Future directions in managing aniridia-associated keratopathy

Congenital aniridia is a panocular disorder that is typically characterized by iris hypoplasia and aniridia-associated keratopathy (AAK). AAK results in the progressive loss of corneal transparency and thereby loss of vision. Currently, there is no approved therapy to delay or prevent its progression, and clinical management is challenging because of phenotypic variability and high risk of complications after interventions; however, new insights into the molecular pathogenesis of AAK may help improve its management. Here, we review the current understanding about the pathogenesis and management of AAK. We highlight the biological mechanisms involved in AAK development with the aim to develop future treatment options, including surgical, pharmacological, cell therapies, and gene therapies

TFOS European Ambassador meeting: Unmet needs and future scientific and clinical solutions for ocular surface diseases

The mission of the Tear Film & Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) is to advance the research, literacy, and educational aspects of the scientific field of the tear film and ocular surface. Fundamental to fulfilling this mission is the TFOS Global Ambassador program. TFOS Ambassadors are dynamic and proactive experts, who help promote TFOS initiatives, such as presenting the conclusions and recommendations of the recent TFOS DEWS II™, throughout the world. They also identify unmet needs, and propose future clinical and scientific solutions, for management of ocular surface diseases in their countries. This meeting report addresses such needs and solutions for 25 European countries, as detailed in the TFOS European Ambassador meeting in Rome, Italy, in September 2019

Parasites of non-native freshwater fishes introduced into england and wales suggest enemy release and parasite acquisition

When non-native species are introduced into a new range, their parasites can also be introduced, with these potentially spilling-over into native hosts. However, in general, evidence suggests that a high proportion of their native parasites are lost during introduction and infections by some new parasites from the native range might occur, potentially resulting in parasite spill-back to native species. These processes were investigated here using parasite surveys and literature review on seven non-native freshwater fishes introduced into England and Wales. Comparison of the mean numbers of parasite species and genera per population for each fish species England andWaleswith their native ranges revealed\9 % of the native parasite fauna were present in their populations in England and Wales. There was no evidence suggesting these introduced parasites had spilled over into sympatric native fishes. The non-native fishes did acquire parasites following their introduction, providing potential for parasite spill-back to sympatric fishes, and resulted in non-significant differences in overall mean numbers of parasites per populations between the two ranges. Through this acquisition, the non-native fishes also had mean numbers of parasite species and genera per population that were not significantly different to sympatric native fishes. Thus, the non-native fishes in England and Wales showed evidence of enemy release, acquired new parasites following introduction providing potential for spill-back, but showed no evidence of parasite spill-over

The Auckland Cataract Study: 2 year postoperative assessment of aspects of clinical, visual, corneal topographic and satisfaction outcomes

Aim: To assess clinical, visual, computerised corneal topographic, and subjective satisfaction with visual acuity, in a cohort of subjects 2 years after phacoemulsification surgery in a public hospital in New Zealand. Methods: Prospective study of a representative sample of 97 subjects (20%) randomly selected from 480 subjects in the original Auckland Cataract Study (ACS) cohort. The clinical assessment protocol was identical to the ACS and included an extensive questionnaire to enable direct comparisons to be made between the two groups. Results: The study population was predominantly female (66%) with a mean age of 76.3 (SD 9.9) years. New systemic and ocular disease affected 18.4% and 10.3% of subjects respectively, and 10.3% required referral to either a general practitioner (2.1%) or ophthalmologist (8.2%). Mean best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was 0.2 (0.2) logMAR units (6/9 Snellen equivalent), with mean spherical equivalent −0.37 (1.01) dioptres (D) and astigmatism −1.07 (0.70) D 2 years postoperatively, compared to mean BSCVA 0.1 (0.2) logMAR units (6/7.5 Snellen equivalent), spherical equivalent −0.59 (1.07) D, and astigmatism −1.14 (0.77) D 4 weeks after surgery. 94.9% of subjects retained a BSCVA of 6/12 or better, irrespective of pre-existing ocular disease. The overall posterior capsule opacification (PCO) rate was 20.4% and this was visually insignificant in all but 3.1% of eyes that had already undergone Nd:YAG posterior capsulotomy. Orbscan II elevation technology demonstrated corneal stability 2 years after uncomplicated phacoemulsification. Although corneal astigmatism was eliminated in approximately half of the subjects 1 month postoperatively, astigmatism showed a tendency to regress towards the preoperative level with local corneal thickening at the site of incision 2 years after cataract surgery. Of fellow eyes, 61.2% had undergone cataract surgery. Overall, 75.3% of subjects were moderately to very satisfied with their current level of visual acuity. Conclusion: Two years after cataract surgery subjects are generally satisfied with their current level of vision and distance BSCVA is 6/12 or better in the majority of eyes. Although only a minority of eyes develop sufficient PCO to require capsulotomy 10.3% of eyes develop new vision threatening ocular pathology

Corrigendum to “Future directions in managing aniridia-associated keratopathy” [Surv Ophthalmol 68 (2023) 940–956, (S0039625723000668), (10.1016/j.survophthal.2023.04.003)]

\ua9 2024 The Authors. The authors regret (changes marked in bold): Arianne J.H. van Velthoven a b, Tor P. Utheim M.D. Dr. c d, Maria Notara Dr. e, Dominique Bremond-Gignac M.D. Dr. f g, Francisco C. Figueiredo M.D. Dr. h i, Heli Skottman Dr. j, Daniel Aberdam Dr. g, Julie T. Daniels Dr. k, Giulio Ferrari M.D. Dr. l m, Christina Grupcheva M.D. Dr. n, Carina Koppen M.D. Dr. \ub0, Mohit Parekh Dr. p, Thomas Ritter Dr. q, Vito Romano Dr. r, Stefano Ferrari Dr. s 1, Claus Cursiefen M.D. Dr. e t 1, Neil Lagali Dr. u 1, Vanessa L.S. LaPointe Dr. a 1, Mor M. Dickman M.D. Dr. a b 1 a MERLN Institute for Technology-Inspired Regenerative Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands b University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands c Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway d Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway e Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany f Ophthalmology Department, University Hospital Necker-Enfants Malades, APHP, Paris Cit\ue9 University, Paris, France g Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Paris Cit\ue9 University, Paris, France h Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK i Biosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK j Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland k UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK l IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Division of Neuroscience, Cornea and Ocular Surface Disease Unit, Eye Repair Lab, Milan, Italy m Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Dept. Of Ophthalmology, Milan, Italy n Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Medical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria o Department of Ophthalmology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium p Schepens Eye Research Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA q Regenerative Medicine Institute, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland r Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, Ophthalmology Clinic, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy s Fondazione Banca degli Occhi del Veneto, Venice, Italy t Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany u Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Link\uf6ping University, Link\uf6ping, Sweden The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience cause