RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) profile and the incidence of IOP spikes following selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) between pigmentary glaucoma (PG) and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective comparative study of 65 PG eyes of 51 patients matched with 65 POAG eyes of 65 patients who received SLT. Matching was done based on age, gender, glaucoma severity, pre-laser IOP, and number of medications. Post-SLT IOP spike was defined as IOP elevation ≥5mmHg, 30-45â min after the laser. RESULTS: In PG and POAG groups, the average age was 62.33 ± 9.18 and 62.58 ± 9.19 years (p = 0.95). The glaucoma severity (p = 0.708), baseline IOP (PG = 21.61 ± 1.34mmHg vs. POAG = 21.13 ± 5.09mmHg, p = 0.943), and number of topical glaucoma medications(PG = 2.34 ± 1.34 vs. POAG = 2.1 ± 1.41, p = 0.342) were comparable. More PG patients were on oral acetazolamide (PG = 26.15% vs. POAG = 1.5%, p < 0.001). Average logMAR visual acuity was significantly higher in the POAG group (0.207 ± 0.3 vs. 0.192 ± 0.37, p = 0.012). Eyes with PG received lower laser energy (POAG = 63.65 ± 22.03â mJ vs. PG = 43.71 ± 25.68â mJ, p < 0.001). IOP spikes were recorded in 5 PG eyes (7.6%) and none in the POAG group (p = 0.058). Failure rates were similar (PG = 50.7% and POAG = 43.1%, p = 0.205). In multivariable analysis, only pre-laser IOP (coefficient = 2.154 [CI: 0.765-3.543], p = 0.003) was a significant predictor of IOP change percentage after 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: SLT was comparably effective in both PG and POAG. IOP spikes were observed only in the PG group, though the total laser energy was lower in this group compared with POAG.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To report a case series of patients with treatment-resistant Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) using oral miltefosine, often as salvage therapy. DESIGN: Descriptive, retrospective multicenter case series. METHODS: We reviewed 15 patients with AK unresponsive to therapy who were subsequently given adjuvant systemic miltefosine between 2011 and 2017. The main outcome measures were resolution of infection, final visual acuity, tolerance of miltefosine, and clinical course of disease. RESULTS: All patients were treated with biguanides and/or diamidines or azoles without resolution of disease before starting miltefosine. Eleven of 15 patients retained count fingers or better vision, and all were considered disease free at last follow-up. Eleven of 15 patients had worsening inflammation with miltefosine, with 10 of them improving with steroids. Six patients received multiple courses of miltefosine. Most tolerated oral miltefosine well, with mild gastrointestinal symptoms as the most common systemic side effect. CONCLUSIONS: Oral miltefosine is a generally well-tolerated treatment adjuvant in patients with refractory AK. The clinician should be prepared for a steroid-responsive inflammatory response frequently encountered during the treatment course.