Background Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

Ischemic stroke related to PCI is associated with potentially modifiable technical parameters. Careful procedural planning is warranted, particularly in patients at increased risk.

No abstract

The risk of polyp cancer among BCSP patients increases significantly when the endoscopic polyp size is ≥ 10 mm. We recommend that all polyps ≥ 10 mm be tattooed.

Purpose: To report a case of Candida albicans endophthalmitis with no identifiable predisposing risk factors. Case Report: A 57-year-old male presented with a 3-day history of worsening floaters and reduced visual acuity. Fundoscopy and optical coherence tomography showed presence of fluffy white preretinal and intraretinal infiltrates. With no past medical history or evidence of immunosuppression but having travelled abroad and suffered from diarrhoea, fungal aetiology was thought to be unlikely and as a result, treatment was commenced for toxoplasma. Despite treatment, his vision did not improve. Initial investigations including inflammatory markers, serology for toxoplasmosis, blood culture, chest radiograph and aqueous sampling could not identify a source of infection. However, polymerase chain reaction results from vitreous sampling revealed C. albicans. As a result, the patient was treated with intravenous voriconazole and intravitreal amphotericin B. As initial clinical improvement was limited, a vitrectomy was performed with further intravitreal amphotericin B. Clinical improvement was rapid following vitrectomy. After repeated Gram staining and culture of infected toenails, Gram-positive yeast cells were isolated. Conclusion: Although C. albicans is a frequent cause of endogenous endophthalmitis, patients often have one or more predisposing systemic condition assisting the diagnosis. The present case illustrates that (1) even in the absence of any predisposing risk factors, C.albicans should be considered as a possible differential diagnosis in recalcitrant uveitis, and (2) endogenous candida endophthalmitis can be a result of fungal infections from distant sites such as the toenails.