The leading cause of major vision loss in diabetic persons is diabetic macular edema (DME). The hallmark feature of diabetic retinopathy is the alteration of the blood-retinal barrier (BRB). Inflammation plays a crucial role in DME with involvement of several chemokines and cytokines including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF is a potent cytokine and vaso-permeability factor that has been targeted in multiple, large clinical trials. Multiple anti-VEGF drugs are widely used in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) as the first line of treatment, and have been shown to be effective in vision improvement and prevention of vision loss. However, many DME patients do not show complete response to anti-VEGF drugs despite multiple intravitreal injections with these drugs. Also, the effect seems to be transient in those responders, and many patients do not show complete resolution of fluid. This article summarizes the mechanisms other than VEGF, and how these novel factors can be targeted as promising therapies of DME.

In uveal melanoma (UM), gene expression profiling (GEP) is commonly used to classify metastatic risk into three groups (Class 1A, 1B, and 2). Class 1A patients have a lower metastatic risk of 2% at 5 years compared to other groups. We aimed to describe clinical features associated with the development of metastasis in this low-risk group. This single-center IRB-approved retrospective case series review included all UM patients between February 2006 and March 2019 with an archived or fresh specimen classified as Class 1A. Cox regression and receiver operating characteristics analyses were used to identify factors associated with metastasis development and OS. Among 73 UM patients with Class 1A, the 5-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence and distant metastasis was 4.2% and 17.0%, respectively. Stage III disease (HR 20.7; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.4–300.6; p = 0.0264) was found to be independently associated with metastatic recurrence, while primary therapy was associated with OS (enucleation vs. brachytherapy, HR 13.5; 95% CI 1.3–147.6; p = 0.0348). Combined clinical decision-making utilizing factors such as GEP class, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, and COMS size could have a significant clinical impact by improving risk stratification and adapting follow-up intervals in UM Class 1A patients.

Purpose. To compare simulated and total keratometry and corneal astigmatism values between the IOLMaster 700 and Galilei G4 devices. Methods. A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients undergoing phacoemulsification by a single surgeon (RTP) from March through September 2020 and who underwent imaging with both the IOLMaster 700 and Galilei G4. Exclusion criteria were prior corneal surgery, keratectatic diseases and inability to obtain a reliable image during image acquisition. Mean, flat, and steep keratometry values as well as astigmatism magnitude were compared. Results. A total of 200 eyes of 100 patients were included. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were moderate or high for all variables. Mean difference ± SD in SimK and TrueK between devices (G4-IOLM) was 0.05 ± 0.318 diopters and −1.1156 ± 0.438 diopters, respectively ( p < 0.05 for both). The IOLM measured steeper TrueK value than the G4. For SimK, there was a statistically significant difference between devices only for mean keratometry (K), whereas for TrueK, there were significant differences in flat K, steep K, and mean K. Astigmatism analysis revealed a difference in mean (±SD) SimK of 0.07 (±0.57) D at 94 degrees and in mean TrueK of 0.04 (±0.85) D at 108 degrees. Conclusion. Though there is overall good correlation between the IOLMaster 700 and Galilei G4 in SimK and astigmatism measurements, there is a significant difference in TrueK measurements, with the IOLM measuring steeper values by about 1.0 diopter as compared to the G4.

No abstract