores of corneal nerve fibre measures or individual corneal nerve fibre measures (corneal nerve bifurcation density, corneal nerve density, corneal nerve length and fractal dimension). We used linear regression analysis, and, for glucose metabolism status, performed a linear trend analysis. RESULTS: After full adjustment, a more adverse glucose metabolism status was associated with a lower composite Z-score for corneal nerve fibre measures (ß coefficients [95% CI], prediabetes vs normal glucose metabolism -0.08 [-0.17, 0.03], type 2 diabetes vs normal glucose metabolism -0.14 [-0.25, -0.04]; linear trend analysis showed a p value of 0.001), and higher levels of measures of glycaemia (fasting plasma glucose, 2 h post-load glucose, HbA1c, SAF and duration of diabetes) were all significantly associated with a lower composite Z-score for corneal nerve fibre measures (per SD: -0.09 [-0.13, -0.05], -0.07 [-0.11, -0.03], -0.08 [-0.11, -0.04], -0.05 [-0.08, -0.01], -0.09 [-0.17, -0.001], respectively). In general, directionally similar associations were observed for individual corneal nerve fibre measures. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first population-based study to show that a more adverse glucose metabolism status and higher levels of glycaemic measures were all linearly associated with corneal neurodegeneration after adjustment for an extensive set of potential confounders. Our results indicate that glycaemia-associated corneal neurodegeneration is a continuous process that starts before the onset of type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed to investigate whether early reduction of hyperglycaemia can prevent corneal neurodegeneration.

Tear biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease screening and diagnosis (the TearAD study): design and rationale of an observational longitudinal multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia, and due to increasing life expectancy the number of patients is expected to grow. The diagnosis of AD involves the use of biomarkers determined by an amyloid PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analyses that are either invasive or expensive, and not available in each hospital, thus limiting their usage as a front-line screener. The TearAD study aims to use tear fluid as a potential source for AD biomarkers. In previous reports, we demonstrated that AD biomarkers amyloid-beta and tau, are measurable in tear fluid and are associated with disease severity and neurodegeration. This study aims to validate previous results in a larger cohort and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of tear biomarkers to discriminate between individuals with and without neurodegeneration as determined by hippocampal atrophy. METHODS: The TearAD study is an observational longitudinal multi-center study that will enroll 50 cognitively healthy controls, 50 patients with subjective cognitive decline, 50 patients with mild cognitive impairment and 50 patients with AD dementia from the memory clinic. Participants will be examined at baseline, after one year, and after two years follow-up. Study assessments include neuropsychological tests and ophthalmic examination. All participants will receive a MRI scan, and a subset of the study population will undergo cerebral spinal fluid collection and an amyloid PET scan. Tear fluid will be collected with Schirmer strips and levels of Aß38, Aß40, Aß42, t-tau and p-tau in tear fluid will be determined using multiplex immunoassays. Blood samples will be collected from all participants. Images of the retina will be obtained with a standard, hyperspectral and ultra-wide field fundus camera. Additionally, macular pigment optical density will be measured with the macular pigment reflectometer, and cross-sectional images of the retina will be obtained through optical coherence tomography imaging. DISCUSSION: The TearAD study will provide insight into the potential diagnostic use of tear biomarkers as a minimally invasive and low cost tool for the screening and diagnosis of AD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05655793).

An update on immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to present an overview of recent publications and opinions in the field of same-day bilateral cataract surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: A Cochrane review was published comparing immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) and delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS) with regard to safety outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness. In addition, several large database studies provided more information on incidences of rare complications such as unilateral and bilateral endophthalmitis rates. SUMMARY: Recently available evidence showed that ISBCS is an effective and cost-effective alternative to DSBCS. Nonetheless, additional (randomized) registry studies, randomized controlled trials and cost-effectiveness studies are needed to evaluate bilateral endophthalmitis rates, refractive outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared with DSBCS.

Artificial intelligence for detecting keratoconus.

BACKGROUND: Keratoconus remains difficult to diagnose, especially in the early stages. It is a progressive disorder of the cornea that starts at a young age. Diagnosis is based on clinical examination and corneal imaging; though in the early stages, when there are no clinical signs, diagnosis depends on the interpretation of corneal imaging (e.g. topography and tomography) by trained cornea specialists. Using artificial intelligence (AI) to analyse the corneal images and detect cases of keratoconus could help prevent visual acuity loss and even corneal transplantation. However, a missed diagnosis in people seeking refractive surgery could lead to weakening of the cornea and keratoconus-like ectasia. There is a need for a reliable overview of the accuracy of AI for detecting keratoconus and the applicability of this automated method to the clinical setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for detecting keratoconus in people presenting with refractive errors, especially those whose vision can no longer be fully corrected with glasses, those seeking corneal refractive surgery, and those suspected of having keratoconus. AI could help ophthalmologists, optometrists, and other eye care professionals to make decisions on referral to cornea specialists. Secondary objectives To assess the following potential causes of heterogeneity in diagnostic performance across studies. • Different AI algorithms (e.g. neural networks, decision trees, support vector machines) • Index test methodology (preprocessing techniques, core AI method, and postprocessing techniques) • Sources of input to train algorithms (topography and tomography images from Placido disc system, Scheimpflug system, slit-scanning system, or optical coherence tomography (OCT); number of training and testing cases/images; label/endpoint variable used for training) • Study setting • Study design • Ethnicity, or geographic area as its proxy • Different index test positivity criteria provided by the topography or tomography device • Reference standard, topography or tomography, one or two cornea specialists • Definition of keratoconus • Mean age of participants • Recruitment of participants • Severity of keratoconus (clinically manifest or subclinical) SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional and diagnostic case-control studies that investigated AI for the diagnosis of keratoconus using topography, tomography, or both. We included studies that diagnosed manifest keratoconus, subclinical keratoconus, or both. The reference standard was the interpretation of topography or tomography images by at least two cornea specialists. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the study data and assessed the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. When an article contained multiple AI algorithms, we selected the algorithm with the highest Youden's index. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies, published between 1994 and 2022, that developed and investigated the accuracy of AI for the diagnosis of keratoconus. There were three different units of analysis in the studies: eyes, participants, and images. Forty-four studies analysed 23,771 eyes, four studies analysed 3843 participants, and 15 studies analysed 38,832 images. Fifty-four articles evaluated the detection of manifest keratoconus, defined as a cornea that showed any clinical sign of keratoconus. The accuracy of AI seems almost perfect, with a summary sensitivity of 98.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.6% to 99.1%) and a summary specificity of 98.3% (95% CI 97.4% to 98.9%). However, accuracy varied across studies and the certainty of the evidence was low. Twenty-eight articles evaluated the detection of subclinical keratoconus, although the definition of subclinical varied. We grouped subclinical keratoconus, forme fruste, and very asymmetrical eyes together. The tests showed good accuracy, with a summary sensitivity of 90.0% (95% CI 84.5% to 93.8%) and a summary specificity of 95.5% (95% CI 91.9% to 97.5%). However, the certainty of the evidence was very low for sensitivity and low for specificity. In both groups, we graded most studies at high risk of bias, with high applicability concerns, in the domain of patient selection, since most were case-control studies. Moreover, we graded the certainty of evidence as low to very low due to selection bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. We could not explain the heterogeneity between the studies. The sensitivity analyses based on study design, AI algorithm, imaging technique (topography versus tomography), and data source (parameters versus images) showed no differences in the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: AI appears to be a promising triage tool in ophthalmologic practice for diagnosing keratoconus. Test accuracy was very high for manifest keratoconus and slightly lower for subclinical keratoconus, indicating a higher chance of missing a diagnosis in people without clinical signs. This could lead to progression of keratoconus or an erroneous indication for refractive surgery, which would worsen the disease. We are unable to draw clear and reliable conclusions due to the high risk of bias, the unexplained heterogeneity of the results, and high applicability concerns, all of which reduced our confidence in the evidence. Greater standardization in future research would increase the quality of studies and improve comparability between studies.

Complications during elective cataract surgery: did the COVID-19 lockdown affect outcomes of ophthalmic surgery?

PURPOSE: One of the many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worldwide lockdown of ophthalmic surgery procedures for several months in 2020. The present study aims to answer the following question: does an intermission of cataract surgery for two months cause an increase in complication rates? METHODS: In this retrospective clinical chart review, data was taken from Dutch cataract complication registration database that contains pre-, intra- and postoperative information of patients that underwent cataract surgery in the Netherlands. The amount as well as type of complications were extracted before and after the eight weeks surgical intermission period (SIP): six weeks before (SIP-6) and six weeks after this period (SIP+6) for the years 2016-2020. RESULTS: A significant decrease in complication rates was found between SIP-6 and SIP+6 in 2020. When SIP+6 2020 is compared to SIP+6 2019, a significant reduction is found. Overall, a downward trend in complication rates was observed in the period 2016-2020. CONCLUSION: A two-months intermission of performing elective cataract surgery does not cause an increase in complications. In contrast, we observe a reduction of postoperative complications. This implicates that refraining from cataract surgery for two months might not compromise operative skills. The possible downward trend over the years can be partially explained by improved training, education and equipment, as well as an increased use of intracameral antibiotics during operation. Possible explanations for the reduction of complications after lockdown could be decreased time pressure as a consequence of a reduced number of operations at the restart of surgeries, and heightened awareness and cautiousness when resuming the operations.

Remote follow-up after cataract surgery (CORE-RCT): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery has become one of the most performed surgical procedures worldwide. Postoperative management consists of routine clinical examinations to assess post-operative visual function and detect possible adverse events. Due to the low incidence of complications, the majority of clinic visits after cataract surgery are uneventful. Nonetheless, valuable time and hospital resources are consumed. We hypothesize that remote post-operative follow-up involving teleconsultations and self-assessments of visual function and health status, could be a valid alternative to face-to-face clinical examinations in selected patient groups. The practice of remote follow-up after cataract surgery has not yet been evaluated. The aim of this study is to investigate the validity, safety and cost-effectiveness of remote cataract surgery follow-up, and to report on the patients' experiences with remotely self-assessing visual function. METHODS: This study is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Patients planned for cataract surgery on both eyes, without ocular comorbidities, are eligible for participation. Participants will be allocated (1:1) into one of the two study groups: 'telemonitoring' or 'usual care'. Participants in the 'telemonitoring' group will perform in-home assessments after cataract surgery (remote web-based eye exams and digital questionnaires on their own devices). Participants in the 'usual care' group will have regular post-operative consultations, according to the study site's regular practice. Outcome measures include accuracy of the web-based eye exam for assessing visual acuity and refraction, patient-reported outcome measures (visual function and quality of life), adverse events, and cost aspects. DISCUSSION: Investigating remote follow-up after cataract surgery fits the current trends of digitization of health care. We believe that remote self-care can be a promising avenue to comply with the increasing demands of cataract care. This randomized controlled trial provides scientific evidence on this unmet need and delivers the desired insights on (cost)effectiveness of remote follow-up after cataract surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04809402. Date of registration: March 22, 2021.

Efficacy of customized corneal crosslinking versus standard corneal crosslinking in patients with progressive keratoconus (C-CROSS study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Keratoconus is a degenerative disorder of the cornea leading to a protrusion and thinning with loss of visual acuity. The only treatment to halt the progression is corneal crosslinking (CXL), which uses riboflavin and UV-A light to stiffen the cornea. Recent ultra-structural examinations show that the disease is regional and does not affect the entire cornea. Treating only the affected zone with CXL could be as good as the standard CXL, that treats the entire cornea. METHODS: We set up a multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled clinical trial comparing standard CXL (sCXL) and customized CXL (cCXL). Patients between 16 and 45 years old with progressive keratoconus were included. Progression is based on one or more of the following changes within 12 months: 1 dioptre (D) increase in keratometry (Kmax, K1, K2); or 10% decrease of corneal thickness; or 1 D increase in myopia or refractive astigmatism, requiring corneal crosslinking. DISCUSSION: The goal of this study is to evaluate whether the effectiveness of cCXL is non-inferior to sCXL in terms of flattening of the cornea and halting keratoconus progression. Treating only the affected zone could be beneficial for minimalizing the risk of damaging surrounding tissues and faster wound healing. Recent non-randomized studies suggest that a customized crosslinking protocol based on the tomography of the patient's cornea may stop the progression of keratoconus and result in flattening of the cornea. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on August 31st, 2020, the identifier of the study is NCT04532788.

Immediate sequential bilateral surgery versus delayed sequential bilateral surgery for cataracts.

BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS. Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at 'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes.  With regard to endophthalmitis, we found that relative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS. Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, but did not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.

Effectiveness of Commonly Used Contact Lens Disinfectants Against SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of commonly used contact lens disinfectants against severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: The efficacy of five disinfectant solutions against SARS-CoV-2 was tested in the presence and absence of contact lenses (CLs). Three types of unused CLs (hard gas permeable, soft hydrogel, and soft silicone hydrogel) and worn silicone hydrogel CLs were tested. Contact lenses were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and disinfected at various times, with and without rubbing and rinsing, as per manufacturer's instructions. Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viability polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were applied to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and viral infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, respectively. RESULTS: In the presence of SARS-CoV-2-infected CLs, no SARS-CoV-2 RNA could be detected when disinfectant solutions were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. When SARS-Co-V2-infected CLs were disinfected without the rub-and-rinse step, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected at almost each time interval with each disinfecting solution tested for both new and worn CLs. In the absence of CLs, viable SARS-CoV-2 was detected with all disinfectant solutions except Menicon Progent at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: Disinfectant solutions effectively disinfect CLs from SARS-CoV-2 if manufacturer's instructions are followed. The rub-and-rinse regimen is mainly responsible for disinfection. The viability PCR may be useful to indicate potential infectiousness.

New Technologies in Clinical Trials in Corneal Diseases and Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency: Review from the European Vision Institute Special Interest Focus Group Meeting.

To discuss and evaluate new technologies for a better diagnosis of corneal diseases and limbal stem cell deficiency, the outcomes of a consensus process within the European Vision Institute (and of a workshop at the University of Cologne) are outlined. Various technologies are presented and analyzed for their potential clinical use also in defining new end points in clinical trials. The disease areas which are discussed comprise dry eye and ocular surface inflammation, imaging, and corneal neovascularization and corneal grafting/stem cell and cell transplantation. The unmet needs in the abovementioned disease areas are discussed, and realistically achievable new technologies for better diagnosis and use in clinical trials are outlined. To sum up, it can be said that there are several new technologies that can improve current diagnostics in the field of ophthalmology in the near future and will have impact on clinical trial end point design.

Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), refractive astigmatism, and complications after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK). DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four pseudophakic eyes of 54 patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction resulting from Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy were enrolled in 6 corneal centers in The Netherlands. METHODS: Participants were allocated to DMEK (n = 29) or UT-DSAEK (n = 25) using minimization randomization based on preoperative BSCVA, recipient central corneal thickness, gender, age, and institution. Donor corneas were prestripped and precut for DMEK and UT-DSAEK, respectively. Six corneal surgeons participated in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was BSCVA at 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Central graft thickness of UT-DSAEK lamellae measured 101 µm (95% confidence interval [CI], 90-112 µm). Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity did not differ significantly between DMEK and UT-DSAEK groups at 3 months (0.15 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] [95% CI 0.08-0.22 logMAR] vs. 0.22 logMAR [95% CI 0.16-0.27 logMAR]; P = 0.15), 6 months (0.11 logMAR [95% CI 0.05-0.17 logMAR] vs. 0.16 logMAR [95% CI 0.12-0.21 logMAR]; P = 0.20), and 12 months (0.08 logMAR [95% CI 0.03-0.14 logMAR] vs. 0.15 logMAR [95% CI 0.10-0.19 logMAR]; P = 0.06). Twelve months after surgery, the percentage of eyes reaching 20/25 Snellen BSCVA was higher in DMEK compared with UT-DSAEK (66% vs. 33%; P = 0.02). Endothelial cell density did not differ significantly 12 months after DMEK and UT-DSAEK (1870 cells/mm2 [95% CI 1670-2069 cells/mm2] vs. 1612 cells/mm2 [95% CI 1326-1898 cells/mm2]; P = 0.12). Both techniques induced a mild hyperopic shift (12 months: +0.22 diopter [D; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.68 D] for DMEK vs. +0.58 D [95% CI 0.13-1.03 D] for UT-DSAEK; P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and UT-DSAEK did not differ significantly in mean BSCVA, but the percentage of eyes achieving 20/25 Snellen vision was significantly higher with DMEK. Endothelial cell loss did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, and both techniques induced a minimal hyperopic shift.

Safety and efficacy of a standardized intracameral combination of mydriatics and anesthetic for cataract surgery in type-2 diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery in diabetics is more technically challenging due to a number of factors including poor intraoperative pupil dilation and a higher risk of vision threatening complications. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of an intracameral combination of 2 mydriatics and 1 anesthetic (ICMA, Mydrane) for cataract surgery in patients with well-controlled type-2 diabetes. METHODS: Post-hoc subgroup analysis of a phase 3 randomized study, comparing ICMA to a conventional topical regimen. Data were collected from 68 centers in Europe and Algeria. Only well-controlled type-2 diabetics, free of pre-proliferative retinopathy, were included. The results for non-diabetics are also reported. The primary efficacy variable was successful capsulorhexis without additional mydriatic treatment. Postoperative safety included adverse events, endothelial cell density and vision. RESULTS: Among 591 randomized patients, 57 (9.6%) had controlled type 2 diabetes [24 (42.1%) in the ICMA Group and 33 (57.9%) in the Topical Group; intention-to-treat (ITT) set]. Among diabetics, capsulorhexis was successfully performed without additional mydriatics in 24 (96.0%; modified-ITT set) patients in the ICMA Group and 26 (89.7%) in the Topical Group. These proportions were similar in non-diabetics. No diabetic patient [1 (0.5%) non-diabetics] in the ICMA Group had a significant decrease in pupil size (≥3 mm) intraoperatively compared to 4 (16.0%; modified-ITT set) diabetics [16 (7.3%) non-diabetics] in the Topical group. Ocular AE among diabetics occurred in 2 (8.0%; Safety set) patients in the ICMA Group and 5 (16.7%) in the Topical Group. Endothelial cell density at 1 month postoperatively was similar between groups in diabetics (P = 0.627) and non-diabetics (P = 0.368). CONCLUSIONS: ICMA is effective and can be safely used in patients with well-controlled diabetes, with potential advantages compared to a topical regimen including reduced systemic risk, better corneal integrity and reduced risk of ocular complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at (reference # NCT02101359) on April 2, 2014.

Long-Term Endothelial Cell Loss in Patients with Artisan Myopia and Artisan Toric Phakic Intraocular Lenses: 5- and 10-Year Results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term change in endothelial cell density (ECD) after the implantation of 2 types of rigid iris-fixated phakic intraocular lenses (pIOLs) for the treatment of myopia and astigmatism. DESIGN: Prospective, clinical cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 507 eyes of 289 patients receiving the Artisan Myopia or Artisan Toric (Ophtec B.V., Groningen, The Netherlands) iris-fixated pIOL for the treatment of myopia or astigmatism at the University Eye Clinic Maastricht as of January 1998. METHODS: A total of 381 myopic and 126 toric pIOLs were implanted. Five- and 10-year follow-ups were completed by 193 and 127 eyes implanted with the myopic pIOL and by 40 and 20 eyes implanted with the toric pIOL, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Chronic endothelial cell (EC) loss, percentage of eyes with a decrease of ≥25% in ECD, and percentage of eyes with an ECD <1500 cells/mm2. RESULTS: Chronic EC loss was calculated from 6 months postoperatively to the end of follow-up and showed an annual ECD decline of 48 cells/mm2 (standard error, 3.14) and 61 cells/mm2 (standard error, 6.30) in the myopic (P < 0.001) and toric (P < 0.001) groups, respectively, resulting in a total EC loss of 16.6% and 21.5% from 6 months to 10 years postoperatively, respectively. Ten years after implantation, ECD had decreased by ≥25% in 7.9% and 6.3%, whereas ECD was <1500 cells/mm2 in 3.9% and 4.0% in the myopic and toric groups, respectively. Explantation of the pIOL occurred in 6.0% in the myopic group and 4.8% in the toric group. Risk factors for increased EC loss were a shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD) (P ≤ 0.005) and a smaller distance between the central and peripheral pIOL edge to the endothelium (P ≤ 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A significant linear chronic EC loss was reported after implantation with myopic or toric iris-fixated pIOLs. A smaller ACD and smaller distance between pIOL edge and endothelium were risk factors for EC loss. Modification of preoperative age-related ECD thresholds is indicated to maintain an ECD that warrants safe future combined pIOL explantation and cataract surgery.

Topical drug delivery devices: A review.

For the treatment and prevention of ocular diseases, most patients are treated with conventional drug delivery formulations such as eye drops or ointments. However, eye drops and ointments suffer from low patient compliance and low effective drug concentration at the target site. Therefore, new medical devices are being explored to improve drug delivery to the eye. Over the years, various delivery devices have been developed including resorbable devices, oval- and ring-shaped devices, rod-shaped devices, punctum plugs, contact lenses and corneal shields. Only a few devices (eg. Mydriasert®, Ozurdex®, Surodex®, Iluvien®, Lacrisert® and Retisert®) have made it to the market while others are being investigated in clinical trials. Altogether, there is a need for enhanced topical drug delivery. Only by working together (academia, industry and authorities) and by exploring parallel strategies (new drug delivery devices, enhanced drug formulations, better understanding of the pharmacokinetic properties), the therapeutic effect of drug treatments can be improved.

Prevention of macular edema after cataract surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although cataract surgery can effectively restore visual function in many patients with cataract, PCME remains an important cause of suboptimal visual acuity. The present review provides an overview of the current literature on the prevention and treatment of PCME. RECENT FINDINGS: Optimal prevention of PCME starts preoperatively with a personalized risk assessment. Diabetes mellitus, retinal vein occlusion, epiretinal membrane, macular hole, and uveitis are the most important risk factors for developing cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery. Topical NSAIDs either in addition to, or instead of, topical corticosteroids reduce the risk of developing PCME. Additional intravitreal corticosteroid and antivascular endothelial growth factor injections have been studied in patients with diabetes. Timely diagnosis and treatment of PCME is essential. Topical NSAIDs solely, or in addition to corticosteroids, improve visual acuity in patients with PCME. Oral acetazolamide and intravitreal dexamethasone implants have been used in refractory cases. SUMMARY: Topical NSAIDs can be used solely, or in combination with topical corticosteroids, to prevent and treat PCME. Further research is needed to compare the efficacy of various NSAIDs, and to investigate the cost-effectiveness and long-term benefit of anti-inflammatory treatments on visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and quality of life.

Periocular CO2 laser resurfacing: severe ocular complications from multiple unintentional laser impacts on the protective metal eye shields.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A 36-year-old woman underwent CO2 laser resurfacing for periocular rhytides using protective stainless steel Cox II ocular shields. Immediately after the treatment, corneal lesions were seen in both eyes. The left eye subsequent developed corneal ulceration and scarring, a deformed iris, cataract, and lower eye lashes showing signs of acute burns. The right cornea had a small inferior mid-peripheral superficial lesion and concomitant lower mid-peripheral burned eye lashes. Our objective was to determine the most likely cause of these ocular complications. STUDY: We estimated temperature-time combinations that could induce corneal injury and cataract. Heat conduction effects from a heated cornea to the lens and from a heated ring of periocular skin to the cornea were computed. The temperature response of a shield following CO2 laser irradiation was determined. RESULTS: We computed that cataract can develop when the corneal temperature reaches, for example, 80 °C for 14 seconds. A periocular ring of heated skin contributes little to the corneal temperature. After 7 pulses of consecutive CO2 laser bursts in 7.5 seconds, the total shield area already reached a homogeneous temperature of 63 °C. CONCLUSION: Despite uncertainties in procedural details and modeling of cataract temperatures, the eye injuries were caused beyond doubt by heating of tear-covered metal eye shields by at least 10 consecutive but unintentional laser impacts. Lasers Surg. Med. 50:980-986, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial of Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK) versus DSAEK.

OBJECTIVE: To compare visual acuity, refraction, endothelial cell density (ECD), and complications after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and ultrathin DSAEK (UT-DSAEK). DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, double-masked, randomized, controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: From 66 patients with irreversible corneal endothelial dysfunction dues to Fuchs' dystrophy who enrolled from 4 tertiary medical centers in the Netherlands, 66 eyes were studied. METHODS: Participants were centrally randomized to undergo either UT-DSAEK or DSAEK, based on preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), recipient central corneal thickness, patient age, and recruitment center. Donor corneas were precut by a single cornea bank. PARTICIPANTS: Participants underwent ophthalmic examinations preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months after the operation, including manifest refraction, BSCVA using an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart, and endothelium imaging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BSCVA 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Preoperative BSCVA did not differ between patients undergoing DSAEK (0.35 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.27-0.43]; n = 32) and UT-DSAEK (0.37 logMAR [95% CI 0.31-0.43]; n = 34; P = 0.8). BSCVA was significantly better after UT-DSAEK compared with that after DSAEK at 3 months (0.17 logMAR [95% CI 0.13-0.21], n = 31 vs. 0.28 logMAR [95% CI 0.23-0.33], n = 31; P = 0.001), 6 months (0.14 logMAR [95% CI 0.10-0.18], n = 30 vs. 0.24 logMAR [95% CI 0.20-0.28], n = 30; P = 0.002), and 12 months (0.13 logMAR [95% CI 0.09-0.17], n = 33 vs. 0.20 logMAR [95% CI 0.15-0.25], n = 29; P = 0.03). Refraction, ECD loss (40% at 3 months; P < 0.001), donor loss (DSAEK n = 2 vs. UT-DSAEK n = 3 [relative risk {RR} 1.4 {95% CI 0.24-7.5}; P = 0.7]), and graft dislocation (DSAEK n = 5 vs. UT-DSAEK n = 5 [RR 1.0 {95% CI 0.34-3.33}; P = 0.9]) did not differ between UT-DSAEK and DSAEK. Donor thickness was significantly thinner for UT-DSAEK (101 µm [95% CI 93-110 µm]; range 50-145 µm) than for DSAEK (209 µm [95% CI 196-222 µm]; range 147-289 µm; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that compared with DSAEK, UT-DSAEK results in faster and better recovery of BSCVA with similar refractive outcomes, endothelial cell loss, and incidence of complications.