Intraocular Pressure Changes While Reading Smartphone Digital Text Versus Printed Text in Healthy Individuals and those with Glaucoma.

PRCIS: Reading results in a rise in intraocular pressure (IOP) which is greater while using smartphones compared with printed text among healthy and individuals with medically controlled primary open angle glaucoma (POAG). PURPOSE: To compare the effect of reading for 30 minutes using smartphone and printed text on IOP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty healthy volunteers and 22 patients with medically controlled POAG were asked to perform reading tasks using printed text followed by digital (smartphone) text under standardized conditions. IOP assessment was done using a rebound tonometer at baseline and subsequently at 10, 20, and 30 minutes of reading and 10 and 20 minutes post completion of reading tasks. IOP variations from baseline were measured and compared. Paired and independent ' T ' test analysis was performed to study IOP variations, and a P -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean baseline IOP among volunteers and patients withPOAG was 14.58 (±2.91) and 15.02 (±2.18) mmHg, respectively. There was a rise in IOP in all participants with reading using either of the modalities, which normalized after 20 minutes of cessation. There was a statistically significant difference in rise in IOP from baseline between the 2 modalities (printed text reading and smartphone reading) at 20 minutes {+0.78 & +2.01 ( P =0.002)} and 30 minutes {+0.64 & +1.72 ( P =0.004)} among healthy volunteers and at 20 minutes {+0.78 & +2.01 ( P =0.002)} among POAG patients. CONCLUSION: Reading is associated with the rise in IOP in both healthy volunteers and POAG individuals. The IOP rise is more marked with smartphone compared with printed text reading.

Utility of bone marrow examination in retinoblastoma and their correlation with hematological features.

Retinoblastoma makes up about 3% of all childhood malignancies. The frequency of metastatic retinoblastoma ranges from 4.8 to 11%. Assessing the bone marrow status of newly diagnosed patients is crucial because of the advantages of autologous bone marrow transplants for high-risk patients. This study aimed to determine the utility of bone marrow examination in cases of retinoblastoma and its correlation with hematological findings. This retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Pathology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India. A total of 34 cases of retinoblastoma with bone marrow examination were included in the study. Bone marrow infiltration was present in 17.65% (6/34) cases of retinoblastoma. Bone marrow aspirate myelogram showed that marrow metastasis in retinoblastoma was significantly linked with a reduced percentage of total myeloid cells (p=0.001) and segmented cells (p=0.006). The present study demonstrated that 15% (3/20) of retinoblastoma patients previously classified as nonmetastatic before bone marrow examination (stages I to III based on histology, imaging, and bone scan) had bone marrow metastases following bone marrow examination and were upgraded to stage IV. To conclude, a diligent and exhaustive search for metastatic cells in bone marrow is advised if the myelogram shows a reduced percentage of total myeloid and segmented cells. All stage II and stage III cases of retinoblastoma must undergo bone marrow examination for early metastasis detection, as it may result in an upgrade to stage IV disease, impacting the prognosis and necessitating distinct treatment modalities.

Netarsudil monotherapy as the initial treatment for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Indian patients: A real-world evaluation of efficacy and safety.

Purpose: Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness worldwide, affecting more than 64 million people aged 40-80. The best way to manage primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is by lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP). Netarsudil is a Rho kinase inhibitor, the only class of antiglaucoma medications that reorganizes the extracellular matrix to improve the aqueous outflow through the trabecular pathway. Methods: An open-label, real-world, multicentric, observation-based 3-month study was performed for assessing the safety and ocular hypotensive efficacy of netarsudil ophthalmic solution (0.02% w/v) in patients with elevated IOP. Patients were given netarsudil ophthalmic solution (0.02% w/v) as a first-line therapy. Diurnal IOP measurements, best-corrected visual acuity, and adverse event assessments were recorded at each of the five visits (Day-1: screening day and first dosing day; subsequent observations were taken at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months). Results: Four hundred and sixty-nine patients from 39 centers throughout India completed the study. The mean IOP at baseline of the affected eyes was 24.84 ± 6.39 mmHg (mean ± standard deviation). After the first dose, the IOP was measured after 2, 4, and 6 weeks, with the final measurement taken at 3 months. The percentage reduction in IOP in glaucoma patients after 3 months of once-daily netarsudil 0.02% w/v solution use was 33.34%. The adverse effects experienced by patients were not severe in the majority of cases. Some adverse effects observed were redness, irritation, itching, and others, but only a small number of patients experienced severe reactions, as reported in a decreasing order: redness > irritation > watering > itching > stinging > blurring. Conclusion: We found that netarsudil 0.02% w/v solution monotherapy when used as the first-line treatment in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension was both safe and effective.

Comparison between two intravitreal injection techniques with respect to fluid reflux, intraocular pressure, and therapeutic effect.

CONTEXT: Effect of fluid reflux on intraocular pressure (IOP) and therapeutic benefits. AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare two intravitreal injection techniques in terms of fluid reflux, short-term IOP changes, and therapeutic effect. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized interventional study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty eyes were randomly allocated to two groups (direct intravitreal injection technique and oblique intravitreal injection technique). IOP was measured before and immediately after the injection of 0.1 ml comprising of bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml) and dexamethasone (0.2 mg/0.05 ml) and then at 30 min after the injection. Occurrence and amount of vitreous reflux were recorded. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were assessed preinjection and 6 weeks postinjection. RESULTS: IOP (mmHg ± standard deviation) increased significantly immediately after injection to 24.30 ± 3.02 (direct intravitreal injection) and 31.50 ± 3.49 (oblique intravitreal injection). These pressure rise differed significantly between both groups (mean difference: 7.2, P < 0.0001). Thirty minutes after injection, there was no significant difference in IOP increase between the groups. Occurrence and amount of fluid reflux were significantly higher with direct intravitreal injection. There was no significant difference in BCVA and CMT outcome between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Direct intravitreal injection technique has lower rise in IOP and higher incidence of fluid reflux than the oblique intravitreal technique. Fluid reflux does not cause a therapeutic compromise in terms of BCVA or CMT changes, so the reflux fluid must be the vitreous not the drug. Thus, direct injection technique seems to be the preferred technique.

Posttraumatic maxillary and ophthalmic herpes zoster in an immune-competent female - A unique presentation.

Herpes Zoster is a neuro-cutaneous disorder caused by reactivation of Varicella-Zoster Virus. A number of factors such as old age, psychological stress, low immune states, radiation exposure and physical trauma have been implicated for reactivation. Post traumatic herpes zoster involving maxillary and ophthalmic division of trigeminal nerve is very rare and has been reported in presence of Immune deficiency and following iatrogenic trauma (nerve block injection). We report a unique presentation of simultaneous ophthalmic and maxillary herpes zoster following a facial injury with a wooden stick in an immune-competent female.

Antibiotics for trachoma.

BACKGROUND: Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement). OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective), Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva, antibiotic resistance, and adverse effects (secondary objectives). SEARCH METHODS: We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers. The date of the last search was 4 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. We also included studies addressing different dosing strategies in the population.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies where individuals with trachoma were randomised and 12 cluster-randomised studies. Any antibiotic versus control (individuals)Nine studies (1961 participants) randomised individuals with trachoma to antibiotic or control (no treatment or placebo). All of these studies enrolled children and young people with active trachoma. The antibiotics used in these studies included topical (oxy)tetracycline (5 studies), doxycycline (2 studies), and sulfonamides (4 studies). Four studies had more than two study arms. In general these studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.These studies provided low-certainty evidence that people with active trachoma treated with antibiotics experienced a reduction in active trachoma at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 1961 people; 9 RCTs; I2 = 73%) and 12 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; 1035 people; 4 RCTs; I2 = 90%). Low-certainty evidence was available for ocular infection at three months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; 297 people; 4 RCTs; I2 = 0%) and 12 months (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78; 129 people; 1 RCT). None of these studies assessed antimicrobial resistance. In those studies that reported harms, no serious adverse effects were reported (low-certainty evidence).Oral versus topical antibiotics (individuals)Eight studies (1583 participants) compared oral and topical antibiotics. Only one study included people older than 21 years of age. Oral antibiotics included azithromycin (5 studies), sulfonamides (2 studies), and doxycycline (1 study). Topical antibiotics included (oxy)tetracycline (6 studies), azithromycin (1 study), and sulfonamide (1 study). These studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in effect between oral and topical antibiotics on active trachoma at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 953 people; 6 RCTs; I2 = 63%) and 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 886 people; 5 RCTs; I2 = 56%). There was very low-certainty evidence for ocular infection at three or 12 months. Antimicrobial resistance was not assessed. In those studies that reported adverse effects, no serious adverse effects were reported; one study reported abdominal pain with azithromycin; one study reported a couple of cases of nausea with azithromycin; and one study reported three cases of reaction to sulfonamides (low-certainty evidence).Oral azithromycin versus control (communities)Four cluster-randomised studies compared antibiotic with no or delayed treatment. Data were available on active trachoma at 12 months from two studies but could not be pooled because of reporting differences. One study at low risk of bias found a reduced prevalence of active trachoma 12 months after a single dose of azithromycin in communities with a high prevalence of infection (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; 1247 people). The other, lower quality, study in low-prevalence communities reported similar median prevalences of infection at 12 months: 9.3% in communities treated with azithromycin and 8.2% in untreated communities. We judged this moderate-certainty evidence for a reduction in active trachoma with treatment, downgrading one level for inconsistency between the two studies. Two studies reported ocular infection at 12 months and data could be pooled. There was a reduction in ocular infection (RR 0.36, 0.31 to 0.43; 2139 people) 12 months after mass treatment with a single dose compared with no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). There was high-certainty evidence of an increased risk of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli to azithromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin in communities treated with azithromycin, with approximately 5-fold risk ratios at 12 months. The evidence did not support increased resistance to penicillin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. None of the studies measured resistance to C trachomatis. No serious adverse events were reported. The main adverse effect noted for azithromycin (˜10%) was abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea.Oral azithromycin versus topical tetracycline (communities)Three cluster-randomised studies compared oral azithromycin with topical tetracycline. The evidence was inconsistent for active trachoma and ocular infection at three and 12 months (low-certainty evidence) and was not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity. Antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects were not reported.Different dosing strategiesSix studies compared different strategies for dosing. There were: mass treatment at different dosing intervals; applying cessation or stopping rules to mass treatment; strategies to increase mass treatment coverage. There was no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended annual mass treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of active trachoma and ocular infection in people infected with C trachomatis, compared to no treatment/placebo, but the size of the treatment effect in individuals is uncertain. Mass antibiotic treatment with single dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities. There is no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended periodicity of annual mass treatment. There is evidence of an increased risk of antibiotic resistance at 12 months in communities treated with antibiotics.