No abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of the Ahmed valve implant in patients with uncontrolled uveitic glaucoma, the medical records of all patients with uncontrolled uveitic glaucoma who underwent Ahmed valve implant surgery between October 1993 and March 1996 were reviewed. Surgery was considered a success if intraocular pressure (IOP) was less than 22 mmHg and greater than 4 mmHg (with or without antiglaucoma medications) at the last postoperative visit. It was not a success when further glaucoma surgery had been performed, or chronic hypotony, phthisis, or loss of light perception occurred. Fourteen patients (14 eyes) with a mean age of 45.7 years were included. Most of them were high-risk patients, many of whom had already had cataract surgery (71.4%) and undergone one to three previous glaucoma surgeries (57.1%). Follow-up for eyes in which IOP was controlled ranged from 11 to 40 months (mean 22.6 months). Success was achieved in eight of 14 eyes (57.14%). Intraocular pressure was reduced from a mean of 32.64 +/- 7.79 mmHg (range 23-46 mmHg) with 2.78 +/- 0.57 antiglaucoma medications (range 2-4) preoperatively to 17.57 +/- 10.93 mmHg (range 0-38 mmHg) (p < 0.0001) with 0.71 +/- 0.99 antiglaucoma medications (range 0-3) postoperatively (p < 0.0001). The most common complications were encapsulated bleb in six eyes (42.8%), transient hypotony in six eyes (42.8%), and hyphema in three (21.4%). Ahmed valve implant appeared to be a safe alternative in high-risk patients with uncontrolled uveitic glaucoma who have had multiple previous ocular surgeries.

BackgroundFixed-combination ocular hypotensives have multiple advantages, but triple-therapy dorzolamide/brimonidine/timolol (dorz/brim/tim) is only available in Latin and South America, and information on its relative efficacy is limited. This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol (bim/tim) and dorz/brim/tim in Mexican patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.MethodsIn this investigator-masked, crossover study, patients with unmet target intraocular pressure (IOP) on once-daily bim/tim or twice-daily dorz/brim/tim received the opposite medication for 3 months before returning to their pre-baseline medication for 3 months. IOP was evaluated before and after morning instillation at months 2, 3, 5 and 6. Primary endpoints were mean IOP change and Ocular Surface Disease Index© (OSDI) score at each visit. The intent-to-treat population was the a priori analysis population, but due to the number of discontinuations, the per-protocol and intent-to-treat populations were used for the primary efficacy and sensitivity analyses, respectively.ResultsSeventy-eight and 56 patients were included in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations, respectively. At month 3, statistically significant IOP reductions from baseline were observed in the bim/tim (P < 0.01) and dorz/brim/tim (P < 0.0001) groups, regardless of assessment time. At month 6, patients returned to bim/tim exhibited no significant IOP increase (regardless of assessment time), but patients returned to dorz/brim/tim exhibited a statistically significant IOP increase (P < 0.001) when assessed before instillation of study treatment. Results were similar in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis populations. In the per-protocol analysis, 70% of patients on bim/tim at month 3 had an IOP <14 mm Hg, which declined to 58% (P = 0.0061) at month 6 (ie, after 3 months of dorz/brim/tim treatment). In patients receiving dorz/brim/tim at month 3, 38% had an IOP <14 mm Hg, which remained comparable after return to bim/tim. OSDI scores and incidence of adverse events were similar in both groups.ConclusionsIn this first direct comparison of the efficacy of dorz/brim/tim and bim/tim, patients switched from dorz/brim/tim to bim/tim demonstrated improved/lower IOP; when returned to dorz/brim/tim, IOP increased to levels seen at study initiation, suggesting that once-daily bim/tim may have greater IOP-lowering efficacy. Both bim/tim and dorz/brim/tim were well tolerated with minimal ocular surface damage.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01737853 (registered October 9, 2012)

PurposeTo describe a case of optic neuropathy as a primary manifestation of polyarteritis nodosa (PAN) and discuss diagnostic challenges.MethodsCase report.ResultsA 41-year-old Hispanic man presented with a 2-day history of reduced visual acuity in his left eye. Physical examination revealed a complete visual field loss in the affected eye. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the left eye was hand motion, and fundus examination revealed a hyperemic optic disk with blurred margins, swelling, retinal folds, dilated veins, and normal size arteries. BCVA in the right eye was 20/20; no anomalies were seen during examination of the fundus. The patient was started on oral corticosteroids and once the diagnosis of PAN was made, cyclophosphamide was added to the treatment regimen. Six months later, the patient recovered his BCVA to 20/20 in his left eye.ConclusionRarely does optic neuropathy present as a primary manifestation of PAN; nevertheless, it represents an ophthalmologic emergency that requires expeditious anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive treatment to decrease the probability of permanent visual damage. Unfortunately, diagnosing PAN is challenging as it necessitates a high index of suspicion. In young male patients who present for the first time with diminished visual acuity, ophthalmologists become cornerstones in the suspicion of this diagnosis and should be responsible for continuing the study until a diagnosis is reached to ensure rapid commencement of immunosuppressive treatment.

IntroductionThe aim of this prospective crossover study was to evaluate the non-inferiority of PRO-122 (a preservative-free fixed combination) compared with 0.5% timolol + 0.2% brimonidine + 2.0% dorzolamide fixed combination (KOF) by evaluating its efficacy, tolerability and safety in subjects with controlled primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) previously treated with KOF for at least 2 months.MethodsIn a prospective, crossover, randomized, double-masked multicenter study, patients previously treated with KOF were randomly assigned to receive either PRO-122 or KOF for 30 days. On day 31, the A sequence changed to KOF, while the B sequence received PRO-122. All patients remained in the protocol for 30 additional days for a total of 60 days. The main efficacy endpoint was maintaining the controlled intraocular pressure (IOP). The safety and tolerability of both products were assessed by the presence of adverse events (AEs), ocular findings, a questionnaire on ocular comfort and the VF-14 index.ResultsA total of 51 patients participated. After application of PRO-122 twice a day, its efficacy was demonstrated through maintenance of the controlled IOP in patients previously controlled with KOF. The crossover between PRO-122 and KOF and vice versa, after 30 days of use, did not affect IOP control. PRO-122 was shown not to be inferior to KOF in maintaining IOP at control levels. The safety of both drugs is similar, as neither presented drug-related AEs or differences regarding safety issues. The tolerability of the two medications—evaluated by ocular findings, the questionnaire on ocular comfort and the VF-14 index—was also determined to be similar.ConclusionsThe controlled IOP in patients with controlled POAG treated with PRO-122 was maintained both in relation to the initial controlled IOP of the study and when compared with KOF in the B sequence. Finally, the treatment with PRO-122 demonstrated similar safety and tolerability to KOF.FundingLaboratorios Sophia, S.A. de C.V. (Zapopan, Jalisco, México).Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03257813 (registered retrospectively).