Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye is a common condition with serious implications worldwide. The unique composition of autologous serum (AS) eye drops has been hypothesized as a possible treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review the effectiveness and safety of AS. DATA SOURCES: We searched five databases and three registries up to September 30, 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AS with artificial tears, saline, or placebo for participants with dry eye. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We adhered to Cochrane methods for study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 116 participants. Four trials compared AS with artificial tears. We found low-certainty evidence that AS may improve symptoms (0- to 100-point pain scale) after 2 weeks of treatment compared with saline (mean difference, -12.00; 95% confidence interval, -20.16 to -3.84; 1 RCT, 20 participants). Ocular surface outcomes (corneal staining, conjunctival staining, tear breakup time, Schirmer test) were inconclusive. Two trials compared AS with saline. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that Rose Bengal staining (0- to 9-point scale) may be slightly improved after 4 weeks of treatment compared with saline (mean difference, -0.60; 95% confidence interval, -1.11 to -0.09; 35 eyes). None of the trials reported outcomes of corneal topography, conjunctival biopsy, quality of life, economic outcomes, or adverse events. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to use all data because of unclear reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of AS is uncertain based on current data. Symptoms improved slightly with AS compared with artificial tears for 2 weeks. Staining scores improved slightly with AS compared with saline, with no benefit identified for other measures. IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: High-quality, large trials enrolling diverse participants with varying severity are needed. A core outcome set would allow for evidence-based treatment decisions consistent with current knowledge and patient values.

TFOS lifestyle: Impact of societal challenges on the ocular surface.

Societal factors associated with ocular surface diseases were mapped using a framework to characterize the relationship between the individual, their health and environment. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigating factors on ocular surface diseases were considered in a systematic review. Age and sex effects were generally well-characterized for inflammatory, infectious, autoimmune and trauma-related conditions. Sex and gender, through biological, socio-economic, and cultural factors impact the prevalence and severity of disease, access to, and use of, care. Genetic factors, race, smoking and co-morbidities are generally well characterized, with interdependencies with geographical, employment and socioeconomic factors. Living and working conditions include employment, education, water and sanitation, poverty and socioeconomic class. Employment type and hobbies are associated with eye trauma and burns. Regional, global socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions, include remoteness, geography, seasonality, availability of and access to services. Violence associated with war, acid attacks and domestic violence are associated with traumatic injuries. The impacts of conflict, pandemic and climate are exacerbated by decreased food security, access to health services and workers. Digital technology can impact diseases through physical and mental health effects and access to health information and services. The COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigating strategies are mostly associated with an increased risk of developing new or worsening existing ocular surface diseases. Societal factors impact the type and severity of ocular surface diseases, although there is considerable interdependence between factors. The overlay of the digital environment, natural disasters, conflict and the pandemic have modified access to services in some regions.

Mitochondrial Hydrogen Peroxide Activates PTEN and Inactivates Akt Leading to Autophagy Inhibition-Dependent Cell Death in Neuronal Models of Parkinson's Disease.

Defective autophagy relates to the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease (PD), a typical neurodegenerative disease. Our recent study has demonstrated that PD toxins (6-OHDA, MPP+, or rotenone) induce neuronal apoptosis by impeding the AMPK/Akt-mTOR signaling. Here, we show that treatment with 6-OHDA, MPP+, or rotenone triggered decreases of ATG5/LC3-II and autophagosome formation with a concomitant increase of p62 in PC12, SH-SY5Y cells, and primary neurons, suggesting inhibition of autophagy. Interestingly, overexpression of wild-type ATG5 attenuated the inhibitory effect of PD toxins on autophagy, reducing neuronal apoptosis. The effects of PD toxins on autophagy and apoptosis were found to be associated with activation of PTEN and inactivation of Akt. Overexpression of dominant negative PTEN, constitutively active Akt and/or pretreatment with rapamycin rescued the cells from PD toxins-induced downregulation of ATG5/LC3-II and upregulation of p62, as well as consequential autophagosome diminishment and apoptosis in the cells. The effects of PD toxins on autophagy and apoptosis linked to excessive intracellular and mitochondrial hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) production, as evidenced by using a H2O2-scavenging enzyme catalase, a mitochondrial superoxide indicator MitoSOX and a mitochondria-selective superoxide scavenger Mito-TEMPO. Furthermore, we observed that treatment with PD toxins reduced the protein level of Parkin in the cells. Knockdown of Parkin alleviated the effects of PD toxins on H2O2 production, PTEN/Akt activity, autophagy, and apoptosis in the cells, whereas overexpression of wild-type Parkin exacerbated these effects of PD toxins, implying the involvement of Parkin in the PD toxins-induced oxidative stress. Taken together, the results indicate that PD toxins can elicit mitochondrial H2O2, which can activate PTEN and inactivate Akt leading to autophagy inhibition-dependent neuronal apoptosis, and Parkin plays a critical role in this process. Our findings suggest that co-manipulation of the PTEN/Akt/autophagy signaling by antioxidants may be exploited for the prevention of neuronal loss in PD.

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

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

A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas / The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews / Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas

RESUMO A declaração dos Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises (PRISMA), publicada em 2009, foi desenvolvida para ajudar revisores sistemáticos a relatar de forma transparente por que a revisão foi feita, os métodos empregados e o que os autores encontraram. Na última década, os avanços na metodologia e terminologia de revisões sistemáticas exigiram a atualização da diretriz. A declaração PRISMA 2020 substitui a declaração de 2009 e inclui novas orientações para relato que refletem os avanços nos métodos para identificar, selecionar, avaliar e sintetizar estudos. A estrutura e apresentação dos itens foram modificadas para facilitar a implementação. Neste artigo, apresentamos a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 de 27 itens, uma lista de checagem expandida que detalha as recomendações para relato para cada item, a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 para resumos e os fluxogramas revisados para novas revisões e para atualização de revisões.

ABSTRACT The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

RESUMEN La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Techniques for Open-Angle Glaucoma: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Glaucoma affects more than 75 million people worldwide. Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering surgery is an important treatment for this disease. Interest in reducing surgical morbidity has led to the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of MIGS is necessary for clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: To summarize data from randomized clinical trials of MIGS for open-angle glaucoma, which were evaluated in a suite of Cochrane reviews. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews including studies published before June 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Reviews of randomized clinical trials comparing MIGS with cataract extraction alone, other MIGS, traditional glaucoma surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, or medical therapy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines by one investigator and confirmed by a second. Methodologic rigor was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of participants who did not need to use medication to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) postsurgery (drop-free). Outcomes were analyzed at short-term (<6 months), medium-term (6-18 months), and long-term (>18 months) follow-up. RESULTS: Six eligible Cochrane reviews were identified discussing trabecular bypass with iStent or Hydrus microstents, ab interno trabeculotomy with Trabectome, subconjunctival and supraciliary drainage devices, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that adding a Hydrus safely improved the likelihood of drop-free glaucoma control at medium-term (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) and long-term (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9) follow-up and conferred 2.0-mm Hg (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.3 mm Hg) greater IOP reduction at long-term follow-up, compared with cataract surgery alone. Adding an iStent also safely improved drop-free disease control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6), but the short-term IOP-lowering effect of the iStent was not sustained. Addition of a CyPass microstent improved drop-free glaucoma control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5) but was associated with an increased risk of vraision loss. Network meta-analyses supported the direction and magnitude of these results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on data synthesized in Cochrane reviews, some MIGS may afford patients with glaucoma greater drop-free disease control than cataract surgery alone. Among the products currently available, randomized clinical trial data associate the Hydrus with greater drop-free glaucoma control and IOP lowering than the iStent; however, these effect sizes were small.

Identifying priority review questions for Cochrane Eyes and Vision: protocol for a priority setting exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) is an international network of individuals working to prepare, maintain and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions to treat, prevent or diagnose eye diseases or vision impairment. CEV plans to undertake a priority setting exercise to identify systematically research questions relevant to our scope, and to formally incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders to set priorities for new and updated reviews. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scope of CEV is broad and our reviews include conditions that are common and have a high global disease burden, for example, cataract and dry eye disease, and conditions that are rare but have a high impact on quality of life and high individual cost such as eye cancer. We plan to focus on conditions prioritised by WHO during the development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions. These conditions were selected based on a combination of data on disease magnitude, healthcare use and expert opinion. We will identify priority review questions systematically by summarising relevant data on research in Eyes and Vision from a range of sources, and compiling a list of 10-15 potential review questions (new and/or updates) for each condition group. We will seek the views of external and internal stakeholders on this list by conducting an online survey. Equity will be a specific consideration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. We will disseminate the findings through Cochrane channels and prepare a summary of the work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

What Do We Really Know about the Effectiveness of Glaucoma Interventions?: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

PURPOSE: To identify systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions and to assess their reliability, thereby generating a list of potentially reliable reviews for updating glaucoma practice guidelines. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions. METHODS: We used a database of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vision research and eye care maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite. We examined all Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions published before August 7, 2019, and all non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions published between January 1, 2014, and August 7, 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed eligible reviews for reliability, extracted characteristics, and summarized key findings from reviews classified as reliable. RESULTS: Of the 4451 systematic reviews in eyes and vision identified, 129 met our eligibility criteria and were assessed for reliability. Of these, we classified 49 (38%) as reliable. We found open-angle glaucoma (22/49) to be the condition with the most reviews and medical management (17/49) and intraocular pressure (IOP; 43/49) to be the most common interventions and outcomes studied. Most reviews found a high degree of uncertainty in the evidence, which hinders the possibility of making strong recommendations in guidelines. These reviews found high-certainty evidence about a few topics: reducing IOP helps to prevent glaucoma and its progression, prostaglandin analogs are the most effective medical treatment for lowering IOP, laser trabeculoplasty is as effective as medical treatment as a first-line therapy in controlling IOP, the use of IOP-lowering medications in the perioperative or postoperative periods to accompany laser (e.g., trabeculoplasty) reduces the risk of postoperative IOP spikes, conventional surgery (i.e., trabeculectomy) is more effective than medications in reducing IOP, and antimetabolites and ß-radiation improve IOP control after trabeculectomy. The evidence is weak regarding the effectiveness of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Most systematic reviews evaluating interventions for glaucoma are of poor reliability. Even among those that may be considered reliable, important limitations exist in the value of information because of the uncertainty of the evidence as well as small and sometimes unimportant clinical differences between interventions.

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I2 = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.

Priorities and Treatment Preferences among Surgery-Naive Patients with Moderate to Severe Open-Angle Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To explore patients' perspectives and experiences living with moderate to severe glaucoma through qualitative, semistructured interviews and to identify important benefits and risks that patients consider when choosing glaucoma treatments. DESIGN: Semistructured, in-person qualitative interviews with a convenience sample of patients seen at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute. PARTICIPANTS: Surgery-naive patients 21 years of age or older with moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma seeking treatment at the Wilmer Eye Institute's Glaucoma Center of Excellence between August and December 2018. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with patients diagnosed with moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma, focusing on outcomes they prioritize when considering various treatment options. We used Atlas.ti software version 7.5.12 (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) to process interview transcripts and the framework approach to analyze the qualitative data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' descriptions of outcomes important to them in management of moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma. RESULTS: Thirteen men and 15 women with a median age 67 years participated in the study. Compared with the mild-to-moderate glaucoma patients interviewed previously, these participants similarly emphasized (1) activities of daily living, (2) visual symptoms, (3) treatment burden, and (4) intraocular pressure (IOP) control, but unlike patients with milder disease, most related IOP control directly to (5) avoiding disease progression. Almost all (27/28) had also given significant thought to (6) surgical decision making and could describe how they would decide for or against a particular procedure. Finally, two thirds (18/28) expressed (7) significant fear and worry related to their glaucoma diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: We identified outcomes that matter to patients who are undergoing treatment for moderate to severe glaucoma, many of which may serve as end points in clinical trials, such as functional independence in vision-dependent activities of daily living, avoidance of visual symptoms, and disease progression via maintenance of IOP control. We also observed that these patients have varied and nuanced perspectives on surgical management and its outcomes. It behooves providers and trial designers to consider these in future evaluations of new treatments for moderate to severe glaucoma.

Ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with iStent for open-angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. In early stages, glaucoma results in progressive loss of peripheral (side) vision; in later stages, it results in loss of central vision leading to blindness. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only known modifiable risk factor for glaucoma. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) techniques, such as ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with iStent (Glaukos Corporation, Laguna Hills, CA, USA), have been introduced as a new treatment modality for glaucoma. However, the effectiveness of MIGS on keeping people 'drop-free' (i.e. not having to use eye drops to control IOP) and other outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with iStent (or iStent inject) for open-angle glaucoma in comparison to conventional medical, laser, or surgical treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Eyes and Vision's Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 August 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We applied no date or language restrictions. We searched the reference lists of reports from included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared iStent or iStent inject to medical therapy, laser treatment, conventional glaucoma surgery (trabeculectomy), or other MIGS procedures. We included RCTs that had compared iStent or iStent inject in combination with phacoemulsification to phacoemulsification alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from reports of included RCTs using an electronic data collection form. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (765 eyes of 764 participants; range per study 33 to 239 participants) that evaluated iStent in people with open-angle glaucoma. We also identified 13 studies that are ongoing or awaiting publications of results. Most participants in the included studies were women (417/764 (55%) participants) and older age (age range: 49 to 89 years). We assessed most trials at unclear or high risk of bias: four trials did not clearly report the method of generating the random sequence or concealing allocation; five were unmasked, open-label studies, which we assessed at high risk of bias for performance and detection bias. All seven trials were funded by the Glaukos Corporation. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low.Four RCTs compared iStent in combination with phacoemulsification to phacoemulsification alone. The summary estimate which we derived from two of the four RCTs suggested that participants in the iStent in combination with phacoemulsification group were 1.38 times more likely to be drop-free between six and 18 months than those in the phacoemulsification alone group (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.63, I2 = 67%). Data from two RCTs also suggested that iStent in combination with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone may have offered a small reduction in number of IOP-lowering drops (mean difference (MD) -0.42 drops, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.23). It is uncertain whether there was any difference in terms of mean reduction in IOP from baseline (no meta-analysis).Two RCTs compared treatment with iStent to medical therapy; one of the two trials used the iStent inject. We determined the two trials to be clinically and methodologically heterogeneous and did not conduct a meta-analysis; however, the investigators of both trials reported that over 90% of participants in the treatment groups were drop-free compared to no participants in the medical therapy groups at six to 18 months.One RCT compared treatment with one versus two versus three iStents. There was no difference in terms of participants who were drop-free at 36 months or less; however, at longer follow-up (i.e. at 42 months) participants in the one iStent treatment were less likely to be drop-free than those in the two iStent (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75) or three iStent (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73) treatment groups. The study did not report the mean change in number of IOP-lowering drops.The type and timing of complications reported varied by RCTs. Similar proportions of participants who underwent treatment with iStent in combination with phacoemulsification and who underwent phacoemulsification alone needed secondary glaucoma surgery. None of RCTs reported findings related to quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that treatment with iStent may result in higher proportions of participants who are drop-free or achieving better IOP control, in the short, medium, or long-term. Results from the 13 studies with results not yet available may clarify the benefits of treatment of people with iStent. Additionally, future MIGS studies should consider measuring quality of life and outcomes that reflect people's ability to perform vision-dependent activities.

Analysis of a Systematic Review About Blue Light-Filtering Intraocular Lenses for Retinal Protection: Understanding the Limitations of the Evidence.

Importance: Cataract surgery, with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, is the most common ocular surgical procedure worldwide. It has been suggested that IOLs that selectively attenuate short wavelength visible light (blue light-filtering IOLs) may be beneficial for macular health. Whether blue light-filtering IOLs impart retinal photoprotection is of public health relevance, particularly in the context of aging demographics and the increasing global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration. This review analyzes and interprets the key findings, including consideration of the implications for practice and future research, of a 2018 Cochrane systematic review that evaluated the efficacy and safety of blue light-filtering IOLs for providing protection to macular health and function. Observations: The Cochrane systematic review included 51 randomized controlled trials that were performed in 17 countries. The trials involved adults undergoing cataract surgery in which a blue light-filtering IOL was compared with an equivalent non-blue light-filtering IOL. Study follow-up periods ranged from 1 month to 5 years. Together, these studies considered clinical outcomes in more than 5000 eyes. There was limited ability to combine data across trials (to draw overall conclusions) because of the use of different measurement techniques for outcomes, incomplete reporting of data, and/or varied follow-up periods. We identified substantial shortcomings in the internal validity of many of the included studies, particularly regarding trial design, conduct, and reporting. We propose several avenues for improving the rigor of potential future research in the field, including developing a core set of outcome measures, the inclusion of sample size calculations, the masking of trial participants and outcome assessors, and prospective clinical trial registration. Conclusions and Relevance: Using blue light-filtering IOLs to impart benefits to the macula is currently not supported by the best available clinical research evidence, and it is important that clinicians are mindful of this evidence limitation when adopting these devices in clinical practice.

Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye.

In 1972, Archie Cochrane wrote "It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials". The Cochrane Collaboration arose in response to Archie Cochrane's challenge. Cochrane Eyes and Vision aims to prepare and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions for preventing or treating eye conditions and/or visual impairment, and helping people adjust to visual impairment or blindness. To identify all relevant randomised controlled trials, Cochrane Eyes and Vision has a team of information specialists who develop search strategies to identify studies for inclusion in Cochrane reviews. Since 1997 we have published 266 protocols, 193 new reviews and 158 updated reviews. The majority of these are reviews of intervention effectiveness; three reviews are diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Overall 18% of reviews contain no trials, highlighting a potential evidence gap. We provide training, education and guidance to systematic review authors and work with clinical and patient partners to prioritise and disseminate reviews. In addition, Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite carries out critical methodologic research addressing topics relevant to producing high-quality reviews. We are partnering with the journal Eye to publish commentaries on selected Cochrane systematic review findings. This partnership will allow us to make high-quality evidence available to ophthalmologists and other practitioners, researchers, policy makers and patients.