A novel 5-ring multifocal electroretinography stimulus for detecting hydroxychloroquine retinal toxicity.

PURPOSE: Multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) shows great utility as a screening tool to detect early hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) retinopathy, but its widespread use is limited by the lack of accessibility and long test duration. In this study, we evaluated a novel concentric 5-ring mfERG stimulus to provide a simplified and rapid protocol for screening HCQ toxicity. METHODS: Patients referred for HCQ retinopathy screening were consented to this observational cross-sectional study. Patients with amblyopia, high refractive error (more than 8 diopters), other retinal diseases precluding appropriate evaluation or history of retinal surgery were excluded. The data were collected from patients undergoing HCQ screening at a single center from July 2019 to March 2020. Patients were tested with the new concentric 5-ring mfERG stimulus, standard 61-hexagon mfERG stimulus, spectral domain optical coherence tomography and automated 10-2 visual fields. For the main outcome, the 5-ring mfERG was compared to 61-hexagon stimulus to determine the time-to-test completion and assess the association between ring (R1-R5) amplitude and ring ratio compared against cumulative dose, dose by real body weight and duration of therapy using Pearson correlation. RESULTS: In total, 52 patients (104 eyes; 5 males and 47 females) were recruited with a mean age of 59 years (range 23-85 years). The 5-ring protocol was markedly quicker to perform (1.3 ± 0.2 min; mean (SD)) compared to the 61-hexagon protocol (5.2 ± 0.6 min), p < 0.0001; n = 10 patients. The new R2/R5 ring ratio showed a moderate correlation with daily dose (r = - 0.640), cumulative dose (r = - 0.581) and duration of therapy (r = - 0.417). Similar correlations were observed with the new R2/R4 ring ratio which were not significantly different from the new R2/R5 correlation coefficients. The new R2/R5 ring ratio demonstrated a stronger correlation with daily (p = 0.002) and cumulative dose (p = 0.0001) compared to the 61-hexagon stimulus. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study, our novel 5-ring mfERG protocol significantly shortened data acquisition time while providing comparable results to the standard 61-hexagon stimulus for detecting HCQ-induced electrophysiological changes that are correlated with HCQ dosages and treatment duration. Our protocol has the potential to be more clinically practical by simplifying routine screening.

Acute annular outer retinopathy preceded by invasive ductal breast carcinoma: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Acute annular outer retinopathy (AAOR) is an uncommon disease. To date, there are few documented cases in the literature. Our case report is the first to describe a case of acute annular outer retinopathy in a patient with invasive ductal breast carcinoma. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient presented with photopsias and visual loss approximately 3 weeks prior to a diagnosis of invasive ductal breast carcinoma. We have documented the outer annular white ring seen in the acute phase of this disease and correlate it anatomically with Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) imaging. We identified RPE atrophy with nodular hyperreflectivity and loss of ellipsoid layer within the white annular ring with corresponding visual field loss. Fundus autofluorescence correlated with structural alterations seen on SD-OCT and showed both presumed active hyperautofluorescent zones with patchy hypoautofluorescent zones of atrophy and a classic annular hyperautofluorescent border. This case provides additional information about the natural history of this rare entity and its prognosis and varied presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The authors report a single case of acute annular outer retinopathy in a patient with invasive ductal breast carcinoma with the corresponding SD-OCT, fundus autofluorescence and visual field findings, during the acute phase of the disease. These findings provide new insight into the characteristic features, etiology and progression of this rare disease.

A randomized, double-blind, window of opportunity trial evaluating the effects of chloroquine in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Chloroquine has demonstrated anti-tumor activities through autophagy inhibition and cell cycle disruption. This study aimed to assess the effect of single-agent chloroquine on breast tumor cellular proliferation in a randomized, phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pre-surgical window of opportunity trial. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were randomized 2:1 to chloroquine 500 mg daily or placebo for 2- to 6-weeks prior to their breast surgery. The primary outcome was the relative change in measures of proliferation (Ki67) in primary breast cancer cells pre- and post-treatment. Adverse events and toxicity profiles were also evaluated. RESULTS: From September 2015 to December 2016, 70 patients were randomized [46 (66%) chloroquine and 24 (34%) placebo]. Ten patients who were randomized to chloroquine withdrew from study due to adverse events. Mean duration of drug intake was 15 days (range 14-29 days). There were no significant differences between the chloroquine or placebo arms with respect to either the percentage change (- 0.4 vs. - 1.2, p = 0.088) or absolute change (- 2.0% vs. - 5.2%, p = 0.066) in Ki67 index pre- and post-drug treatment. Although adverse effects were minimal and all classified as grade 1, the effects were significant enough to cause nearly 15% of patients to discontinue therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with single-agent chloroquine 500 mg daily in the preoperative setting was not associated with any significant effects on breast cancer cellular proliferation. It was, however, associated with toxicity that may affect its broader use in oncology.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine retinopathy: a systematic review evaluating the multifocal electroretinogram as a screening test.

PURPOSE: To determine the validity of multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) as a screening tool for detecting chloroquine (Aralen, Sanofi Aventis, Bridgewater, NJ) (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Covis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Zug, Switzerland) (HCQ) retinal toxicity in patients using these medications. To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of mfERG when compared with automated visual fields (AVFs), fundus autofluorescence (FAF), and optical coherence tomography (OCT). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology recommendations on screening for CQ/HCQ retinopathy recommended a shift toward more objective testing modalities. Multifocal electroretinography may be effective in detecting functional change before irreversible structural damage from CQ/HCQ toxicity. METHODS: We performed a search for records reporting the use of mfERG for screening CQ/HCQ retinopathy in MEDLINE (PubMed and OVID), EMBASE, and Web of Science, and assessed these using the QUADAS-2 risk of bias tool. We conducted an analysis of 23 individual studies and their reported individual patient data (449 eyes of 243 patients) published from January 2000 to December 2014. RESULTS: Multifocal electroretinography had the greatest proportion of positive test results, followed by AVF. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of mfERG were 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.98) and 52% (CI, 0.29-0.74), respectively, with AVF as reference standard (13 studies). Sensitivity was high, but specificity was variable when OCT, FAF, and the positivity of 2 of 3 tests was used as the reference standard. When verified against AVF as the reference test, patients with a false-positive mfERG result received higher HCQ cumulative doses (1068 g) than patients with true-negative (658 g, P < 0.01) and false-negative (482 g, P < 0.01) results. CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal electroretinography was shown to have a high sensitivity but variable specificity when verified against AVF, OCT, FAF, and a combination of tests. The greater average cumulative dose in the false-positive group compared with the true-negative group when mfERG was verified against AVF suggests that mfERG may have the ability to detect cases of toxicity earlier than other modalities. There is an unclear risk of bias in the available evidence, and future studies should adhere to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy reporting guidelines.

Mesenchymal stem cell based therapies for uveitis: a systematic review of preclinical studies.

Cell therapy has shown promising results for treating uveitis in preclinical studies. As the field continues to grow towards clinical translation, it is important to review and critically appraise existing studies. Herein, we analysed and critically appraised all preclinical studies using cell therapy or cell derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) for uveitis, and provided insight into mechanisms regulating ocular inflammation. We used PubMed, Medline, and Embase to search for preclinical studies examining stem cell therapy (e.g., mesenchymal stem cells [MSC]) and secreted EVs. All included studies were assessed for quality using the SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) checklist. Sixteen preclinical studies from 2011 to 2022 were analysed and included in this review of which 75% (n = 12) focused only on cell therapy, 18.7% (n = 3) studies focused on EVs, and 6.3% (n = 1) study focused on both cells and EVs. MSCs were the most common type of cells used in preclinical studies (n = 15) and EVs were commonly isolated from MSCs (n = 3). Overall, both MSCs and EVs showed improvements in ocular inflammation (seen on fundoscopy/slit lamp and histology) and electroretinogram outcomes. Overall, MSC and MSC-derived EVs shown great potential as therapeutic agents for treating uveitis. Unfortunately, small sample size, risk of selection/performance bias, and lack of standardized cell harvesting or delivery protocols are some factors which limits clinical translation. Large scaled, randomized preclinical studies are required to understand the full potential of MSCs for treating uveitis.

Efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant used as monotherapy for the treatment of macular edema in non-infectious uveitis: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Uveitic macular edema is a complication of acute or chronic uveitis. Current treatment regiments frequently have numerous side effects, often requiring supplemental treatment. This study investigates the efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants as monotherapy for treatment of macular edema in non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective chart review of thirty patients with intermediate, posterior and panuveitis treated with DEX. Outcomes measured were central retinal thickness (CRT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Baseline measurements of CRT and BCVA were measured within 1 month prior to intravitreal DEX implant and follow up measurements were collected until 1 year post implant. 48 implants on 39 eyes of 30 patients were included in this study; 64.1% of patients had an improvement in BCVA and 65.4% had a reduction in CRT. BCVA improved from 0.285 logMAR (SD: 0.312) at baseline to 0.175 logMAR (SD: 0.194) at 1 month and was sustained thereafter. Preliminary CRT data showed a decrease from 392 [Formula: see text] (SD: [Formula: see text]) at baseline to 303 [Formula: see text] (SD: [Formula: see text] at 1 month and 313 [Formula: see text] (SD: [Formula: see text] at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The DEX implant as monotherapy for macular edema in non-infectious uveitis was associated with a reduction in CRT and improvement in BCVA. The DEX implant, used as a monotherapy in eyes with intermediate, posterior and panuveitis, has the potential to treat uveitis without oral corticosteroid or other immunomodulatory therapy.

Dr. Gottlieb et al reply.

We thank the author for their reply1 and appreciate the approach of having clear terminology and standard definitions within clinical practice guidelines or recommendations, that are applicable across specialist groups. A definition of controlled anterior uveitis or quiescent disease is important for treatment decisions, particularly when classifying a patient's disease as failing current therapy and making decisions for escalating therapy.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendations for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-Associated Uveitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop Canadian recommendations for the screening, monitoring, and treatment of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach. A working group of 14 pediatric rheumatologists, 6 ophthalmologists, 2 methodologists, and 3 caregiver/patient representatives reviewed recent American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Arthritis Foundation (AF) recommendations and worked in pairs to develop evidence-to-decision (EtD) tables. A survey to assess agreement and recommendations requiring group discussion was completed. EtD tables were presented, discussed, and voted upon at a virtual meeting, to produce the final recommendations. A health equity framework was applied to all aspects of the adolopment process including the EtD tables, survey responses, and virtual meeting discussion. RESULTS: The survey identified that 7 of the 19 recommendations required rigorous discussion. Seventy-five percent of working group members attended the virtual meeting to discuss controversial topics as they pertained to the Canadian environment, including timing to first eye exam, frequency of screening, escalation criteria for systemic and biologic therapy, and the role of nonbiologic therapies. Equity issues related to access to care and advanced therapeutics across Canadian provinces and territories were highlighted. Following the virtual meeting, 5 recommendations were adapted, 2 recommendations were removed, and 1 was developed de novo. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for JIA-associated uveitis were adapted to the Canadian context by a working group of pediatric rheumatologists, ophthalmologists with expertise in the management of uveitis, and parent/patient input, taking into consideration cost, equity, and access.

Pathophysiology of central serous chorioretinopathy: a literature review with quality assessment.

The pathogenesis of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR), a pachychoroid disease, is poorly understood. While choroid hyperpermeability and retinal pigment epithelium dysfunction are cornerstones for developing CSCR, the mechanisms at the retinal, vascular, retinal pigment epithelium, and cellular level continue to be an enigma. A few preclinical studies and the development of small-sized, poorly controlled clinical trials have resulted in limited insight into the disease mechanism. Effective treatments for CSCR are still lacking as current trials have produced inconsistent results for functional and structural gains. Thus, critically evaluating the literature to explore disease mechanisms and provide an up-to-date understanding of pathophysiology can provide valuable information and avenues to new treatments. In this study, a comprehensive summary of the mechanistic insight into CSCR is presented while highlighting the shortcomings of current literature. The mechanism was divided into seven sub-categories including mechanical obstruction, inflammation, oxidative stress, paracrine factors, autonomic dysfunction, mineralocorticoid receptors activation, and medications. We implemented validated tools like the JBI and CAMARADES to objectively analyze the quality of both clinical and preclinical studies, respectively. Overall, our analysis of the literature showed that no single mechanism was populated with a large number of sufficiently sized and good-quality studies. However, compiling these studies gave hints not only to CSCR pathogenesis but also pachychoroid disease in general while providing suggestions for future exploration.

Intravenous administration of Penicillin results in therapeutic intravitreal levels in chronic postoperative endophthalmitis.

IMPORTANCE: The role of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis remains controversial. While penicillin is a highly effective antibiotic against bacteria that frequently cause endophthalmitis, the ability of systemically administered Penicillin G to penetrate into the vitreous at adequate therapeutic concentrations has not been studied. Its role in the treatment of endophthalmitis, particularly for bacteria for which it is the antibiotic of choice, therefore remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether intravenous administration of Penicillin G leads to adequate therapeutic concentrations in the vitreous for the treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was conducted in an ambulatory setting, at the Ottawa Hospital Eye Institute, a university-affiliated tertiary care center, where a 77-year old gentleman with chronic post-cataract surgery Actinomyces neuii endophathalmitis was treated with intravenous Penicillin G (4 × 106 units every 4 h) and intravitreal ampicillin (5000µg/0.1 m1). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Intravitreal concentration of Penicillin G and ampicillin were obtained at the time of intraocular lens removal, measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: The intravitreal concentration of penicillin and ampicillin was 3.5µg/ml and 0.3µg/ml, respectively. Both the concentration of penicillin and ampicillin were within the level of detection of their respective assays (penicillin 0.06-5µg/ml, ampicillin 0.12-2.5µg/ml). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This study shows that intravenous Penicillin G administered every four-hours allows for adequate intravitreal concentrations of penicillin. Future studies are required to determine if the results of this study translate into improved clinical outcomes.

Ozurdex (dexamethasone intravitreal implant) for the treatment of intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis: a systematic review of the current evidence.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine if the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX implant, Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, California) is effective for treating intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis as a monotherapy or adjunctive treatment to systemic immunomodulatory therapies. METHODS: A systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed database searches was conducted with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence criteria to select publications. Available background information and patient data from each study was tabulated. Outcomes studied were central retinal thickness (CRT), best corrected visual acuity, intraocular inflammation (anterior chamber cells, vitreous haze), number of patients with prior and concomitant immunomodulatory treatments, intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (≥ 25 mmHg), and other adverse effects associated with the implant. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five (61.51%) patients had previous immunomodulatory treatment while 232 (64.8%) were treated with concomitant immunomodulatory therapy with the DEX implant. CRT decreased by an average of 198.65 µm (42.74%). Visual acuity improved to an average of 0.451 (logMAR) or 20/57 (Snellen) which is a 43.11% improvement from baseline. One hundred seventy-three (59%) of eyes were quiescent at the end of the trials, of which 40 (13.7%) previously inflamed eyes became quiescent. Elevated IOP occurred in 91 (20.6%). The most common adverse events were cataract/posterior subcapsular opacities in 47 (11.03%) patients and conjunctival hemorrhage in 24 (5.44%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The DEX implant is an effective medication for the treatment of posterior segment uveitis, uveitic macular edema, and results in improved visual acuity. Development of elevated IOP and cataract should be closely monitored as they are tangible risks associated with the DEX implant. This study was not able to determine whether the DEX implant was more effective as a monotherapy or as an adjunctive therapy to systemic immunomodulatory treatment.

Uveitis and cystoid macular oedema secondary to topical prostaglandin analogue use in ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Of the side effects of prostaglandin analogues (PGAs), uveitis and cystoid macular oedema (CME) have significant potential for vision loss based on postmarket reports. Caution has been advised due to concerns of macular oedema and uveitis. In this report, we researched and summarised the original data suggesting these effects and determined their incidence. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Studies evaluating topical PGAs in patients with ocular hypertension or open angle glaucoma were included. MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched between 1946 and 2019. Experimental studies, animal studies and randomised studies with other intraocular pressure-lowering eye drops were excluded. RESULTS: 214 studies (28 232 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Using prospective data, the incidence of uveitis and CME among PGA users were 62/28 232 (0.22%) and 25/28 232 (0.09%), respectively. A higher frequency of both uveitis and CME were found among latanoprost users compared with bimatoprost. There were 21 case studies reporting CME including 48 eyes in 43 patients. 47 of 48 eyes (97.9%) had previous incisional ocular surgery. 8 eyes were re-challenged, of which 7 (87.5%) recurred. 7 case studies reported uveitis in 15 eyes of 10 patients. 7 of 15 eyes (46.7%) were either pseudophakic or aphakic. 6 eyes were re-challenged, and all 6 (100%) recurred. CONCLUSIONS: Cases of uveitis or CME revealed a confounding effect of ocular surgery, aphakia or subluxed intraocular lens. PGAs may be used in non-surgical patients without concern of causing CME or uveitis. The incidences of PGA-associated CME and uveitis are rare with limited prospective studies on the cause-effect relationship.

The Diagnostic Utility of Multifocal Electroretinography in Detecting Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Retinal Toxicity.

PURPOSE: To evaluate multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) as a screening test for detecting hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine toxicity. DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. METHODS: Patients referred to the University of Ottawa for hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine retinopathy screening during 2011-2014 underwent 10-2 automated visual field, spectral domain optical coherence tomography, and mfERG testing. Patients with amblyopia, high myopia or hyperopia, coexisting retinal disease, or prior surgery were excluded. Abnormalities in parafoveal ring amplitudes or ring ratios were considered a positive mfERG result. We used the definition for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine toxicity provided by the 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology recommendations. Area under the curve (AUC) for each mfERG parameter and the sensitivity and specificity of mfERG were calculated. Logistic regression was used to model the effect of covariates in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: In total, 63 patients (47 female, 16 male) were included. Of 120 eyes, 16 (13.3%) had toxicity according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines, and 39 (32.5%) had positive mfERG findings. mfERG was found to have a sensitivity of 1.00 (95% CI 0.79-1.00) and a specificity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.85). Ring 2 amplitude had the best performance among all parameters (AUC 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00). Ring 2 amplitude decreased linearly with increasing cumulative dose and daily dose. CONCLUSIONS: The high sensitivity of parafoveal depression on mfERG and its relationship to cumulative and daily dose illustrates an important role for objective functional testing. The high false-positive rate suggests a potential period where physiologic dysfunction is detected objectively on mfERG before structural change on spectral domain optical coherence tomography.

Ocular involvement in acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis (Sweet syndrome): new cases and review of the literature.

Sweet syndrome (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a dermatologic disorder with accompanying features of systemic inflammation. It is commonly associated with conjunctivitis, but a variety of types of ocular inflammation have been reported. The ocular manifestations of Sweet syndrome include periorbital and orbital inflammation, dacryoadenitis, conjunctivitis, episcleritis, scleritis, limbal nodules, peripheral ulcerative keratitis, iritis, glaucoma, and choroiditis. The ocular inflammation appears concurrently with skin lesions. An overview of Sweet syndrome is presented with a review of cases in the literature describing ocular involvement. We report two additional cases of ocular involvement, one with conjunctivitis and a second with iritis, peripheral ulcerative keratitis, and episcleritis. Of the 20 cases, half were bilateral. Thirteen cases occurred in the setting of classical or idiopathic Sweet syndrome and seven in association with malignancy. Biopsies of ocular tissue were infrequent, but, in the seven cases where ocular tissue was analyzed, the histopathology was similar to that of the cutaneous lesions. The ocular complications of Sweet syndrome resolved with systemic administration of corticosteroid or cyclosporine. Topical ocular steroid treatment was frequently used in conjunction with oral steroid but may not have been valuable.

Methotrexate for the treatment of noninfectious scleritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess corticosteroid-sparing and inflammation control in patients with noninfectious scleritis treated with methotrexate. DESIGN: Retrospective review. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who received methotrexate treatment for noninfectious scleritis and who had 12 months of follow-up after treatment initiation were included in this review. METHODS: The clinical records of noninfectious scleritis patients presenting at the University of Ottawa Eye Institute between September 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 treated with methotrexate were retrospectively reviewed. Seventeen patients (21 eyes) were included in the study. Main outcome included inflammation control and corticosteroid-sparing success. Secondary outcomes were reduction of immunosuppression load and best-corrected visual acuity. RESULTS: The proportion of eyes with corticosteroid-sparing success was 69.2% at 3 months and 92.3% at 12 months. The proportion of eyes that achieved inflammation control was 61.9% at 3 months and 90.5% at 12 months. The corticosteroid immunosuppression load at treatment start was 1.9 ± 2.07 and at 12 months was 0.48 ± 1.03 (p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in best-corrected visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of noninfectious scleritis with methotrexate appears to be effective at both achieving steroid-sparing success and controlling inflammation during 12 months of therapy. Immunosuppression load decreased significantly over 12 months of therapy while best corrected visual acuity was stable.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Macular Edema in Chronic Non-infectious Uveitis.

PURPOSE: To report observations on the single and repeat use of the dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA) for the treatment of macular edema in patients with non-infectious posterior segment uveitis. METHODS: A chart review of 15 consecutive patients (25 eyes) was conducted. The primary outcome measure of the first and subsequent implants was central retinal thickness (CRT) on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (sdOCT). Secondary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), time to repeat implant, and adverse events. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression was used to determine the effect of the DEX implant compared with baseline. The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to examine survival from relapse. RESULTS: A total of 35 implants on 25 eyes of 15 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 91.4% (32 of 35 eyes) had a reduction in CRT and 80% (20 of 25 eyes) had improved BCVA. After the first DEX implant, CRT decreased from 590 µm (SE: 28 µm) at baseline to 370 µm (SE: 31 µm) at 3 months (p < 0.001). The logMAR VA was 0.614 (SE: 0.089) at baseline and improved to 0.35 (SE: 0.10, p = 0.002), reaching a statistically significant difference at 3 months. A repeat implant led to VA improvement of -0.184 logMAR (SE: 0.171 logMAR) and CRT reduction of -291 µm (SE: 74 µm). There was no significant difference in effect between the first repeat implant and the initial implant. Kaplan-Meier estimates of treatment success were 72% between 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The DEX implant is an effective adjunct treatment to systemic corticosteroid or immunomodulatory therapy. Additional research is required to determine the efficacy of DEX implant as monotherapy for controlling chronic uveitic macular edema.

Intraocular ophthalmic ointment following clear corneal phacoemulsification: Clinical implications.

We report 4 cases of apparent ophthalmic ointment in the anterior chamber after sutureless clear corneal phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. The cases, as well as previous literature, indicate that ointment for topical use can be well tolerated in the eye, although glaucoma and uveitis can be potential negative outcomes. Possible risk factors, some of which may be related to current rates of endophthalmitis after clear corneal cataract surgery, and methods to prevent intraocular ophthalmic ointment after cataract surgery are discussed.

A national survey of Canadian ophthalmologists to determine awareness of published guidelines for the management of uveitis.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study are to assess Canadian ophthalmologists' awareness of established uveitis treatment guidelines and clinical management of uveitis and to assess the frequency of government applications for immunomodulatory therapy (IMT) and identify primary prescribers. A 25-item questionnaire was sent to 759 practicing Canadian ophthalmologists. Six questions assessed demographics including the year of residency completion, training by uveitis specialists during residency, and fellowship training. Five questions assessed application of guidelines to clinical scenarios, and 12 questions assessed referral patterns and success of obtaining coverage for IMT. RESULTS: Of 144 respondents, 12 (8.3 %) were uveitis specialists; 45.1 % of respondents had uveitis training during residency by a uveitis specialist. Sixty-one percent reported awareness of management guidelines. Recent graduates (2001-2012) referred patients to uveitis specialists (55.3 %) less frequently than earlier graduates. Recent graduates also managed uveitis patients more frequently with corticosteroid injections (15.6 %) than those who graduated before 1980 (9.75 %). The majority (93.6 %) of respondents submitted less than six IMT funding applications for provincial drug coverage yearly, and 5.5 % reported prescribing IMT themselves, rather than referring to other specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Although greater than half of respondents reported awareness of uveitis treatment guidelines, Canadian ophthalmologists' awareness of uveitis treatment guidelines and application of the guidelines to patient care could be improved. Few applications are made for IMT, and the majority of applications are sent by non-ophthalmologists. This suggests the need for further education of ophthalmologist about uveitis treatment guidelines and for more ophthalmologists trained to manage uveitis with IMT.