In their 2008 case report, Muqit, et al. describe a case of “presumptive Jamestown Canyon viral retinitis.”1
Jamestown Canyon virus is a mosquito-borne, single-stranded, ribonucleic acid (RNA) orthobunyavirus that is endemic throughout much of North America.2,3 Infection with Jamestown Canyon virus may be asymptomatic or may result in a general febrile illness, meningitis, and/or meningoencephalitis.2,3 Beyond the above case report by Muqit, et al.,1 and another review article referencing this case report,4 Jamestown Canyon virus has not been reported to cause retinitis or other ocular manifestations.
Upon close review of the case report by Muqit, et al.,1 we believe the authors are likely describing a case of John Cunningham (JC) virus (a ubiquitous, double-stranded, deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] human polyomavirus known to cause progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML] among the immunocompromised)5-7 rather than Jamestown Canyon virus.
First, the case patient with viral retinitis had underlying human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and a low CD4 lymphocyte count (240 cells/mm3), making him immunocompromised and susceptible to reactivation of the John Cunningham (JC) virus. Second, the case patient had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain findings (i.e., asymmetric, predominantly posterior, confluent, subcortical white matter hyperintensities involving U-fibers) that are classic for John Cunningham (JC) virus-related PML.6,7 In fact,...
In their 2008 case report, Muqit, et al. describe a case of “presumptive Jamestown Canyon viral retinitis.”1
Jamestown Canyon virus is a mosquito-borne, single-stranded, ribonucleic acid (RNA) orthobunyavirus that is endemic throughout much of North America.2,3 Infection with Jamestown Canyon virus may be asymptomatic or may result in a general febrile illness, meningitis, and/or meningoencephalitis.2,3 Beyond the above case report by Muqit, et al.,1 and another review article referencing this case report,4 Jamestown Canyon virus has not been reported to cause retinitis or other ocular manifestations.
Upon close review of the case report by Muqit, et al.,1 we believe the authors are likely describing a case of John Cunningham (JC) virus (a ubiquitous, double-stranded, deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] human polyomavirus known to cause progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML] among the immunocompromised)5-7 rather than Jamestown Canyon virus.
First, the case patient with viral retinitis had underlying human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and a low CD4 lymphocyte count (240 cells/mm3), making him immunocompromised and susceptible to reactivation of the John Cunningham (JC) virus. Second, the case patient had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain findings (i.e., asymmetric, predominantly posterior, confluent, subcortical white matter hyperintensities involving U-fibers) that are classic for John Cunningham (JC) virus-related PML.6,7 In fact, the authors claimed that the MRI brain findings were “confirmatory of the underlying diagnosis.”1 No MRI brain findings are classic or confirmatory for Jamestown Canyon virus infection. Third, the case patient’s cerebrospinal fluid was reportedly positive for viral DNA by polymerase chain reaction. This could only be possible for a DNA virus (i.e., John Cunningham (JC) virus) and not an RNA virus (i.e., Jamestown Canyon virus). Fourth, recovery of John Cunningham (JC) viral nucleic acid from ocular tissues of HIV-infected patients has been previously reported, so there is already precedent for this virus to infect the eye.8 Finally, the case patient had no known travel to or any mosquito exposure in North America, where Jamestown Canyon virus is endemic.2,3
Given John Cunningham (JC) and Jamestown Canyon viruses have different virology, epidemiology, and clinical manifestations, we believe the viruses were mistaken for one another because they share the same first letters of their words (i.e., J and C) and their abbreviations were likely confused. If our suspicion is correct, this case report highlights the possible dangers of abbreviations in medicine and the need to clearly define potentially confusing abbreviations in medical literature.
References
1. Muqit MM, Devonport H, Smith RA, Dhillon B. Presumptive Jamestown Canyon viral retinitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Dec;92(12):1599-600, 1695-6. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2007.132902. PMID: 19029162.
2. Coleman KJ, Chauhan L, Piquet AL, Tyler KL, Pastula DM. An Overview of Jamestown Canyon Virus Disease. Neurohospitalist. 2021 Jul;11(3):277-278. doi: 10.1177/19418744211005948. Epub 2021 Mar 29. PMID: 34163560; PMCID: PMC8182404.
3. Pastula DM, Hoang Johnson DK, White JL, Dupuis AP 2nd, Fischer M, Staples JE. Jamestown Canyon Virus Disease in the United States-2000-2013. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Aug;93(2):384-9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0196. Epub 2015 Jun 1. PMID: 26033022; PMCID: PMC4530766.
4. Karesh JW, Mazzoli RA, Heintz SK. Ocular Manifestations of Mosquito-Transmitted Diseases. Mil Med. 2018 Mar 1;183(suppl_1):450-458. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usx183. PMID: 29635625.
5. Padgett BL, Walker DL, ZuRhein GM, Eckroade RJ, Dessel BH. Cultivation of papova-like virus from human brain with progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy. Lancet. 1971 Jun 19;1(7712):1257-60. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(71)91777-6. PMID: 4104715.
6. Grebenciucova E, Berger JR. Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy. Neurol Clin. 2018 Nov;36(4):739-750. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2018.06.002. PMID: 30366552.
7. Pinto M, Dobson S. BK and JC virus: a review. J Infect. 2014 Jan;68 Suppl 1:S2-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2013.09.009. Epub 2013 Oct 8. PMID: 24119828.
8. Eberwein P, Hansen LL, Agostini HT. Genotypes of JC virus, DNA of cytomegalovirus, and proviral DNA of human immunodeficiency virus in eyes of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome patients. J Neurovirol. 2005 Feb;11(1):58-65. doi: 10.1080/13550280590900391. PMID: 15804960.
We read with great interest the article by Forte et al1, "Swept source optical Coherence tomography Angiography in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: co-relation of the functional and morphological test." Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a widely used drug for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. Non-invasive tests like optical coherence tomography, optical coherence tomography-angiography, 10-2 visual fields and multifocal ERG (mf-ERG) help in the early detection of the toxicity.2 We would like to highlight here importance of adaptive optics, and various studies done for the early detection of HCQ toxicity. In the study by Forte et al, mf-ERG did not co-relate with the flow changes on OCT-A, however in another observation by Penrose et al (n=6) a depression of signals on multifocal ERG was found in the perifoveal region even when the patients had normal visual acuity and a normal fundus.3Costa et al found significant differences between the micro-perimetry in the patients taking hydroxychloroquine and controls.4 It will be interesting to know the authors take on this. Besides these, adaptive optics is emerging as an important tool to detect the early photo-receptor changes in patients with HCQ toxicity. Adaptive optics help in the direct visualization of the cone mosaic. Stepien et al in their observation on 4 patients observed that adaptive optics showed a loss of cone mosaic in the perifoveal region that corresponded with...
We read with great interest the article by Forte et al1, "Swept source optical Coherence tomography Angiography in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: co-relation of the functional and morphological test." Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a widely used drug for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. Non-invasive tests like optical coherence tomography, optical coherence tomography-angiography, 10-2 visual fields and multifocal ERG (mf-ERG) help in the early detection of the toxicity.2 We would like to highlight here importance of adaptive optics, and various studies done for the early detection of HCQ toxicity. In the study by Forte et al, mf-ERG did not co-relate with the flow changes on OCT-A, however in another observation by Penrose et al (n=6) a depression of signals on multifocal ERG was found in the perifoveal region even when the patients had normal visual acuity and a normal fundus.3Costa et al found significant differences between the micro-perimetry in the patients taking hydroxychloroquine and controls.4 It will be interesting to know the authors take on this. Besides these, adaptive optics is emerging as an important tool to detect the early photo-receptor changes in patients with HCQ toxicity. Adaptive optics help in the direct visualization of the cone mosaic. Stepien et al in their observation on 4 patients observed that adaptive optics showed a loss of cone mosaic in the perifoveal region that corresponded with the OCT findings. OCT findings in their study showed a loss of IS -OS junction with preservation of retinal pigment epithelium and external limiting membrane showing a "sinking hole defect". SD-OCT and adaptive optics also showed defects in the area which were unaffected on 10-2 perimetry, suggesting pre-clinical loss. 5 Similarly, Debellemanière G et al, in their study on eyes found that there was increased cone spacing and moderate cone loss with an increasing cumulative dose of HCQ.6 It will be interesting to know the author's point of view about this, Thus to conclude, the non-invasive investigations may aid in the early detection of HCQ toxicity.
References
1. Forte R, Haulani H, Dyrda A, et al
Swept source optical coherence tomography angiography in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: correlation with morphological and functional tests. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2021;105:1297-1301.
2. Marmor MF, Kellner U, Lai TY, Melles RB, Mieler WF; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Recommendations on Screening for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Retinopathy (2016 Revision). Ophthalmology. 2016 Jun;123(6):1386-94
3. Penrose PJ, Tzekov RT, Sutter EE, Fu AD, Allen AW Jr, Fung WE, Oxford KW. Multifocal electroretinography evaluation for early detection of retinal dysfunction in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. Retina. 2003 Aug;23(4):503-12.
4. Martínez-Costa L, Victoria Ibañez M, Murcia-Bello C, Epifanio I, Verdejo-Gimeno C, Beltrán-Catalán E, Marco-Ventura P. Use of microperimetry to evaluate hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine retinal toxicity. Can J Ophthalmol. 2013 Oct;48(5):400-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.03.018. PMID: 24093187.
5. Stepien KE, Han DP, Schell J, Godara P, Rha J, Carroll J. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and adaptive optics may detect hydroxychloroquine retinal toxicity before symptomatic vision loss. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2009 Dec;107:28-33. PMID: 20126479; PMCID: PMC2814561.
6. Debellemanière G, Flores M, Tumahai P, Meillat M, Bidaut Garnier M, Delbosc B, Saleh M. Assessment of parafoveal cone density in patients taking hydroxychloroquine in the absence of clinically documented retinal toxicity. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015 Nov;93(7):e534-40
Eyes with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) are known to have reduced contrast vision from increased glare even if high-contrast acuity is not affected.1 In a retrospective study, Augustin and colleagues suggested that corneal guttae without edema contribute to decreased contrast sensitivity, and that such eyes would benefit from Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).2 The topic is important because it is unknown whether guttae in the absence of any corneal edema affect vision and therefore whether such eyes truly benefit from DMEK. The authors enrolled eyes with >5 mm of confluent guttae and without edema (modified Krachmer grade 5); however, they did not state their definition of “edema”. In FECD, when corneal edema is not clinically detectable by slit-lamp examination, it can be detected by Scheimpflug tomography.3 A recent study found evidence of subclinical corneal edema in 88% of eyes with FECD grade 5 and almost 40% of eyes with lesser grades of FECD.4 It is therefore highly likely that many of the FECD eyes examined by Augustin and colleagues did in fact have subclinical corneal edema, so can the authors examine the Scheimpflug tomograms of these eyes and report the contrast sensitivity results based on the presence or absence of subclinical edema? This is important because reduced contrast sensitivity might be caused by subclinical edema and not simply by “guttae without edema”, and cornea surgeons should not conclude that it is appr...
Eyes with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) are known to have reduced contrast vision from increased glare even if high-contrast acuity is not affected.1 In a retrospective study, Augustin and colleagues suggested that corneal guttae without edema contribute to decreased contrast sensitivity, and that such eyes would benefit from Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).2 The topic is important because it is unknown whether guttae in the absence of any corneal edema affect vision and therefore whether such eyes truly benefit from DMEK. The authors enrolled eyes with >5 mm of confluent guttae and without edema (modified Krachmer grade 5); however, they did not state their definition of “edema”. In FECD, when corneal edema is not clinically detectable by slit-lamp examination, it can be detected by Scheimpflug tomography.3 A recent study found evidence of subclinical corneal edema in 88% of eyes with FECD grade 5 and almost 40% of eyes with lesser grades of FECD.4 It is therefore highly likely that many of the FECD eyes examined by Augustin and colleagues did in fact have subclinical corneal edema, so can the authors examine the Scheimpflug tomograms of these eyes and report the contrast sensitivity results based on the presence or absence of subclinical edema? This is important because reduced contrast sensitivity might be caused by subclinical edema and not simply by “guttae without edema”, and cornea surgeons should not conclude that it is appropriate to offer DMEK for any eye with guttae. Surgeons and clinicians should recognize that Scheimpflug tomography patterns, which are easily acquired and repeatable,5 are more helpful than guttae assessment for guiding clinical decision-making in FECD.4
References
1. van der Meulen IJ, Patel SV, Lapid-Gortzak R, Nieuwendaal CP, McLaren JW, van den Berg TJ. Quality of vision in patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy and after Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 2011;129:1537-1542.
2. Augustin VA, Weller JM, Kruse FE, Tourtas T. Influence of corneal guttae and nuclear cataract on contrast sensitivity. Br J Ophthalmol 2020.
3. Sun SY, Wacker K, Baratz KH, Patel SV. Determining Subclinical Edema in Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy. Revised Classification using Scheimpflug Tomography for Preoperative Assessment. Ophthalmology 2019;126:195-204.
4. Patel SV, Hodge DO, Treichel EJ, Spiegel MR, Baratz KH. Predicting the Prognosis of Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy by using Scheimpflug Tomography. Ophthalmology 2020;127:315-323.
5. Patel SV, Hodge DO, Treichel EJ, Spiegel MR, Baratz KH. Repeatability of Scheimpflug Tomography for Assessing Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy. Am J Ophthalmol 2020;215:91-103.
I have read with interest the paper by Fabian ID et al. “Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma”[1]. I acknowledge the efforts conducted by the authors to build a retinoblastoma knowledge based on a large consortium for the first time. Many publications have agreed that the underprivileged socioeconomic situations affect the presentation and outcome of retinoblastoma patients[2, 3]. The measures used in most publications, including the one by Fabian ID et al., are national-level measures. Such socioeconomic measures on the country level affect the roads and travel quality beside family and healthcare giver education and training. A better measure in such cases is an individual level for each family. In developing countries, a vast gap presents between inhabitants letting a country-level measure, not representative. As mentioned in a glimpse in the paper, patients can spend a long time orbiting multiple physicians before targeting the oncology center. On the other side, people with higher economic status can get better healthcare and travel longer distances comfortably and present to centers with early stages.
Furthermore, Figure 2 shows interestingly similar small catchment areas in Africa; this raised a question on the data that were used for drawing the figure; is it individualized for each center? Additionally, if the analysis depended on the permanent address.
Egypt’s major pediatric oncology center, which was included in the study, cover...
I have read with interest the paper by Fabian ID et al. “Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma”[1]. I acknowledge the efforts conducted by the authors to build a retinoblastoma knowledge based on a large consortium for the first time. Many publications have agreed that the underprivileged socioeconomic situations affect the presentation and outcome of retinoblastoma patients[2, 3]. The measures used in most publications, including the one by Fabian ID et al., are national-level measures. Such socioeconomic measures on the country level affect the roads and travel quality beside family and healthcare giver education and training. A better measure in such cases is an individual level for each family. In developing countries, a vast gap presents between inhabitants letting a country-level measure, not representative. As mentioned in a glimpse in the paper, patients can spend a long time orbiting multiple physicians before targeting the oncology center. On the other side, people with higher economic status can get better healthcare and travel longer distances comfortably and present to centers with early stages.
Furthermore, Figure 2 shows interestingly similar small catchment areas in Africa; this raised a question on the data that were used for drawing the figure; is it individualized for each center? Additionally, if the analysis depended on the permanent address.
Egypt’s major pediatric oncology center, which was included in the study, covers the whole country region, and about 10 % of its patients are traveling from other countries to get the treatment in the hospital[4], however, this reality was not reflected on the figure. Beside, In the journey of treatment, patients acquire a temporary or interim residence near the hospital due to the hard return to the permanent residence. In Europe, borders are open, cities are connected with high-speed trains, with 420 kilometers can be traveled in 2-3 hours, while in Africa, 185 kilometers can require a day with a significant part of the distance on foot and months for getting a visa if crossing borders is required. Such factors can bias the results.
So, further clarification is required for this figure to answer these question.
References
1. Fabian ID, Stacey AW, Foster A, et al (2020) Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma: analysis of 1024 patients from 43 African countries and 518 patients from 40 European countries. Br J Ophthalmol bjophthalmol-2020-316613. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316613
2. Canturk S, Qaddoumi I, Khetan V, et al (2010) Survival of retinoblastoma in less-developed countries impact of socioeconomic and health-related indicators. Br J Ophthalmol 94:1432–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.168062
3. Aziz H a, Lasenna CE, Vigoda M, et al (2012) Retinoblastoma treatment burden and economic cost: impact of age at diagnosis and selection of primary therapy. Clin Ophthalmol 6:1601–6. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S33094
4. El Zomor H, Nour R, Alieldin A, et al (2015) Clinical presentation of intraocular retinoblastoma; 5-year hospital-based registry in Egypt. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 27:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnci.2015.09.002
We thank Alfaar for their comment on our paper titled: “Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma: analysis of 1024 patients from 43 African countries and 518 patients from 40 European contries”.[1]
In our paper, we compared the stage of presentation of newly diagnosed retinoblastoma patients from African and European countries and investigated possible associations to the travel distance from home to treatment centre. Our findings suggest that treatment centres in African countries serve patients that reside, on average, in closer proximity to the treatment center than in Europe (186 km average distance travelled in Africa compared to an average distance travelled of 422 km in Europe). In reply to Alfaar’s comment, to produce these numbers, we calculated the average travel distance in a country and then calculated the mean of averages in a continent and compared Africa to Europe.
The red circles in Figure 2 in our original paper,[1] representing the mean travel distance in a continent, were superimposed on each centre on a scaled map. All red circles in Africa are similar in size (i.e. radius of 186 km) and all in Europe are similar (i.e. radius of 422 km).
We agree with Alfaar that our analysis has several limitations, some of which are mentioned in our paper and some, rightfully, in his eLetter. In a study, in which patients from over 80 countries in two continents are included, one cannot take into account all considerations, especiall...
We thank Alfaar for their comment on our paper titled: “Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma: analysis of 1024 patients from 43 African countries and 518 patients from 40 European contries”.[1]
In our paper, we compared the stage of presentation of newly diagnosed retinoblastoma patients from African and European countries and investigated possible associations to the travel distance from home to treatment centre. Our findings suggest that treatment centres in African countries serve patients that reside, on average, in closer proximity to the treatment center than in Europe (186 km average distance travelled in Africa compared to an average distance travelled of 422 km in Europe). In reply to Alfaar’s comment, to produce these numbers, we calculated the average travel distance in a country and then calculated the mean of averages in a continent and compared Africa to Europe.
The red circles in Figure 2 in our original paper,[1] representing the mean travel distance in a continent, were superimposed on each centre on a scaled map. All red circles in Africa are similar in size (i.e. radius of 186 km) and all in Europe are similar (i.e. radius of 422 km).
We agree with Alfaar that our analysis has several limitations, some of which are mentioned in our paper and some, rightfully, in his eLetter. In a study, in which patients from over 80 countries in two continents are included, one cannot take into account all considerations, especially not at patient (e.g. socioeconomic status) or centre level, as Alfaar suggests.
Alfaar, in the eLetter, indicates, “Egypt’s major paediatric oncology centre, which was included in the study, covers the whole country region”. According to our study,[1] In 2017, more than 100 new retinoblastoma patients presented to this centre. The calculated average travel distance from home to the centre was 178 km (±117), similar to the average in the continent for all African countries. Noteworthy, the western as well as the southern borders of Egypt are each more than 1,000 km long (surface area of more than 1 million km2). The raw data at country level is available at https://zenodo.org/record/3727687#.X4_LgdAzbIU.[2]
Concerning patients traveling abroad to seek medical care, these cases were excluded from the current analysis in both Europe and Africa, but were included in a separate report, titled: “International travel to obtain medical treatment for primary retinoblastoma: a global cohort study”.[3]
The access to care by children with retinoblastoma in Africa, as demonstrated by the estimated proportion of new retinoblastoma cases seen by treatment centres in Europe versus Africa of over 100% to less than 50%,[1] is compromised due to a variety of factors. A multicentre collaboration,[4,5] including most retinoblastoma treatment centres in Europe and Africa, despite its weaknesses, is of importance to highlight the huge gap in access to care in different regions of the world.
References
1 Fabian ID, Stacey AW, Foster A, et al. Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma: Analysis of 1024 patients from 43 African countries and 518 patients from 40 European countries. Br J Ophthalmol Published Online First: 2020. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316613
2. Fabian ID, Stacey A, Foster A, Kivelä TT, Munier FL, Cassoux N, & Bowman RJC. (2020). Global Retinoblastoma Presentation 2017 data, on behalf of the Global Retinoblastoma Study Group [Data set]. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3727687
3. Bowman R, Foster A, Stacey A, et al. International travel to obtain medical treatment for primary retinoblastoma: a global cohort study. Int J cancer 2020; Online ahead of print. doi:10.1002/ijc.33350
4 Global Retinoblastoma Study Group. Global Retinoblastoma Presentation and Analysis by National Income Level. JAMA Oncol 2020;6:1–12. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6716
5 Fabian ID, Stacey AW, Bowman R, et al. Retinoblastoma management during the COVID-19 pandemic: A report by the Global Retinoblastoma Study Group including 194 centers from 94 countries. Pediatr. Blood Cancer. 2020. doi:10.1002/pbc.28584
Reply to the comment on: “Influence of corneal guttae and nuclear cataract on contrast sensitivity”
We thank Sanjay V Patel for the comments. Patients with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) are known to have reduced contrast sensitivity due to corneal edema and guttae. Before the introduction of endothelial keratoplasty, penetrating keratoplasty had been performed mainly in patients with advanced FECD and clinically significant corneal edema. However, as endothelial keratoplasty procedures such as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty can bring excellent visual acuity outcomes, surgery can be performed earlier and even in cases without any clinical corneal edema. Therefore, it has become even more important to detect the causes of visual impairment in patients with FECD. In our retrospective study, we enrolled FECD patients with >5 mm of confluent guttae and no corneal edema (modified Krachmer grade 5). When analyzed by Scheimpflug tomography, our FECD patients showed no difference in the central corneal thickness and corneal volume when compared to the control group of cataract patients without any corneal pathologies.1 Recently, Sun et al. presented a new method to detect subclinical corneal edema in patients with FECD.2,3 The authors analyzed three Scheimpflug tomography pachymetry map and posterior elevation map patterns to detect subclinical edema in FECD patients: loss of regular isopachs, displacement of the thinnest point of the cornea, and...
Reply to the comment on: “Influence of corneal guttae and nuclear cataract on contrast sensitivity”
We thank Sanjay V Patel for the comments. Patients with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) are known to have reduced contrast sensitivity due to corneal edema and guttae. Before the introduction of endothelial keratoplasty, penetrating keratoplasty had been performed mainly in patients with advanced FECD and clinically significant corneal edema. However, as endothelial keratoplasty procedures such as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty can bring excellent visual acuity outcomes, surgery can be performed earlier and even in cases without any clinical corneal edema. Therefore, it has become even more important to detect the causes of visual impairment in patients with FECD. In our retrospective study, we enrolled FECD patients with >5 mm of confluent guttae and no corneal edema (modified Krachmer grade 5). When analyzed by Scheimpflug tomography, our FECD patients showed no difference in the central corneal thickness and corneal volume when compared to the control group of cataract patients without any corneal pathologies.1 Recently, Sun et al. presented a new method to detect subclinical corneal edema in patients with FECD.2,3 The authors analyzed three Scheimpflug tomography pachymetry map and posterior elevation map patterns to detect subclinical edema in FECD patients: loss of regular isopachs, displacement of the thinnest point of the cornea, and presence of posterior surface depression may help identify subclinical corneal edema more accurately in patients with FECD. In our study, the loss of regular isopachs (12/25 [48%] vs. 4/25 [16%]), the displacement of the thinnest point of the cornea (11/25 [44%] vs. 1/25 [4%]), and the posterior surface depression (13/25 [52%] vs. 8/25 [32%]) could be found more frequently in FECD patients, than in the control group without corneal pathology. Eleven of the 25 FECD patients (44%) met at least two of the three criteria, implying the presence of a subclinical corneal edema. However, the preoperative MARS letter contrast sensitivity of these 11 patients (contrast sensitivity: 0.98 ± 0.13 logCS) did not show any statistically significant difference compared to that of the other 14 FECD patients (contrast sensitivity: 1.02 ± 0.09 logCS; p=0.47) in whom the aforementioned criteria were not met. Interestingly, two of the three criteria were also met in 4 cases (16%) of the control group. Indeed, future studies should also include the analysis of these patterns when assessing the contrast sensitivity in FECD patients.
1Augustin VA, Weller JM, Kruse FE, Tourtas T. Influence of corneal guttae and nuclear cataract on contrast sensitivity. Br J Ophthalmol 2020.
2Sun SY, Wacker K, Baratz KH, Patel SV. Determining Subclinical Edema in Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy. Revised Classification using Scheimpflug Tomography for Preoperative Assessment. Ophthalmology 2019;126:195-204.
3Patel SV, Hodge DO, Treichel EJ, Spiegel MR, Baratz KH. Predicting the Prognosis of Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy by using Scheimpflug Tomography. Ophthalmology 2020;127:315-323.
McCann et al. reported factors of the associations with intraocular pressure (IOP) and circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (cRNFL) thickness (1). Increased IOP and reduced cRNFL were associated with increased age, myopic refractive error, male sex and hypertension. In addition, Alzheimer's disease was associated with thinner average global cRNFL, and Parkinson's disease (PD) and current smoking status were associated with thicker average global cRNFL, and I present recent information regarding their study in patients with PD.
Murueta-Goyena et al. reported the association between the changes of retinal thickness and their predictive value as biomarkers of disease progression in idiopathic PD (2). The authors used macular ganglion-inner plexiform layer complex (mGCIPL) and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness reduction rates, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) questionnaire was also applied. The adjusted relative risks of lower parafoveal mGCIPL and pRNFL thickness at baseline for an increased risk of cognitive decline at 3 years significantly increased. This means that reduced retinal thickness is a risk factor of cognitive impairment in patients with PD. McCann et al. did not evaluate cRNFL in PD patients with cognitive impairment, and I suppose that progression of cognitive impairment in patients with PD might accelerate reduction of average global cRNFL.
Second, Sung et al. also investigated the association be...
McCann et al. reported factors of the associations with intraocular pressure (IOP) and circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (cRNFL) thickness (1). Increased IOP and reduced cRNFL were associated with increased age, myopic refractive error, male sex and hypertension. In addition, Alzheimer's disease was associated with thinner average global cRNFL, and Parkinson's disease (PD) and current smoking status were associated with thicker average global cRNFL, and I present recent information regarding their study in patients with PD.
Murueta-Goyena et al. reported the association between the changes of retinal thickness and their predictive value as biomarkers of disease progression in idiopathic PD (2). The authors used macular ganglion-inner plexiform layer complex (mGCIPL) and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness reduction rates, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) questionnaire was also applied. The adjusted relative risks of lower parafoveal mGCIPL and pRNFL thickness at baseline for an increased risk of cognitive decline at 3 years significantly increased. This means that reduced retinal thickness is a risk factor of cognitive impairment in patients with PD. McCann et al. did not evaluate cRNFL in PD patients with cognitive impairment, and I suppose that progression of cognitive impairment in patients with PD might accelerate reduction of average global cRNFL.
Second, Sung et al. also investigated the association between retinal thinning and cognitive impairment in patients with PD (3). There were significant reductions in the thickness of average, temporal, and inferior pRNFL and overall mGCIPL in patients with PD, and the MoCA score was significantly associated with mGCIPL thinning. As the thinning of the mGCIPL was also significantly associated with the volumetric parameters of some brain structures, the relationship between retinal thickness and brain structures in patients with PD should be comprehensively evaluated with special reference to the level of cognitive impairment.
Finally, Matlach et al. reported that thinning of some retinal layers of the ipsilateral eye was observed in the most-affected body side of PD patients (4). In addition, thickness of pRNFL and mGCIPL did not correlate to the severity of PD. As Murueta-Goyena et al. reported that there was no significant association between retinal thickness and motor deterioration (2), the discrepancy in the relationship of cognitive decline and motor deterioration with retinal thickness might be related to the lack of relationship between retinal thickness and the severity of PD.
References
1. McCann P, Hogg R, Wright DM, et al. Intraocular pressure and circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness in the Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing (NICOLA): distributions and associations. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020 Jul 30 doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316499 [Epub ahead of print]
2. Murueta-Goyena A, Del Pino R, Galdós M, et al. Retinal thickness predicts the risk of cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease. Ann Neurol 2020 Oct 24 doi: 10.1002/ana.25944 [Epub ahead of print]
3. Sung MS, Choi SM, Kim J, et al. Inner retinal thinning as a biomarker for cognitive impairment in de novo Parkinson's disease. Sci Rep 2019;9:11832.
4. Matlach J, Wagner M, Malzahn U, et al. Retinal changes in Parkinson's disease and glaucoma. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2018 Nov;56:41-46.
Corneal graft rejection following vaccination was first reported in 1988 by T L Steinemann, B H Koffler and C D Jennings [1]. This article is missing from Table 1, “Summary of reported cases of corneal graft rejection”. As it is the first published study to describe this temporal association, it merits mention.
In regards to preventative measures, we recommend thoroughly counseling patients with grafts. They should be educated on the salient warning signs of rejection including pain, redness, blurred vision, and irritation. Patients should also be informed that COVID-19 vaccination may pose a risk to the viability of their corneal grafts. We recommend prophylactically increasing topical steroids for 3-4 weeks around the time of each vaccination.
References
1. Steinemann TL, Koffler BH, Jennings CD. Corneal allograft rejection following immunization. Am J Ophthalmol. 1988 Nov 15;106(5):575-8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(88)90588-0. PMID: 3056015.
Atik et al (BJOhttps://bjo.bmj.com/content/105/5/602) have done an excellent job of summarizing the current state of the art for conducting health economic evaluations in ophthalmology. Not surprisingly, however, such tools and techniques were originally designed to address broader questions of healthcare funding and resource allocation across many disparate clinical areas. As such, the general use case was very far removed from ophthalmology. This is relevant as a central component is the calculation of the utility parameters used, particularly in cost-effectiveness calculations (1). At present, the standard default utility measure remains the EQ5D, which does not prima facie include a vision specific domain (2). Rather, a “Vision Bolt-On” to the EQ5D which asks patients whether they “Have no problems seeing”; “Have some problem seeing”; or “Have extreme problems seeing” is proposed for increasing the precision of the utility score derived from patients for ophthalmic interventions (3). Unfortunately, the “Vision Bolt On” while theoretically increasing the discriminating power of the EQ-5D has not been widely adopted in economic evaluations conducted in ophthalmology (3-4). Moreover, as currently configured, the “Vision Bolt On” questions fail to adequately account for the clinical differences, say between central or fine reading vision which may be more relevant in patients with age-related macular degeneration, versus...
Atik et al (BJOhttps://bjo.bmj.com/content/105/5/602) have done an excellent job of summarizing the current state of the art for conducting health economic evaluations in ophthalmology. Not surprisingly, however, such tools and techniques were originally designed to address broader questions of healthcare funding and resource allocation across many disparate clinical areas. As such, the general use case was very far removed from ophthalmology. This is relevant as a central component is the calculation of the utility parameters used, particularly in cost-effectiveness calculations (1). At present, the standard default utility measure remains the EQ5D, which does not prima facie include a vision specific domain (2). Rather, a “Vision Bolt-On” to the EQ5D which asks patients whether they “Have no problems seeing”; “Have some problem seeing”; or “Have extreme problems seeing” is proposed for increasing the precision of the utility score derived from patients for ophthalmic interventions (3). Unfortunately, the “Vision Bolt On” while theoretically increasing the discriminating power of the EQ-5D has not been widely adopted in economic evaluations conducted in ophthalmology (3-4). Moreover, as currently configured, the “Vision Bolt On” questions fail to adequately account for the clinical differences, say between central or fine reading vision which may be more relevant in patients with age-related macular degeneration, versus the loss of peripheral retinal photoreceptors on a patient’s navigation vision such as in glaucoma. Additional attempts designed to extend the “Vision Bolt On” including the Glaucoma Utility Index (GUI) to increase such discriminating abilities, however, have concluded that more research on the link between utility measures and precise clinical parameters is needed to better capture the subtle components of a patient’s vision on their overall global utility score (5). The time is, therefore, ripe for a concerted research effort to develop and validate such a truly relevant utility measure tailored to ophthalmic interventions.
Word Count: 300
References:
1. Smith AF, Brown GC. Understanding cost-effectiveness: a detailed review, Brit-J-Ophthalmol, 2000; 84: 794-798
3. Yang Y, Rowen D, Brazier J, et al. An exploratory study to test the impact on three "bolt-on" items to the EQ-5D. Value Health 2015 Jan;18(1):52-60.
4. Luo N, Wang X, Ang M, et al. A Vision "Bolt-On" Item Could Increase the Discriminatory Power of the EQ-5D Index Score. Value Health 2015;18(8):1037‐1042
5. Burr JM, Kilonzo M, Vale L, et al. Developing a preference-based Glaucoma Utility Index using a discrete choice experiment. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(8):797‐808
We welcome the recent meta-analysis by Hedengran and co-workers in the British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO).1 This study compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye drops. The meta-analysis was conducted on 16 studies that range from 15 days to 6 months of study duration. Change in IOP in BAK vs AP and PF groups was meta-analysed as the primary outcome. Conjunctival hyperaemia, ocular hyperaemia, total ocular adverse effects (AE), and TBUT were also meta-analysed. The authors found no evidence of significant change in IOP and conjunctival hyperaemia between BAK vs AP and PF treatment groups. The authors concluded that the main reason for detecting no clinical differences between the groups was related to the lack of long-term clinical studies on the safety of BAK vs AP and PF eye drops. We are in consensus with Kontas AG et al., comments on the deficiencies of this meta-analysis.
We do not agree to the conclusion, “BAK-containing and PF medications do not differ with respect to tolerability and therapy outcome”. We would like to direct the authors and readers to our recently published study in the journal, Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (CEO), which involved the randomised evaluation of the inflammatory effects of PF vs BAK and PF vs polyquad (PQ)-preserved eye drops in naïve glaucomatous patients over the period of 24 months.2 We p...
We welcome the recent meta-analysis by Hedengran and co-workers in the British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO).1 This study compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye drops. The meta-analysis was conducted on 16 studies that range from 15 days to 6 months of study duration. Change in IOP in BAK vs AP and PF groups was meta-analysed as the primary outcome. Conjunctival hyperaemia, ocular hyperaemia, total ocular adverse effects (AE), and TBUT were also meta-analysed. The authors found no evidence of significant change in IOP and conjunctival hyperaemia between BAK vs AP and PF treatment groups. The authors concluded that the main reason for detecting no clinical differences between the groups was related to the lack of long-term clinical studies on the safety of BAK vs AP and PF eye drops. We are in consensus with Kontas AG et al., comments on the deficiencies of this meta-analysis.
We do not agree to the conclusion, “BAK-containing and PF medications do not differ with respect to tolerability and therapy outcome”. We would like to direct the authors and readers to our recently published study in the journal, Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (CEO), which involved the randomised evaluation of the inflammatory effects of PF vs BAK and PF vs polyquad (PQ)-preserved eye drops in naïve glaucomatous patients over the period of 24 months.2 We profiled the inflammatory cytokines and analysed the ocular AE (via OSDI questionnaire) at baseline and then at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively. Our results showed that the pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6, IL-8, and IL-1beta were significantly increased in a time-dependent fashion in BAK group compared to PF and PQ groups. Notably, the increased levels of these cytokines significantly correlated to the OSDI in BAK group. Our results conformed with previously published in-vivo and in-vitro studies.3 4
Although our study has demonstrated that PF and PQ-preserved eye drops do not elicit ocular AE, the increased levels of IL-1beta in PQ group starting 12-month onwards indicated that PQ preserved eye drops may produce delayed ocular surface discomfort. As the main aim of our study was to compare the BAK vs PF and PQ-preserved eye drops, there is a likelihood that bimatoprost could elicit ocular hyperaemia even when used as a PF formulation. A previous study has reported that bimatoprost causes vasodilation mediated via nitric oxide synthase but not through the induction of pro-inflammatory cytokines.5
We agree to author’s views, “Longer clinical studies with standardised safety measurements and grading methods are highly advisable to fully identify any potential differences between preservation methods.” We recommend that a longitudinal study comparing the PF-bimatoprost with BAK-preserved bimatoprost should be conducted to validate the ocular responses. Additionally, to comprehensively ascertain the effect of other analogues, it is essential to study the ocular effects of PF-latanoprost vs BAK-latanoprost and PF-travoprost vs BAK-travoprost.
Imran Mohammed
Harminder S. Dua
Anthony J. King
Academic Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham, UK
References:
1. Hedengran A, Steensberg AT, Virgili G, et al. Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2020;104(11):1512-18. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315623 [published Online First: 2020/02/14]
2. Mohammed I, Kulkarni B, Faraj LA, et al. Profiling ocular surface responses to preserved and non-preserved topical glaucoma medications: A 2-year randomized evaluation study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2020;48(7):973-82. doi: 10.1111/ceo.13814 [published Online First: 2020/06/22]
3. Baudouin C, Denoyer A, Desbenoit N, et al. In vitro and in vivo experimental studies on trabecular meshwork degeneration induced by benzalkonium chloride (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2012;110:40-63. [published Online First: 2013/07/03]
4. Baudouin C, Pisella PJ, Fillacier K, et al. Ocular surface inflammatory changes induced by topical antiglaucoma drugs: human and animal studies. Ophthalmology 1999;106(3):556-63. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)90116-1 [published Online First: 1999/03/18]
5. Impagnatiello F, Bastia E, Almirante N, et al. Prostaglandin analogues and nitric oxide contribution in the treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Pharmacol 2019;176(8):1079-89. doi: 10.1111/bph.14328 [published Online First: 2018/04/19]
In their 2008 case report, Muqit, et al. describe a case of “presumptive Jamestown Canyon viral retinitis.”1
Jamestown Canyon virus is a mosquito-borne, single-stranded, ribonucleic acid (RNA) orthobunyavirus that is endemic throughout much of North America.2,3 Infection with Jamestown Canyon virus may be asymptomatic or may result in a general febrile illness, meningitis, and/or meningoencephalitis.2,3 Beyond the above case report by Muqit, et al.,1 and another review article referencing this case report,4 Jamestown Canyon virus has not been reported to cause retinitis or other ocular manifestations.
Upon close review of the case report by Muqit, et al.,1 we believe the authors are likely describing a case of John Cunningham (JC) virus (a ubiquitous, double-stranded, deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] human polyomavirus known to cause progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML] among the immunocompromised)5-7 rather than Jamestown Canyon virus.
First, the case patient with viral retinitis had underlying human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and a low CD4 lymphocyte count (240 cells/mm3), making him immunocompromised and susceptible to reactivation of the John Cunningham (JC) virus. Second, the case patient had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain findings (i.e., asymmetric, predominantly posterior, confluent, subcortical white matter hyperintensities involving U-fibers) that are classic for John Cunningham (JC) virus-related PML.6,7 In fact,...
Show MoreWe read with great interest the article by Forte et al1, "Swept source optical Coherence tomography Angiography in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: co-relation of the functional and morphological test." Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a widely used drug for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. Non-invasive tests like optical coherence tomography, optical coherence tomography-angiography, 10-2 visual fields and multifocal ERG (mf-ERG) help in the early detection of the toxicity.2 We would like to highlight here importance of adaptive optics, and various studies done for the early detection of HCQ toxicity. In the study by Forte et al, mf-ERG did not co-relate with the flow changes on OCT-A, however in another observation by Penrose et al (n=6) a depression of signals on multifocal ERG was found in the perifoveal region even when the patients had normal visual acuity and a normal fundus.3Costa et al found significant differences between the micro-perimetry in the patients taking hydroxychloroquine and controls.4 It will be interesting to know the authors take on this. Besides these, adaptive optics is emerging as an important tool to detect the early photo-receptor changes in patients with HCQ toxicity. Adaptive optics help in the direct visualization of the cone mosaic. Stepien et al in their observation on 4 patients observed that adaptive optics showed a loss of cone mosaic in the perifoveal region that corresponded with...
Show MoreEyes with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) are known to have reduced contrast vision from increased glare even if high-contrast acuity is not affected.1 In a retrospective study, Augustin and colleagues suggested that corneal guttae without edema contribute to decreased contrast sensitivity, and that such eyes would benefit from Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).2 The topic is important because it is unknown whether guttae in the absence of any corneal edema affect vision and therefore whether such eyes truly benefit from DMEK. The authors enrolled eyes with >5 mm of confluent guttae and without edema (modified Krachmer grade 5); however, they did not state their definition of “edema”. In FECD, when corneal edema is not clinically detectable by slit-lamp examination, it can be detected by Scheimpflug tomography.3 A recent study found evidence of subclinical corneal edema in 88% of eyes with FECD grade 5 and almost 40% of eyes with lesser grades of FECD.4 It is therefore highly likely that many of the FECD eyes examined by Augustin and colleagues did in fact have subclinical corneal edema, so can the authors examine the Scheimpflug tomograms of these eyes and report the contrast sensitivity results based on the presence or absence of subclinical edema? This is important because reduced contrast sensitivity might be caused by subclinical edema and not simply by “guttae without edema”, and cornea surgeons should not conclude that it is appr...
Show MoreI have read with interest the paper by Fabian ID et al. “Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma”[1]. I acknowledge the efforts conducted by the authors to build a retinoblastoma knowledge based on a large consortium for the first time. Many publications have agreed that the underprivileged socioeconomic situations affect the presentation and outcome of retinoblastoma patients[2, 3]. The measures used in most publications, including the one by Fabian ID et al., are national-level measures. Such socioeconomic measures on the country level affect the roads and travel quality beside family and healthcare giver education and training. A better measure in such cases is an individual level for each family. In developing countries, a vast gap presents between inhabitants letting a country-level measure, not representative. As mentioned in a glimpse in the paper, patients can spend a long time orbiting multiple physicians before targeting the oncology center. On the other side, people with higher economic status can get better healthcare and travel longer distances comfortably and present to centers with early stages.
Show MoreFurthermore, Figure 2 shows interestingly similar small catchment areas in Africa; this raised a question on the data that were used for drawing the figure; is it individualized for each center? Additionally, if the analysis depended on the permanent address.
Egypt’s major pediatric oncology center, which was included in the study, cover...
We thank Alfaar for their comment on our paper titled: “Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma: analysis of 1024 patients from 43 African countries and 518 patients from 40 European contries”.[1]
Show MoreIn our paper, we compared the stage of presentation of newly diagnosed retinoblastoma patients from African and European countries and investigated possible associations to the travel distance from home to treatment centre. Our findings suggest that treatment centres in African countries serve patients that reside, on average, in closer proximity to the treatment center than in Europe (186 km average distance travelled in Africa compared to an average distance travelled of 422 km in Europe). In reply to Alfaar’s comment, to produce these numbers, we calculated the average travel distance in a country and then calculated the mean of averages in a continent and compared Africa to Europe.
The red circles in Figure 2 in our original paper,[1] representing the mean travel distance in a continent, were superimposed on each centre on a scaled map. All red circles in Africa are similar in size (i.e. radius of 186 km) and all in Europe are similar (i.e. radius of 422 km).
We agree with Alfaar that our analysis has several limitations, some of which are mentioned in our paper and some, rightfully, in his eLetter. In a study, in which patients from over 80 countries in two continents are included, one cannot take into account all considerations, especiall...
Reply to the comment on: “Influence of corneal guttae and nuclear cataract on contrast sensitivity”
We thank Sanjay V Patel for the comments. Patients with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) are known to have reduced contrast sensitivity due to corneal edema and guttae. Before the introduction of endothelial keratoplasty, penetrating keratoplasty had been performed mainly in patients with advanced FECD and clinically significant corneal edema. However, as endothelial keratoplasty procedures such as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty can bring excellent visual acuity outcomes, surgery can be performed earlier and even in cases without any clinical corneal edema. Therefore, it has become even more important to detect the causes of visual impairment in patients with FECD. In our retrospective study, we enrolled FECD patients with >5 mm of confluent guttae and no corneal edema (modified Krachmer grade 5). When analyzed by Scheimpflug tomography, our FECD patients showed no difference in the central corneal thickness and corneal volume when compared to the control group of cataract patients without any corneal pathologies.1 Recently, Sun et al. presented a new method to detect subclinical corneal edema in patients with FECD.2,3 The authors analyzed three Scheimpflug tomography pachymetry map and posterior elevation map patterns to detect subclinical edema in FECD patients: loss of regular isopachs, displacement of the thinnest point of the cornea, and...
Show MoreMcCann et al. reported factors of the associations with intraocular pressure (IOP) and circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (cRNFL) thickness (1). Increased IOP and reduced cRNFL were associated with increased age, myopic refractive error, male sex and hypertension. In addition, Alzheimer's disease was associated with thinner average global cRNFL, and Parkinson's disease (PD) and current smoking status were associated with thicker average global cRNFL, and I present recent information regarding their study in patients with PD.
Murueta-Goyena et al. reported the association between the changes of retinal thickness and their predictive value as biomarkers of disease progression in idiopathic PD (2). The authors used macular ganglion-inner plexiform layer complex (mGCIPL) and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness reduction rates, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) questionnaire was also applied. The adjusted relative risks of lower parafoveal mGCIPL and pRNFL thickness at baseline for an increased risk of cognitive decline at 3 years significantly increased. This means that reduced retinal thickness is a risk factor of cognitive impairment in patients with PD. McCann et al. did not evaluate cRNFL in PD patients with cognitive impairment, and I suppose that progression of cognitive impairment in patients with PD might accelerate reduction of average global cRNFL.
Second, Sung et al. also investigated the association be...
Show MoreDear Editor,
Corneal graft rejection following vaccination was first reported in 1988 by T L Steinemann, B H Koffler and C D Jennings [1]. This article is missing from Table 1, “Summary of reported cases of corneal graft rejection”. As it is the first published study to describe this temporal association, it merits mention.
In regards to preventative measures, we recommend thoroughly counseling patients with grafts. They should be educated on the salient warning signs of rejection including pain, redness, blurred vision, and irritation. Patients should also be informed that COVID-19 vaccination may pose a risk to the viability of their corneal grafts. We recommend prophylactically increasing topical steroids for 3-4 weeks around the time of each vaccination.
References
1. Steinemann TL, Koffler BH, Jennings CD. Corneal allograft rejection following immunization. Am J Ophthalmol. 1988 Nov 15;106(5):575-8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(88)90588-0. PMID: 3056015.
Atik et al (BJOhttps://bjo.bmj.com/content/105/5/602) have done an excellent job of summarizing the current state of the art for conducting health economic evaluations in ophthalmology. Not surprisingly, however, such tools and techniques were originally designed to address broader questions of healthcare funding and resource allocation across many disparate clinical areas. As such, the general use case was very far removed from ophthalmology. This is relevant as a central component is the calculation of the utility parameters used, particularly in cost-effectiveness calculations (1). At present, the standard default utility measure remains the EQ5D, which does not prima facie include a vision specific domain (2). Rather, a “Vision Bolt-On” to the EQ5D which asks patients whether they “Have no problems seeing”; “Have some problem seeing”; or “Have extreme problems seeing” is proposed for increasing the precision of the utility score derived from patients for ophthalmic interventions (3). Unfortunately, the “Vision Bolt On” while theoretically increasing the discriminating power of the EQ-5D has not been widely adopted in economic evaluations conducted in ophthalmology (3-4). Moreover, as currently configured, the “Vision Bolt On” questions fail to adequately account for the clinical differences, say between central or fine reading vision which may be more relevant in patients with age-related macular degeneration, versus...
Show MoreDear Editor:
We welcome the recent meta-analysis by Hedengran and co-workers in the British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO).1 This study compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye drops. The meta-analysis was conducted on 16 studies that range from 15 days to 6 months of study duration. Change in IOP in BAK vs AP and PF groups was meta-analysed as the primary outcome. Conjunctival hyperaemia, ocular hyperaemia, total ocular adverse effects (AE), and TBUT were also meta-analysed. The authors found no evidence of significant change in IOP and conjunctival hyperaemia between BAK vs AP and PF treatment groups. The authors concluded that the main reason for detecting no clinical differences between the groups was related to the lack of long-term clinical studies on the safety of BAK vs AP and PF eye drops. We are in consensus with Kontas AG et al., comments on the deficiencies of this meta-analysis.
We do not agree to the conclusion, “BAK-containing and PF medications do not differ with respect to tolerability and therapy outcome”. We would like to direct the authors and readers to our recently published study in the journal, Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (CEO), which involved the randomised evaluation of the inflammatory effects of PF vs BAK and PF vs polyquad (PQ)-preserved eye drops in naïve glaucomatous patients over the period of 24 months.2 We p...
Show MorePages