Outcome Measures to Assess Dry Eye Severity: A Review.

Outcome measures used to assess efficacy of dry eye therapeutics have not been consistently applied in clinical settings, nor have they been shown to correlate with functional outcomes. We propose that corneal staining, a clinically meaningful dry eye parameter, should be used as a standard objective outcome measure across all clinical trials evaluating dry eye treatments. We justify this based on evidence regarding its relationship to vision and vision related quality-of-life. In addition, corneal staining has been shown to correlate with ocular surface inflammation, a well elucidated aspect of dry eye pathophysiology and an active area in therapeutics research. No one outcome measure explored herein correlates perfectly to this heterogenous disease. However, there is mounting evidence showing the correlation between corneal staining and functional visual indices. We hope that future clinical trials will standardize corneal staining as a measure to determine the efficacy of interventions and justify their clinical utility.

The Efficacy of the After-visit Summary in Medication Recall Among Glaucoma Patients.

PRéCIS:: To assess the after-visit summary (AVS) as a tool for glaucoma medication recall. Medication recall was associated with level of education and complexity of medication regimen. Receiving an AVS was not associated with better medication recall. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients given the AVS have better or worse glaucoma medication recall. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational clinical study. Adults on ≥1 glaucoma medications examined between June 30, 2017 and August 2, 2017. DATA COLLECTION: in-person questionnaire and retrospective chart review. Self-reported glaucoma medications compared with prescribed glaucoma medication regimen verified by electronic medical record. Medication recall assessed using 3-point scoring: 1 point each for; (1) name or color of bottle or cap; (2) treatment eye(s); and (3) dosing regimen. DATA ANALYSIS: 2-sample Welch t test, 2-proportion z-test, analysis of variance, univariate, and multivariate regression. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients enrolled: age 69.7±12.9 years (mean±SD), 55.9% of patients had received an AVS at the previous visit. Of these, 33.3% reported receiving an AVS, 51.2% reported not receiving one (15.1% did not recall or respond). Patients who had received AVSs had lower medication recall scores than those who did not (2.4±1.0 vs. 2.7±0.6, P=0.04). Receipt of an AVS was associated with having Nisha Chadha as their provider (P=0.01), fewer days since prior visit (P=0.0001), and medication regimen change at prior visit (P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed completion of associate's degree or higher and fewer prescribed medications to be independent predictors of higher recall score (P=0.0002 and 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: AVSs were conceived to enhance patient care. This study indicates this goal is not achieved consistently. Less education and more complex medication regimens were identified as barriers to medication recall. Additional investigations should explore if modifying this document and enhanced explanation of its use will impact medication recall and health outcomes.