RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The effect of subretinal fluid (SRF) in uveitic cystoid macular edema (CME) is not fully understood. This study evaluates the quantitative effect of SRF and intraretinal thickness on visual acuity in eyes with uveitic CME. We separately measured SRF and intraretinal area on Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) to determine the associations of each component with visual acuity and response to treatment. MAIN TEXT: Medical records were reviewed of patients with CME presenting to the University of Colorado uveitis clinic from January 2012 to May 2019. All available OCTs were reviewed to classify eyes as either having only CME or CME with SRF. Intraretinal area was manually measured using Image J along the central 1-mm section of B-scan OCT spanning from the internal limiting membrane to the outer most portion of the outer retina including both cysts and retinal tissue. SRF cross-sectional area was measured spanning from the outermost portion of the outer retina to retinal pigment epithelium. Response to treatment was assessed one to four months after presentation. Eyes with CME secondary to structural or non-inflammatory causes were excluded. Forty-seven (50.5%) eyes had CME alone and 46 (49.5%) eyes had SRF with CME. Measured SRF cross-sectional area was not associated (p = 0.21) with LogMAR at presentation. Conversely, intraretinal area was strongly correlated with visual acuity in eyes with SRF (p < 0.001) and without SRF (p < 0.001). Following treatment, there was a significant decrease in intraretinal area for both groups (p < 0.001), with a larger decrease in the SRF group compared to the non-SRF group (p = 0.001). Similarly, logMAR improved in both groups (p = 0.008 for SRF eyes and p = 0.005 for non-SRF eyes), but the change was more prominent in the SRF group (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: There was no direct association observed between the amount of SRF and visual acuity. In contrast, increased intraretinal area was significantly associated with decreased visual acuity. This relationship between intraretinal thickening and visual acuity may explain differences observed in response to treatment between SRF and non-SRF eyes, with a larger decrease in the intraretinal cross-sectional area in SRF eyes associated with a greater improvement in logMAR visual acuity.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: As marijuana's popularity continues to grow, patients with glaucoma will encounter conflicting opinions on marijuana's role in glaucoma therapy. This study seeks to define the differing perceptions among glaucoma specialists, medical marijuana dispensaries, and glaucoma patients in a state with legalized marijuana. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, members of the American Glaucoma Society (AGS), and patients with glaucoma at the University of Colorado glaucoma clinic. METHODS: First, medical marijuana dispensary employees were surveyed using a mystery call approach and a brief phone script. Dispensary employees were questioned as to whether marijuana was recommended and whether marijuana was safe and effective. Second, a self-administered survey was distributed to AGS members to determine the history of recommending marijuana and influencing factors for or against this recommendation. Third, the self-administered glaucoma patient survey assessed demographics, history of glaucoma, knowledge and rate of marijuana use, and perceptions of marijuana use. All surveys were conducted from October 2018 to March 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of medical marijuana dispensaries and glaucoma specialists recommending marijuana for the treatment of glaucoma, and the proportion of patients with glaucoma using marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma. RESULTS: A total of 203 of the 300 medical marijuana dispensaries called were successfully contacted (68%). Of these, 103 respondents (51%) recommended marijuana products for the treatment of glaucoma. The remaining 100 (49%) deferred making a recommendation or were unsure. Of the 1308 AGS members, 290 (22%) responded to the survey. Twenty-two respondents (7.6%) reported that they had recommended marijuana for the treatment of glaucoma, with the majority of these (86.4%) having done so infrequently. Among the 231 respondents with glaucoma, most (58.9%) had heard about the possible use of marijuana for glaucoma, but only 2.6% had used marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: Few glaucoma specialists have recommended marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma, and an even smaller percentage of patients report its use as a treatment for their glaucoma. In contrast, many marijuana dispensary employees endorse its use. As legal access and public acceptance of marijuana escalate, physicians should be aware of these perceptions when educating patients.
