Prevalence of co-existent neoplasia in clinically diagnosed pterygia in a UK population

INTRODUCTION: Ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN) and pterygia share risk factors and co-exist in only a minority of cases. Reported rates of OSSN in specimens sent as pterygium for histopathological analysis vary between 0% and nearly 10%, with the highest rates reported in countries with high levels of ultraviolet light exposure. As there is a paucity of data in European populations, the aim of this study was to report the prevalence of co-existent OSSN or other neoplastic disease in clinically suspected pterygium specimens sent to a specialist ophthalmic pathology service in London, United Kingdom. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of sequential histopathology records of patients with excised tissue submitted as suspected “pterygium” between 1997 and 2021. RESULTS: In total, 2061 specimens of pterygia were received during the 24-year period, with a prevalence of neoplasia in those specimens of 0.6% (n = 12). On detailed review of the medical records of these patients, half (n = 6) had the pre-operative clinical suspicion of possible OSSN. Of those cases without clinical suspicion pre-operatively, one was diagnosed with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the conjunctiva. CONCLUSION: In this study, rates of unexpected diagnoses are reassuringly low. These results may challenge accepted dogma, and influence future guidance for the indications for submitting non-suspicious pterygia for histopathological analysis

Adalimumab for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the available relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. Data collected in two key randomised controlled trials (VISUAL I and VISUAL II) were used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trials' comparator arms (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adalimumab versus LCP for the base case are £92 600 and £318 075 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for active and inactive uveitis, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied from £15 579 to £120 653 and £35 642 to £800 775 per QALY for active and inactive uveitis. CONCLUSION: The estimated ICERs of adalimumab versus LCP are above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Adalimumab may be more cost-effective in patients with active uveitis at greater risk of blindness. However, there is an unmet need for additional primary data to provide more reliable estimates in several important areas, including effectiveness of adalimumab versus current practice (instead of LCP), incidence of long-term blindness, adalimumab effectiveness in avoiding blindness, and rates and time to remission while on adalimumab

Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dexamethasone implant plus current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) compared with current practice alone, in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and benefits of dexamethasone. Systematic reviews were performed to identify available relevant evidence. Quality of life data from the key randomised-controlled trial (HURON) was used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trial's comparator arm (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis took a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant compared with LCP is estimated as £19 509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The factors with the largest impact on the results were rate of blindness and relative proportion of blindness cases avoided by dexamethasone. Using plausible alternative assumptions, dexamethasone could be cost saving or it may be associated with an ICER of £56 329 per QALY gained compared with LCP. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone is estimated to be cost-effective using generally accepted UK thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around these results due to scarcity of evidence. Future research on the following would help provide more reliable estimates: effectiveness of dexamethasone versus current practice (instead of LCP), with subgroup analyses for unilateral and bilateral uveitis, incidence of long-term blindness and effectiveness of dexamethasone in avoiding blindness

Randomized Phase IIb Study of Brimonidine Drug Delivery System Generation 2 for Geographic Atrophy in Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of repeat injections of Brimonidine Drug Delivery System (Brimo DDS) Generation 2 (Gen 2) containing 400-μg brimonidine in patients with geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Design: A phase IIb, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, sham-controlled, 30-month study (BEACON). Participants: Patients diagnosed with GA secondary to AMD and multifocal lesions with total area of > 1.25 mm2 and ≤ 18 mm2 in the study eye. Methods: Enrolled patients were randomized to treatment with intravitreal injections of 400-μg Brimo DDS (n = 154) or sham procedure (n = 156) in the study eye every 3 months from day 1 to month 21. Main Outcome Measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was GA lesion area change from baseline in the study eye, assessed with fundus autofluorescence imaging, at month 24. Results: The study was terminated early, at the time of the planned interim analysis, because of a slow GA progression rate (∼ 1.6 mm2/year) in the enrolled population. Least squares mean (standard error) GA area change from baseline at month 24 (primary endpoint) was 3.24 (0.13) mm2 with Brimo DDS (n = 84) versus 3.48 (0.13) mm2 with sham (n = 91), a reduction of 0.25 mm2 (7%) with Brimo DDS compared with sham (P = 0.150). At month 30, GA area change from baseline was 4.09 (0.15) mm2 with Brimo DDS (n = 49) versus 4.52 (0.15) mm2 with sham (n = 46), a reduction of 0.43 mm2 (10%) with Brimo DDS compared with sham (P = 0.033). Exploratory analysis showed numerically smaller loss over time in retinal sensitivity assessed with scotopic microperimetry with Brimo DDS than with sham (P = 0.053 at month 24). Treatment-related adverse events were usually related to the injection procedure. No implant accumulation was observed. Conclusions: Multiple intravitreal administrations of Brimo DDS (Gen 2) were well tolerated. The primary efficacy endpoint at 24 months was not met, but there was a numeric trend for reduction in GA progression at 24 months compared with sham treatment. The study was terminated early because of the lower-than-expected GA progression rate in the sham/control group. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosures may be found after the references

Sub-Tenon's anaesthesia: complications and their prevention

The advent of a new technique that is considered much safer than previously established one leads to its rapid adoption. This usually leads to the identification of previously unreported complications of the new technique, and a re-assessment of its position in clinical care, which is precisely the state of play with the sub-Tenon's block. The sub-Tenon's block was introduced into the clinical practice in early 1990. A systematic recent search of subject headings such as complications of sub-Tenon's block, subtenon, orbital block, orbital block complications, and orbital anaesthesia was performed in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. Indeed there are complications of sub-Tenon's block published as case reports and the exact incidence of these complications is not known. Management and preventive measures of these complications are described. Although the sub-Tenon's block appears to be relatively safer than needle-based blocks but a proper prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial is essential for scientific proof that sub-Tenon's block is better than needle-based blocks