Pregnancy outcomes in the medical management of glaucoma: An international multicenter descriptive survey.

PURPOSE: To determine if glaucoma medications are associated with pregnancy and/or postnatal complications. METHODS: Multicenter descriptive survey. Subjects were female patients 18-45 years who were previously pregnant with a diagnosis of glaucoma or ocular hypertension prior to pregnancy. Chart review queried diagnosis, glaucoma severity, and race. Survey questions were asked for each pregnancy and queried pregnancy age, medications used, and pregnancy outcomes/complications. RESULTS: 114 pregnancies of 56 patients (mean 2.0 pregnancies per patient) were included. Three pregnancies with therapeutic abortion were excluded from further analysis. Mean age during pregnancy was 29.1 ± 5.7 years. Of the 111 pregnancies, 20 (18.0%) used no medications and 91 (82.0%) used at least one medication. Medications were topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (n = 45), beta-blockers (n = 55), alpha-agonists (n = 56), and prostaglandin analogues (n = 28). Outcomes were: preterm contractions/labour (6.3%), miscarriage (4.5%), stillbirth (4.5%), induction of labour (11.9%), emergency/unplanned caesarean delivery (13.9%), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay (15.8%), congenital anomalies (8.1%), and low birth weight (10.9%). Fisher exact test assessed outcome associations with individual agents, use of any agent, and different number of agents. Alpha-agonist use was associated with NICU stay: 25.5% rate (p = 0.012) in alpha-agonist use. Most of the alpha-agonist use NICU stays occurred in pregnancies with third trimester use. All other associations were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this survey suggest an overall favourable safety profile for topical glaucoma medications in pregnancy, but further investigation is needed. Caution should be employed regarding third trimester alpha-agonist use owing to association with NICU stay.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception of Barriers for Eye Care among Diabetic Persons Registered at Employee Health Department of a Tertiary Eye Hospital of Central Saudi Arabia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the level of knowledge, attitudes, and barriers to diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening among diabetic healthcare staff at a tertiary eye hospital in central Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This was a descriptive survey using a closed-ended questionnaire. A. 5-grade. Likert scale was used for responses to each question. Data were collected on patient demographics and the status of diabetes. Survey responses related to knowledge, attitude, and barriers were grouped. RESULTS: The study sample was comprised of 45 diabetics employed at the hospital. The mean age was 49 ± 11 years and 33 diabetics were males. One-third of the study population was referred to the eye clinic for DR screening. DR screening was performed in 25% of diabetics over the previous year. Twenty-nine (64%; 95% confidence intervals: 50-78) participants had excellent knowledge of eyecare for diabetic complications. Thirteen percent of participants had a positive attitude toward periodic eye checkups. Travel distance to an eyecare unit, no referral from family physicians for annual eye checkups and the lack of availability of gender-specific eyecare professionals were the main perceived barriers. CONCLUSION: Annual DR screening needs to be promoted to primary healthcare providers and diabetic patients. Barriers should be addressed to improve the uptake of DR screening.

Magnitude and determinants of diabetic retinopathy among persons with diabetes registered at employee health department of a tertiary Eye Hospital of central Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the magnitude and determinants of diabetic retinopathy (DR) among persons with diabetes registered at the employee health department of King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital (KKESH). METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records was conducted in 2013-14 at KKESH. The case record review extracted demographic, profile of diabetes, diabetic complications, and different blood indices to determine the status of potential risk factors. Ocular profile, especially DR was also noted. RESULTS: Our cohort had 94 staff with diabetes. Eye examination was carried out in 51 (54.8%) of them. The rate of DR was 52% (95% confidence interval (CI) 28-66). Sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) (proliferative DR and/or diabetic macular edema) was present in 40% of those examined. Good glycemic control was noted in 42% of participants. Duration of diabetes was associated with DR (P = 0.04). Good glycemic control was negatively associated to DR (odds ratio = 0.2 [95% CI 0.04-0.6]). The coverage of eye screening was 55% only. Laser treatment was given to 80% of STDR cases. The lens opacity and glaucoma rate was 15% and 8.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Low coverage for eye screening and laser treatment to diabetics among the staff of an eye hospital is a matter of concern. The underlying causes of low coverage of screening, digital fundus photography as a screening tool and management should be addressed.