Clinical and cost-effectiveness of internal limiting membrane peeling for patients with idiopathic full thickness macular hole. Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial : FILMS (Full-thickness macular hole and Internal Limiting Membrane peeling Study)

Background: A full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) is a common retinal condition associated with impaired vision. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that surgery, by means of pars plana vitrectomy and post-operative intraocular tamponade with gas, is effective for stage 2, 3 and 4 FTMH. Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling has been introduced as an additional surgical manoeuvre to increase the success of the surgery; i.e. increase rates of hole closure and visual improvement. However, little robust evidence exists supporting the superiority of ILM peeling compared with no-peeling techniques. The purpose of FILMS (Fullthickness macular hole and Internal Limiting Membrane peeling Study) is to determine whether ILM peeling improves the visual function, the anatomical closure of FTMH, and the quality of life of patients affected by this disorder, and the cost-effectiveness of the surgery. Methods/Design: Patients with stage 2–3 idiopathic FTMH of less or equal than 18 months duration (based on symptoms reported by the participant) and with a visual acuity ≤ 20/40 in the study eye will be enrolled in this FILMS from eight sites across the UK and Ireland. Participants will be randomised to receive combined cataract surgery (phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation) and pars plana vitrectomy with postoperative intraocular tamponade with gas, with or without ILM peeling. The primary outcome is distance visual acuity at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include distance visual acuity at 3 and 24 months, near visual acuity at 3, 6, and 24 months, contrast sensitivity at 6 months, reading speed at 6 months, anatomical closure of the macular hole at each time point (1, 3, 6, and 24 months), health related quality of life (HRQOL) at six months, costs to the health service and the participant, incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and adverse events. Discussion: FILMS will provide high quality evidence on the role of ILM peeling in FTMH surgery. Trial registration: This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN number 33175422 and Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT00286507.Chief Scientist Office, Scotland (project ref no CZH/4/235), NHS GrampianPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Effectiveness of ophthalmic solution preservatives: a comparison of latanoprost with 0.02% benzalkonium chloride and travoprost with the sofZia preservative system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies have suggested that benzalkonium chloride (BAK) in topical ophthalmic solutions may be detrimental to corneal epithelial cells, multiple short- and long-term clinical studies have provided evidence supporting the safety of BAK. Despite the conflicting evidence, BAK is the most commonly used preservative in ophthalmic products largely due to its proven antimicrobial efficacy. This study was designed to characterize the antimicrobial performance of two commonly used topical ocular hypotensive agents that employ different preservative systems: latanoprost 0.005% with 0.02% BAK and travoprost 0.004% with sofZia, a proprietary ionic buffer system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Each product was tested for antimicrobial effectiveness by <it>European Pharmacopoeia </it>A (EP-A) standards, the most stringent standards of the three major compendia, which specify two early sampling time points (6 and 24 hours) not required by the <it>United States Pharmacopeia </it>or <it>Japanese Pharmacopoeia</it>. Aliquots were inoculated with between 10⁵and 10⁶colony-forming units of the test organisms: <it>Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Candida albicans </it>and <it>Aspergillus brasiliensis</it>. Sampling and enumeration were conducted at protocol-defined time points through 28 days.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>BAK-containing latanoprost met EP-A criteria by immediately reducing all bacterial challenge organisms to the test sensitivity and fungal challenges within the first six hours while the preservative activity of travoprost with sofZia did not. Complete bacterial reduction by travoprost with sofZia was not shown until seven days into the test, and fungal reduction never exceeded the requisite 2 logs during the 28-day test. Travoprost with sofZia also did not meet EP-B criteria due to its limited effectiveness against <it>Staphylococcus aureus</it>. Both products satisfied United States and Japanese pharmacopoeial criteria.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Latanoprost with 0.02% BAK exhibited more effective microbial protection than travoprost with sofZia using rates of microbial reduction, time to no recovery for all challenges and evaluation against EP-A criteria as measures. The rapid and complete reduction of all microbial challenges demonstrates that antimicrobial activity of latanoprost with 0.02% BAK exceeds that of travoprost with sofZia preservative system in these products and provides a more protective environment in the event of contamination and subsequent exposure to microorganisms during use.</p

Current clinical practice: differential management of uveal melanoma in the era of molecular tumor analyses

Thomas M Aaberg Jr,1 Robert&nbsp;W Cook,2 Kristen Oelschlager,2 Derek Maetzold,2 P Kumar Rao,3 John O Mason III41Michigan State University Medical School and Retina Specialists of Michigan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2Castle Biosciences, Friendswood, TX, 3Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, MO, 4Retina Consultants of Alabama and University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA Objective: Assess current clinical practices for uveal melanoma (UM) and the impact of molecular prognostic testing on treatment decisions.Design: Cross-sectional survey and sequential medical records review.Participants: Ophthalmologists who treat UM.Methods: (A) Medical records review of all Medicare beneficiaries tested by UM gene expression profile in 2012, conducted under an institutional review board-approved protocol. (B) 109 ophthalmologists specializing in the treatment of UM were invited to participate in 24-question survey in 2012; 72 were invited to participate in a 23-question survey in 2014.Main outcome measures: Responses analyzed by descriptive statistics, frequency analyses (percentages, Tukey, histograms), and Fisher&rsquo;s exact test. Descriptive presentation of essay answers.Results: The review of Medicare medical records included 191 evaluable patients, 88 (46%) with documented medical treatment actions or institutional policies related to surveillance plans. Of these 88, all gene expression profiling (GEP) Class 1 UM patients were treated with low-intensity surveillance. All GEP Class 2 UM patients were treated with high-intensity surveillance (P&lt;0.0001 versus Class 1). There were 36 (19%) with information concerning referrals after initial diagnosis. Of these 36, all 23 Class 2 patients were referred to medical oncology; however, none of the 13 Class 1 patients were referred (P&lt;0.0001 versus Class 1). Only Class 2 patients were recommended for adjunctive treatment regimens. 2012 survey: 50 respondents with an annual median of 35 new UM patients. The majority of respondents (82%) performed molecular analysis of UM tumors after fine needle biopsy (FNAB); median: 15 FNAB per year; 2014 survey: 35 respondents with an annual median of 30 new UM patients. The majority offered molecular analyses of UM tumor samples to most patients. Patients with low metastatic risk (disomy 3 or GEP Class 1) were generally assigned to less frequent (every 6 or 12 months) and less intensive clinical visits. Patients with high metastatic risk (monosomy 3 or GEP Class 2) were assigned to more frequent surveillance with hepatic imaging and liver function testing every 3&ndash;6 months. High-risk patients were considered more suitable for adjuvant treatment protocols.Conclusion: The majority of ophthalmologists treating UM have adopted molecular diagnostic tests for the purpose of designing risk-appropriate treatment strategies.Keywords: uveal melanoma, gene expression profiling (GEP), medicare, molecular diagnostic tes