Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents for treating cystoid macular edema following cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due to leakage from dilated capillaries, is the most common cause of vision impairment following cataract surgery. Acute CME, defined as CME of less than four months' duration, often resolves spontaneously. CME that persists for four months or longer is termed chronic CME. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used to treat CME. This update adds new evidence and analyses to the previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of NSAIDs in the treatment of CME following cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; LILACS; mRCT (discontinued in 2014, last searched August 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP databases. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 20 March 2022.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of NSAIDs for CME following cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text publications against eligibility criteria, independently extracted data from newly included trials and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. We contacted trial authors for clarification or to request missing information. We provided a narrative synthesis of all included trials and their results. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, we separately performed pooled analysis and reported mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) as well as the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) whenever feasible. Two review authors independently graded the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with a total of 390 participants (393 eyes). Study participants' mean age was 72.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68.8 to 73.6) and 72% were women (IQR 69% to 74%). Three trials included participants with acute CME, and four included participants with chronic CME; the remaining two trials enrolled both participants with acute and chronic CME or participants with unknown CME duration. We assessed trials as having unclear (33%) or high risk of bias (67%). Visual improvement of two or more lines at the end of treatment  Data from one trial in participants with acute CME show no treatment effect of topical ketorolac compared to placebo (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.76; 22 participants). Data from a three-arm trial in participants with acute CME demonstrate that, when compared with topical prednisolone, topical ketorolac (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.07; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) may have little or no effect on visual improvement. Results of subgroup analysis from two studies in participants with chronic CME suggest that, after treatment for 90 days or longer, NSAIDs may increase participants' likelihood of visual improvement by 1.87 fold (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.22; I2 = 33%; 2 trials, 121 participants) relative to placebo. However, there was no evidence of treatment effects in the subgroup with two months of treatment or less (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.73; P = 0.19, I2 = 41%; 2 trials, 34 participants). Overall, this evidence is very low certainty.  A single-study estimate in patients with mixed CME indicates that topical diclofenac may increase the likelihood of visual improvement by 40% when compared to topical ketorolac (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.94; 68 participants). However, the same trial reported no difference between the groups in mean final visual acuity in Snellen lines (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.73). A three-arm trial in patients with mixed CME reporting visual changes in ETDRS letters in comparisons between ketorolac and diclofenac (34 participants) or bromfenac (34 participants) suggests no evidence of effects. Overall, NSAIDs may slightly improve visual acuity in participants with mixed CME but the evidence is very uncertain. Persistence of improvement of vision one month after discontinuation of treatment One trial of participants with chronic CME tested oral indomethacin (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.60; 20 participants) and the other compared topical ketorolac to placebo (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.1; 26 participants). While there is no evidence of treatment effects, evidence suggests substantial between-group heterogeneity (P = 0.07, I2 = 69.9%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials in patients with acute or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improvement in leakage on fundus fluorescein angiography One three-arm trial in participants with acute CME shows that, when compared with topical prednisolone, there is no treatment benefit of topical ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and topical prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.38; 17 participants). This evidence is very low certainty. The combined estimate from two trials in participants with chronic CME indicates NSAIDs have little to no effect over placebo on improving leakage (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.02; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the trials in patients with mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved contrast sensitivity Very low-certainty evidence from one trial in participants with acute CME shows no treatment benefit of ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) compared with topical prednisolone. None of the trials in patients with chronic or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved central macular thickness on optical coherence tomography; measures of quality of life No included trial reported these outcomes. Adverse effects Most trials observed no differences in ocular adverse events, such as corneal toxicity or elevated intraocular pressure, between comparison groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on effects of NSAIDs in patients with CME is very uncertain and further investigation is warranted. Our findings are limited by small sample sizes, and heterogeneity in interventions, assessments, and reporting of clinically important outcomes.

Association of staffing with Incidence of delayed retinal break or detachment after posterior vitreous detachment in a resident urgent care clinic.

PURPOSE: To compare the incidence rate of delayed retinal break or detachment after diagnosis of acute, symptomatic posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) in a resident-run urgent care clinic (UCC) when staffed by a retina attending, non-retina ophthalmology attending, optometrist, or ophthalmology resident only. METHODS: Retrospective consecutive case series. Of the 594 patients with acute, symptomatic PVD evaluated in the UCC at Penn State Eye Center between 1/1/2016 and 10/10/2019, 454 were included in the study; 140 were excluded because they were diagnosed with a retinal break or detachment on presentation to the UCC, had media opacity precluding examination, or had no follow-up within one year. Demographics, presenting examination findings, and type of staffing were recorded; subsequent visits up to 1 year were analyzed for presence of delayed retinal break or detachment. RESULTS: Among 491 eyes of 454 patients with a mean follow-up of 147 days, ten delayed breaks (10/491, 2.0%) and three delayed detachments (3/491, 0.6%) were discovered. Incidence rates of delayed breaks and detachments were 1.8% (5/282) and 0.7% (2/282), respectively, in the retina attending group, 1.0% (1/105) and 1.0% (1/105) in the non-retina ophthalmology attending group, 4.7% (3/64) and 0% (0/64) in the optometrist group, and 2.5% (1/40) and 0% (0/40) in the ophthalmology resident only group. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of delayed break or detachment among the staffing groups (P = 0.7312), but this study was underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference among staffing groups. Patients with a delayed break or detachment were more likely to have lattice degeneration (P = 0.0265) or a history of retinal break in the contralateral eye (P = 0.0014), and most eyes (10 [76.9%]) with a delayed break or detachment were left eyes (P = 0.0466). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of delayed retinal break or detachment in the current study is similar to previously published rates among retinal physician and retinal fellow examiners. Although no statistically significant difference among staffing groups in the incidence rates of delayed retinal tears or detachments was identified in the study, it is important to note that the optometry and ophthalmology resident only groups had higher incidence rates of delayed retinal breaks than did the retina and non-retina ophthalmology attending groups, and this may be clinically important. Larger cohort studies would be needed in order to have the power to detect statistically significant differences among staffing groups. Varied staffing for acute, symptomatic PVD may assist with resource allocation in similar settings.

Factors Influencing Choice of Medical Specialty among Ophthalmology and Non-Ophthalmology Residency Applicants.

Objective The study aimed to investigate factors influencing choice of specialty among ophthalmology and non-ophthalmology residency applicants. Patients and Methods Anonymous, web-based surveys were distributed through REDCap to the 2019 to 2020 residency applicants to the Penn State Department of Ophthalmology and, as a control group, Penn State medical students applying to non-ophthalmology residencies for the 2019 to 2020 cycle. The primary outcome was factors that influenced specialty choice among ophthalmology versus non-ophthalmology applicants. Secondary outcomes include hours of exposure to applicants' selected specialty in the medical school preclinical curriculum, and proportion of ophthalmology versus non-ophthalmology applicants who decided on, or developed a strong interest in, their specialty prior to clinical rotations. Results Surveys were completed by 203/441 (46.0%) ophthalmology and 85/139 (61.1%) non-ophthalmology applicants. Fewer than 20 hours of exposure to an applicant's selected specialty were provided in the medical school preclinical curriculum for 86.7% of ophthalmology and 42.4% of non-ophthalmology applicants ( p < 0.001). Ophthalmology applicants decided on, or developed a strong interest in, their selected specialty before clinical rotations at a similar rate to non-ophthalmology applicants (60.6 vs. 58.8%, respectively). Factors influencing specialty choice cited most commonly by ophthalmology applicants include professional satisfaction (94.1%), performing surgeries/procedures (92.6%), personal fit with specialty (91.1%), work-life balance (91.1%), and ability to see patients in a clinic setting (90.6%), compared to personal fit with specialty (95.3%)%, clinical rotation in selected specialty (95.3%), professional satisfaction (91.8%), intellectual stimulation (89.4%), and subinternship or away rotation (89.4%) among non-ophthalmology applicants. Conclusion Professional satisfaction and personal fit with specialty were among the most commonly cited factors influencing specialty choice for both groups. Other factors cited most frequently by ophthalmology applicants include performing surgeries/procedures, work-life balance, and ability to see patients in a clinic setting. Despite limited ophthalmology exposure in medical school preclinical curricula, ophthalmology applicants decided on, or developed a strong interest in, their selected specialty before clinical rotations at a rate similar to non-ophthalmology applicants.