ABSTRACT
Purpose: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of two concentration of autologous serum (AS) 20% vs 50% in recalcitrant moderate?to?severe dry eye patients. Methods: A double?blind prospective, interventional, and randomized study was done on 44 patients (80 eyes) clinically diagnosed with moderate?to?severe dry eye disease (DED) that was refractory to conventional treatment, and all patients were treated with AS20% or AS50% for 12 weeks. We documented Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), tear film breakup time (TBUT), OXFORD corneal staining score (OSS), and Schirmer test (ST) at baseline, 2,4,8, and 12 weeks. These parameters were compared in both groups and between the groups by using Student’s t?test. The study included 11 males and 33 females. Results: Out of 80 eyes, 33 eyes had moderate and 47 had severe DED. The age of patients in AS20% was 44.73 ± 14.37 years, and in AS50% was 46.41 ± 14.47 years. The most common etiology associated with DED was secondary Sjogren syndrome. In moderate DED, both the groups showed significant improvement in both subjective and objective parameters. But in severe DED, the AS20% group failed to show any significant improvement objectively, though subjective improvement was present. Conclusion: In refractory severe DED patients, AS50% is better option for treatment and in moderate DED both concentrations of autologous serum are effective.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To elucidate the clinico?epidemiologic characteristics of optic neuritis based on the status of serum aquaporin?4 antibody (AQP4?Ab) in patients with optic neuritis (ON). Methods: Medical records of 106 patients with ON and a follow?up of 3 years were reviewed. For each patient, the following data were extracted: medical history, findings of the ocular examination, brain, orbital or spinal MRI, and serological tests for AQP4. The ON was classified as typical or atypical based on disc examination and improvement in vision after intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP). The clinical findings (typical or atypical), disease course, and outcomes were analyzed according to the serostatus of the ON. Results: 10 patients ((9.4%) were seropositive for AQP4?Ab; all had atypical ON. 96 patients (91%) were seronegative for AQP4?Ab: 36 atypical ON and 60 typical ON. Profound visual impairment at presentation was seen in all patients. However, at the end of the study period, seropositive and seronegative atypical ON had poor visual outcomes as compared to seronegative typical ON (P = 0.002). Five seropositive and four seronegative patients with atypical ON developed transverse myelitis. Bilateral disease with relapse was more in seropositive patients (80%); however, seronegative with atypical ON also had bilateral presentation and relapse in 42% and 41%, respectively. Conclusion: AQP4?Ab seropositive patients mostly present with atypical features such as bilateral recurrent ON, poor visual outcome, and increased incidence of transverse myelitis. However, atypical clinical features can also be seen in seronegative ON with a poor visual outcome and a recalcitrant course.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this survey was to establish the prevalence of AC and to know the practice pattern of managing ocular allergy in north India. METHODS: A descriptive cross sectional study done in the states of north India, involving registered practicing ophthalmologists (RP). The survey was conducted in the month of May 2019. 14 fourteen survey questionnaire prepared on significant clinical situations related to ocular allergy was sent via goggle form to 300 Ophthalmologists of north India. The response was recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The survey was participated by 232 RP (77.33%) out of 300 whom the questionnaire was sent. The results analysis involved epidemiological, treatment and complication pattern. CONCLUSION:AC patients form a significant proportion of our clinical patients specially in summer season. The chronic nature of this disease specially VKC needs a judicious use of different pharmacological agents considering their adverse effects. Newer molecules like Alcaftadine, Bepotastine and various Immunomodulators need further study by randomized clinical trials for their relative efficacy as survey are not sufficient to give us a clear indication towards rationalized use.