Clinical utility of the KAMRA corneal inlay

The treatment of presbyopia has been the focus of much scientific and clinical research over recent years, not least due to an increasingly aging population but also the desire for spectacle independence. Many lens and nonlens-based approaches have been investigated, and with advances in biomaterials and improved surgical methods, removable corneal inlays have been developed. One such development is the KAMRA™ inlay where a small entrance pupil is exploited to create a pinhole-type effect that increases the depth of focus and enables improvement in near visual acuity. Short- and long-term clinical studies have all reported significant improvement in near and intermediate vision compared to preoperative measures following monocular implantation (nondominant eye), with a large proportion of patients achieving Jaeger (J) 2 to J1 (~0.00 logMAR to ~0.10 logMAR) at the final follow-up. Although distance acuity is reduced slightly in the treated eye, binocular visual acuity and function remain very good (mean 0.10 logMAR or better). The safety of the inlay is well established and easily removable, and although some patients have developed corneal changes, these are clinically insignificant and the incidence appears to reduce markedly with advancements in KAMRA design, implantation technique, and femtosecond laser technology. This review aims to summarize the currently published peer-reviewed studies on the safety and efficacy of the KAMRA inlay and discusses the surgical and clinical outcomes with respect to the patient’s visual function

Randomised masked clinical trial of the MGDRx eyebag for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction-related evaporative dry eye

Background/aims To investigate the efficacy and safety of the MGDRx EyeBag (The Eyebag Company, Halifax, UK) eyelid warming device. Methods Twenty-five patients with confirmed meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)-related evaporative dry eye were enrolled into a randomised, single masked, contralateral clinical trial. Test eyes received a heated device; control eyes a non-heated device for 5 min twice a day for 2 weeks. Efficacy (ocular symptomology, noninvasive break-up time, lipid layer thickness, osmolarity, meibomian gland dropout and function) and safety (visual acuity, corneal topography, conjunctival hyperaemia and staining) measurements were taken at baseline and follow-up. Subsequent patient device usage and ocular comfort was ascertained at 6 months. Results Differences between test and control eyes at baseline were not statistically signi ficant for all measurements ( p>0.05). After 2 weeks, statistically significant improvements occurred in all efficacy measurements in test eyes ( p0.05). All patients maintained higher ocular comfort after 6 months ( p<0.05), although the bene fit was greater in those who continued usage 1-8 times a month (p<0.001). Conclusions The MGDRx EyeBag is a safe and effective device for the treatment of MGD-related evaporative dry eye. Subjective benefit lasts at least 6 months, aided by occasional retreatment. Trial registration number NCT01870180

Managing ocular allergy in optometric practice

Ocular allergies are a common cause of red eyes presenting in optometric practice, with patients typically reporting itchy and watery eyes. This article aims to focus on the effective identification and treatment modalities for the most common subtype of ocular allergy