Intravitreal gas for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion: a synthesis of the literature.

Symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion (sVMA) is defined as visual loss secondary to foveal damage from vitreomacular traction (VMT) and includes isolated VMT, impending macular hole (MH), and full-thickness MH with persisting vitreous attachment. Management options include pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), intravitreal ocriplasmin, intravitreal gas injection or observation. This synthesis of the literature aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of intravitreal gas for sVMA. Articles describing patients with VMT or MH treated with intravitreal expansile gas were selected by systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to September 2016. The main outcomes at 1 month and final review were logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA), anatomical success (absence of both VMT and MH, without PPV) and adverse events (AEs). The intended comparator was observation. Nine of 106 identified articles were eligible, and none were randomized controlled trials. The mean VA of 91 eyes improved from 0.55 (Snellen equivalent 6/21) to 0.48 (6/18) logMAR at 1 month and to 0.35 (6/13) logMAR at final review. The mean VA at final review, prior to a vitrectomy, was 0.42 (6/16). Anatomic success was 48% at 1 month and 57% at final review. The reported AEs comprised retinal detachment in two highly myopic eyes. Intravitreal gas injection can relieve sVMA. Larger controlled studies are needed to determine safety and efficacy relative to observation, ocriplasmin, or vitrectomy.

Ocriplasmin for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion (sVMA) is a recognised cause of visual loss and by tradition has been managed by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). A less invasive alternative to surgery in some people is enzymatic vitreolysis, using an intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ocriplasmin compared to no treatment, sham or placebo for the treatment of sVMA. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 February 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 24 February 2017), PubMed (1946 to 24 February 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 24 February 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 24 February 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 24 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with sVMA. The intervention was intravitreal ocriplasmin 125 µg injection, and this was compared to placebo or sham injection (control). Placebo was defined as a single intravitreal injection of 0.10 mL placebo with identical drug vehicle diluted with saline. A sham injection was defined as the syringe hub or blunt needle touching the conjunctiva to simulate an injection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review included four RCTs conducted in Europe and the USA with a total of 932 eyes of 932 participants. Participants were 18 to 97 years of age, with evidence of focal vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) on optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, with a best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/25 or worse in the study eye and 20/400 or better in the fellow eye. The interventions compared were intravitreal ocriplasmin versus sham (two RCTs) or placebo (two RCTs) injection. Both sham and placebo injection were classified as the control group. The main outcome measures were assessed at 28 days and six months. Overall, we judged the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. All four RCTs were sponsored by the manufacturers of ocriplasmin.Compared with control, ocriplasmin treatment was more likely to result in VMA release within 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 3.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.00 to 6.00; 859 eyes, 4 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 97/1000 eyes will have VMA release within 28 days without treatment. An additional 237 eyes will have VMA release within 28 days for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 96 more to 482 more).Treatment with ocriplasmin was also more likely to result in macular hole closure (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.51; 229 eyes, 3 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 123/1000 eyes with macular holes will have closure with no treatment. An additional 231 eyes will have macular hole closure for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 62 more to 556 more).Eyes receiving ocriplasmin were also more likely to have complete posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) within 28 days (RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.24; 689 eyes, 3 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 40/1000 eyes will have complete PVD within 28 days without treatment. An additional 78 eyes will have complete PVD within 28 days for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 16 more to 210 more).Eyes receiving ocriplasmin were more likely to achieve 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.53; 674 eyes, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 61/1000 eyes will have a 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months without treatment. An additional 58 eyes will have 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 9 more to 154 more).Receiving ocriplasmin also reduced the requirement for vitrectomy at six months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91; 689 eyes, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 265/1000 eyes will require vitrectomy at six months without treatment and 87 fewer eyes will require vitrectomy for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 24 fewer to 132 fewer).Treatment with ocriplasmin resulted in a greater improvement in validated Visual Function Questionnaire form score at six months (mean improvement difference 2.7 points, 95% CI 0.8 to 4.6; 652 eyes, 2 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence).Eyes receiving ocriplasmin were more likely to have an adverse event (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37, 909 eyes, 4 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 571/1000 eyes will have an adverse event with sham or placebo injection and 106 more eyes will have an adverse event for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 52 more to 212 more). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from a limited number of RCTs suggests that ocriplasmin is useful in the treatment of sVMA. However, up to 20% of eyes treated with ocriplasmin will still require additional treatment with PPV within six months. There were more ocular adverse events in eyes treated with ocriplasmin than control (sham or placebo injection) treatment. Many of these adverse events, particularly vitreous floaters and photopsia, are known to be associated with posterior vitreous detachment. At present however, there is minimal published long-term safety data on eyes treated with ocriplasmin. Further large RCTs comparing ocriplasmin with other management options for sVMA would be beneficial.

PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Synthesis of Safety Literature.

PURPOSE: To assess the risk and benefit of pars plana vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials until September 2014. The population was patients with diabetic macular edema, intervention vitrectomy, comparator macular laser or observation, and efficacy outcome visual acuity and central retinal thickness. Safety outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications. The efficacy meta-analysis included only randomized controlled trials. The safety analysis included prospective, retrospective, controlled, and uncontrolled studies. RESULTS: Five studies were eligible for the efficacy meta-analysis (n = 127 eyes) and 40 for the safety analysis (n = 1,562 eyes). Combining follow-up intervals from 6 to 12 months, the meta-analysis found a nonsignificant 2 letter visual acuity difference favoring vitrectomy, and a significant 102 µm greater reduction in central retinal thickness favoring vitrectomy, but a post hoc subgroup analysis found that a 6-month central retinal thickness benefit reversed by 12 months. The most frequent complications were retinal break (7.1%), elevated intraocular pressure (5.2%), epiretinal membrane (3.3%), and vitreous hemorrhage (2.4%). Cataract developed in 68.6% of 121 phakic eyes. CONCLUSION: Vitrectomy produces structural and functional improvements in select eyes with diabetic macular edema, but the visual gains are not significantly better than with laser or observation. No major safety concerns were identified.

Direct cost of pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of macular hole, epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction: a bottom-up approach.

PURPOSE: The direct cost to the National Health Service (NHS) in England of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is unknown since a bottom-up costing exercise has not been undertaken. Healthcare resource group (HRG) costing relies on a top-down approach. We aimed to quantify the direct cost of intermediate complexity PPV. METHODS: Five NHS vitreoretinal units prospectively recorded all consumables, equipment and staff salaries during PPV undertaken for vitreomacular traction, epiretinal membrane and macular hole. Out-of-surgery costs between admission and discharge were estimated using a representative accounting method. RESULTS: The average patient time in theatre for 57 PPVs was 72 min. The average in-surgery cost for staff was £297, consumables £619, and equipment £82 (total £997). The average out-of-surgery costs were £260, including nursing and medical staff, other consumables, eye drops and hospitalisation. The total cost was therefore £1634, including 30 % overheads. This cost estimate was an under-estimate because it did not include out-of-theatre consumables or equipment. The average reimbursed HRG tariff was £1701. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of undertaking PPV of intermediate complexity is likely to be higher than the reimbursed tariff, except for hospitals with high throughput, where amortisation costs benefit from economies of scale. Although this research was set in England, the methodology may provide a useful template for other countries.

Clinical and Histological Features of Small Cell Lung Cancer Paraneoplastic Inflammatory Uveitis.

PURPOSE: Paraneoplastic ocular inflammation can be associated with the autoantibody against collapsin response-mediator protein-5 (anti-CRMP-5). We describe the clinical and histological features of 2 rare cases of small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) presenting with intraocular inflammation: the first was anti-CRMP-5 positive and the second preceded the auto-antibody's discovery but with remarkably similar features. The previously unreported retinal histology is described. METHODS: Case notes review. RESULTS: Both cases presented with bilateral visual loss, constricted visual fields, vitritis, and pale, swollen optic discs. Fundal fluorescein angiographies showed optic disc leakage. Retinal histology of both cases revealed predominantly inner retinal inflammation. Following their diagnosis with SCLC, serology for case 1 was positive for anti-CRMP-5 but case 2 pre-dated its discovery. CONCLUSIONS: CRMP-5 inflammatory eye disease presents with a distinct pattern of clinical and histological features, which may be the first sign of their underlying cancer. Retinal histology revealed predominantly inner retinal inflammation.

Isolated extraocular muscle abscess presenting 40 years after squint surgery.

A 57-year-old man presented with an abscess localised to the lateral rectus region. He was treated as a case of orbital cellulitis because of the presence of soft tissue swelling with a localised abscess discharging through the conjunctiva with associated reduction of visual acuity and restriction of ocular movements laterally. No specific risk factors were identified but an ultrasound scan picked up a hyperechoic signal suggestive of a foreign body within the abscess. Surgical exploration did not identify a foreign body but fibrotic changes between the globe and the lateral rectus muscle were found which was suggestive of previous squint surgery. This was confirmed by the patient later on specific questioning. Periorbital infection is a rare occurrence after squint surgery and reported cases are mainly within a week after surgery. Orbital abscess probably related to an old suture granuloma 40 years after surgery has not been documented before.