None.

Purpose: To determine whether sterile preloading of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor agents reduces the risk of postintravitreal injection endophthalmitis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study using medical claims data from a large, national US insurer. Cohorts were created using intravitreal injections of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections from 2005 to 2016. For inclusion, patients had to have at least 6 months of data before the injection and were excluded for any previous diagnosis of endophthalmitis, multiple injected drugs on the day of injection, or intraocular surgery within 15 days of the injection or between an injection and a diagnosis of endophthalmitis. The primary outcome was the odds of endophthalmitis after an intravitreal injection. Results: A total of 706,725 bevacizumab, 210,849 ranibizumab, and 177,731 aflibercept injections were given to 130,327 patients. Multivariate analysis showed that ranibizumab and aflibercept together had an increased odds of endophthalmitis (odds ratio = 1.29, 95% confidence interval: 1.04–1.59, P = 0.02) compared with bevacizumab. Individually, ranibizumab (odds ratio = 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 0.97–1.61, P = 0.08) and aflibercept (odds ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.99–1.81, P = 0.06) each had higher odds of endophthalmitis, but neither result met significance. Also, when compared with male patients, female patients had a higher odds of getting endophthalmitis (odds ratio: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.05–1.61, P = 0.02). Conclusion: The odds of endophthalmitis with aflibercept and ranibizumab combined were higher compared with the sterilely preloaded bevacizumab, arguing for a safety advantage of sterile preloading of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

Introduction We compared remote, image-based patient consultations to in-person consultations at emergency department and inpatient hospital settings. Methods Patients evaluated by the ophthalmic consultation services (gold standard) were imaged over a two-week period. A trained study coordinator took anterior segment photographs (AS) and posterior segment photographs (PS) with a portable camera (PictorPlus, Volk Optical, Cleveland, OH). Ophthalmologists (graders) determined photograph quality, presence of pathology, and their confidence in disease detection. At a separate session, graders reassessed photographs accompanied by a one-sentence summary of demographics and chief complaint (CHx). We computed accuracy and reliability statistics. Results We took AS photographs of 24 eyes of 15 patients and PS photographs of 39 eyes of 20 patients. The majority of images were rated as acceptable or excellent in quality (AS: 89–96%; PS: 70–75%). Graders detected AS pathology with 62–81% sensitivity based on photographs, increasing to 87–88% sensitivity with photographs plus CHx. Graders detected PS pathology with 79–86% sensitivity based on a photograph only, increasing to 100% sensitivity with photographs plus CHx. Discussion In this pilot study, there is evidence that portable ophthalmic imaging technologies could enable ophthalmologists to remotely evaluate anterior and posterior segment eye diseases with good sensitivity. The ophthalmologist could detect ocular pathology on photographs more accurately if they were provided brief clinical information.