Survey of Vitreoretinal Specialists in the United States Regarding Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: To evaluate the attitudes, beliefs, and practice patterns of vitreoretinal specialists regarding the utilization of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify features which may predict future telemedicine use. Methods: An 11-question anonymous survey was completed electronically in July 2020 by vitreoretinal specialists practicing in the United States. Results: The survey response rate was 13.0% (361/2,774). Thirty-five respondents (9.7%) had used telemedicine before March 1, 2020; after March 1, 2020, 170 (47.1%) reported using telemedicine (p < 0.001). Of the 170 respondents who reported telemedicine use, a majority (65.3%;111/170) performed 0-5 patient visits per week. Female retina specialists, younger physicians, and those with prior telemedicine usage were more likely to use telemedicine. Barriers to telemedicine use included concern for misdiagnosis (332/361, 92.0%), inability to obtain optical coherence tomography imaging (330/361, 91.4%), inability to obtain fundus imaging (327/361, 90.6%), lack of access to and/or comfort with the technology (261/361, 72.3%), potential legal liability (229/361, 63.4%), and low reimbursement (227/361, 62.9%). The majority of respondents (225/361; 62.3%) reported that telemedicine without ancillary imaging was not an acceptable way to evaluate patients. However, 59.2% (214/361) would find telemedicine acceptable if remote imaging was available. Conclusions: The pandemic led to a rapid adoption of telemedicine by vitreoretinal specialists. The majority of specialists using telemedicine performed five or fewer visits per week. The availability of remote imaging may increase confidence in clinical outcomes with a subsequent increase in utilization of telemedicine by vitreoretinal specialists.

Bacille Calmette-Guérin: An ophthalmic perspective.

Vaccines such as bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) are known for their heterologous effects mediated through a number of mechanisms, including trained immunity constituted by monocyte-macrophage based innate immunity. Other events such as direct hematogenous spread and induction of autoimmunity are also described. There has been a resurgent interest in harnessing some of the benefits of trained immunity in the management of COVID-19, even as several specific vaccines have been approved. We summarize the current knowledge of ocular effects of BCG. Potential effect of granulomatous inflammation on angiotensin converting enzyme activity and accentuation of cytokine storm that may result in undesirable ocular and systemic effects are also discussed.

The Influence of Universal Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis Risk after Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections.

PURPOSE: Routine use of face masks for patients and physicians during intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has increased with the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study evaluates the impact of universal face mask use on rates and outcomes of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE). DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter, comparative cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from October 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, at 12 centers. METHODS: Cases were divided into a "no face mask" group if no face masks were worn by the physician or patient during intravitreal injections or a "universal face mask" group if face masks were worn by the physician, ancillary staff, and patient during intravitreal injections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of endophthalmitis, microbial spectrum, and visual acuity (VA). RESULTS: Of 505 968 intravitreal injections administered in 110 547 eyes, 85 of 294 514 (0.0289%; 1 in 3464 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the "no face mask" group, and 45 of 211 454 (0.0213%; 1 in 4699) cases occurred in the "universal face mask" group (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.18; P = 0.097). In the "no face mask" group, there were 27 cases (0.0092%; 1 in 10 908 injections) of culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 9 cases (0.004%; 1 in 23 494) in the "universal face mask" group (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; P = 0.041). Three cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis occurred in the "no face mask" group (0.001%; 1 in 98 171 injections) compared with 1 (0.0005%; 1 in 211 454) in the "universal face mask" group (P = 0.645). Patients presented a mean (range) 4.9 (1-30) days after the causative injection, and mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA at endophthalmitis presentation was 2.04 (~20/2200) for "no face mask" group compared with 1.65 (~20/900) for the "universal face mask" group (P = 0.022), although no difference was observed 3 months after treatment (P = 0.764). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, multicenter, retrospective study, physician and patient face mask use during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections did not alter the risk of presumed acute-onset bacterial endophthalmitis, but there was a reduced rate of culture-positive endophthalmitis. Three months after presentation, there was no difference in VA between the groups.

Bacterial Dispersion Associated With Various Patient Face Mask Designs During Simulated Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate bacterial dispersion with patient face mask use during simulated intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fifteen healthy subjects were recruited for this single-center study. Each participant was instructed not to speak for 2 minutes, simulating a "no-talking" policy, while in an ophthalmic examination chair with an blood agar plate secured to the forehead and wearing various face masks (no mask, loose fitting surgical mask, tight-fitting surgical mask without tape, tight-fitting surgical mask with adhesive tape securing the superior portion of the mask, N95 mask, and cloth mask). Each scenario was then repeated while reading a 2-minute script, simulating a talking patient. The primary outcome measures were the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) and microbial species. RESULTS: During the "no-talking" scenario, subjects wearing a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape developed fewer CFUs compared with subjects wearing the same mask without tape (difference 0.93 CFUs [95% confidence interval 0.32-1.55]; P = .003). During the speech scenarios, subjects wearing a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape had significantly fewer CFUs compared with subjects without a face mask (difference 1.07 CFUs; P = .001), subjects with a loose face mask (difference 0.67 CFUs; P = .034), and subjects with a tight face mask without tape (difference 1.13 CFUs; P < .001). There was no difference between those with a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape and an N95 mask in the "no-talking" (P > .99) and "speech" (P = .831) scenarios. No oral flora were isolated in "no-talking" scenarios but were isolated in 8 of 75 (11%) cultures in speech scenarios (P = .02). CONCLUSION: The addition of tape to the superior portion of a patient's face mask reduced bacterial dispersion during simulated intravitreal injections and had no difference in bacterial dispersion compared with wearing N95 masks.

Frequency of Urgent or Emergent Vitreoretinal Surgical Procedures in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) indicated that urgent or emergent vitreoretinal surgical procedures should continue during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although decreases in the frequency of critical procedures have been reported outside the field of ophthalmology, analyses are limited by volume, geography, and time. Objective: To evaluate whether the frequency of ophthalmic surgical procedures deemed urgent or emergent by the AAO changed across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: Vitreoretinal practices from 17 institutions throughout the US participated in this multicenter cross-sectional study. The frequency of 11 billed vitreoretinal Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes across respective weeks was obtained from each practice between January 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020. Data were clustered into intravitreal injections (code 67028), lasers and cryotherapy (codes 67141, 67145, and 67228), retinal detachment (RD) repairs (codes 67107, 67108, 67110, and 67113), and other vitrectomies (codes 67036, 67039, and 67040). Institutions were categorized by region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West Coast), practice setting (academic [tax-exempt] or private [non-tax-exempt]), and date of respective statewide stay-at-home orders. Main Outcomes and Measures: Nationwide changes in the frequency of billing for urgent or emergent vitreoretinal surgical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 526 536 CPT codes were ascertained: 483 313 injections, 19 257 lasers or cryotherapy, 14 949 RD repairs, and 9017 other vitrectomies. Relative to 2019, a weekly institutional decrease in injections was observed from March 30 to May 2, 2020, with a maximal 38.6% decrease (from a mean [SD] of 437.8 [436.3] to 273.8 [269.0] injections) from April 6 to 12, 2020 (95% CI, -259 to -69 injections; P = .002). A weekly decrease was also identified that spanned a longer interval, at least until study conclusion (March 16 to May 31, 2020), for lasers and cryotherapy, with a maximal 79.6% decrease (from a mean [SD] of 6.6 [7.7] to 1.5 [2.0] procedures) from April 6 to 12, 2020 (95% CI, -6.8 to -3.3 procedures; P < .001), for RD repairs, with a maximal 59.4% decrease (from a mean [SD] of 3.5 [4.0] to 1.6 [2.2] repairs) from April 13 to 19, 2020 (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.4 repairs; P < .001), and for other vitrectomies, with a maximal 84.3% decrease (from a mean [SD] of 3.0 [3.1] to 0.4 [0.8] other vitrectomies) from April 6 to 12, 2020 (95% CI, -3.3 to -1.8 other vitrectomies; P < .001). No differences were identified by region, setting, or state-level stay-at-home order adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the AAO endorsed the continued performance of urgent or emergent vitreoretinal surgical procedures, the frequency of such procedures throughout the country experienced a substantial decrease that may persist after the COVID-19 pandemic's initial exponential growth phase. This decrease appears independent of region, setting, and state-level stay-at-home orders. It is unknown to what extent vitreoretinal intervention would have decreased without AAO recommendations, and how the decrease is associated with outcomes. Although safety is paramount during the COVID-19 pandemic, practices should consider prioritizing availability for managing high-acuity conditions until underlying reasons for the reduction are fully appreciated.

The Impact of Physician Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of physician face mask use on rates and outcomes of postinjection endophthalmitis. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative cohort study. METHODS: Setting: Single-center. StudyPopulation: Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections from July 1, 2013, to September 1, 2019. INTERVENTION: Cases were divided into "Face Mask" group if face masks were worn by the physician during intravitreal injections or "No Talking" group if no face mask was worn but a no-talking policy was observed during intravitreal injections. MainOutcomeMeasures: Rate of endophthalmitis, visual acuity, and microbial spectrum. RESULTS: Of 483,622 intravitreal injections administered, 168 out of 453,460 (0.0371%) cases of endophthalmitis occurred in the No Talking group, and 9 out of 30,162 (0.0298%) cases occurred in the Face Mask group (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.57; P = .527). Sixteen cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis were found in the No Talking group (1 in 28,341 injections), compared to none in the Face Mask group (P = .302). Mean logMAR visual acuity at presentation in cases that developed culture-positive endophthalmitis was significantly worse in the No Talking group compared to the Face Mask group (17.1 lines lost from baseline acuity vs 13.4 lines lost; P = .031), though no difference was observed at 6 months after treatment (P = .479). CONCLUSION: Physician face mask use did not influence the risk of postinjection endophthalmitis compared to a no-talking policy. However, no cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis occurred in the Face Mask group. Future studies are warranted to assess the role of face mask use to reduce endophthalmitis risk, particularly attributable to oral flora.