Search

The prevalence of myopia is increasing across the world. Controlling myopia progression would be beneficial to reduce adverse outcomes such as retinal detachment and myopic maculopathy which are associated with increased axial length. Pharmacological control of myopia progression with atropine has been investigated since the 19th century and the benefits of slowing myopia progression are considered against the side-effects of near blur and photophobia. More recently, randomised trials have focused on determining the optimum concentration of atropine leading to low-concentration atropine being used to manage myopia progression by practitioners across the world. Currently, in the United Kingdom, there is no licensed pharmacological intervention for myopia management. The aim of this review is to interpret the available data to inform clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review of the literature and identified peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials using the search terms 'myopia' and 'atropine', limited to the English language. We identified two key studies, which were the Atropine in the Treatment Of Myopia (ATOM) and Low-concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP). Further studies were identified using the above search terms and the references from the identified literature. Atropine 0.01% has a modest effect on controlling axial length progression. Atropine 0.05% appears to be superior to atropine 0.01% in managing myopia progression. There is a dose-dependent rebound effect when treatment is stopped. Atropine is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective intervention. Treatment would be needed for several years and into adolescence, until axial length progression is stable., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.)

Glaucoma is a neurodegenerative disorder with established relationships with ocular structures such as the retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) and the ganglion cell layer (GCL). Ocular imaging techniques such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) allow for quantitative measurement of these structures. OCT has been used in the monitoring of glaucoma, as well as investigating other neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and multiple sclerosis (MS). In this review, we highlight the association between these disorders and ocular structures (RNFL and GCL), examining their usefulness as biomarkers of neurodegeneration. The average RNFL thickness loss in patients with AD is 11 μm, and 7 μm in MS patients. Most of the studies investigating these changes are cross-sectional. Further longitudinal studies are required to assess sensitivity and specificity of these potential ocular biomarkers to neurodegenerative disease progression.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of the 'gold standard' Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), with that of the ocular response analyser (ORA), and the dynamic contour tonometer (DCT)., Patients and Methods: A total of 694 subjects were recruited to participate from the TwinsUK (UK Adult Twin Registry) at St Thomas' Hospital, London. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured using GAT, ORA, and the DCT. The agreement between the three methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Repeatability coefficients and coefficient of variation between first and second readings of the same eye were used to assess reliability., Results: Mean age was 57.5 years (SD, 13.1; range, 16.1-88.5). The mean IOPs, calculated using the mean of two readings from the right eye were as follows: Goldmann (GAT), 14.1+/-2.8 mm Hg; IOPg (ORA), 15.9+/-3.2 mm Hg; IOPcc (ORA), 16.6+/-3.2 mm Hg; and DCT, 16.9+/-2.7 mm Hg. The 95% limits of agreement were for ORA (IOPcc): GAT, -2.07 to 7.18 mm Hg; for DCT: GAT, -0.49 to 6.21 mm Hg; and for DCT: ORA (IOPcc), -3.01 to 4.85 mm Hg. Coefficients of variation for the three tonometers were GAT, 8.3%; ORA, 8.2%; DCT, 6.3%. The repeatability coefficients were 3.4 mm Hg for GAT, 3.57 mm Hg for ORA and 3.09 mm Hg for DCT. GAT and ORA (IOPg) readings showed a positive correlation with central corneal thickness (P<0.005)., Conclusions: This study found similar reliability in all three tonometers. Bland-Altman plots showed the three instruments to have 95% limits of agreement outside the generally accepted limits, which means they are not interchangeable. GAT measurements were found to be significantly lower than the two newer instruments.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of the Hoffer Q and SRK-T formulae in eyes below 22 mm in axial length, using biometry measured with partial coherence inferometry (PCI), without a customised ACD constant., Methods: Data were retrospectively and prospectively collected by identifying eyes of axial length below 22 mm in the records of the intraocular lens (IOL) master and in preoperative notes. Biometry was performed using PCI and IOL power was calculated using both SRK-T and Hoffer Q formulae. Refractive outcome was measured and the accuracy of the two formulae compared., Results: Forty-one eyes of 41 patients were identified with an axial length <22 mm. Axial lengths ranged from 21.96 to 20.29 with a mean of 21.51 mm, and IOL power ranging from 23 dioptres (D) to 29 D. The Hoffer Q formula showed a mean prediction error of 0.61 D (SD 0.80) compared with the SRK-T, which showed a mean prediction error of 0.87 D (SD 0.829). A paired t-test found that the Hoffer Q was significantly more accurate than the SRK-T formula (P<0.001)., Conclusions: Hoffer Q was found to be more accurate than the SRK-T formula in this series of eyes <22 mm axial length when customised ACD constants are not used. Royal College of Ophthalmologists guidelines may need to be adjusted in accordance with these findings. This study underlines the importance of monitoring outcomes, and suggests different customisations are needed for different formulae, with a higher correction if the SRK-T formula is used for short eyes.

The best method of screening for diabetic retinopathy is still debated: fundus photography, general practitioners, hospital physicians and ophthalmic opticians have been advocated. This study compared the performance of an ophthalmic optician with an ophthalmologist, both using mydriatic and slit lamp biomicroscopy and direct ophthalmoscopy. A total of 474 eyes of diabetics in a single group practice were examined by both practitioners at their annual check. There was total agreement about presence or absence of retinopathy in 366 eyes (77%). Although the optician diagnosed less background diabetic retinopathy (83 versus 123 eyes) and diabetic maculopathy (47 eyes versus 63 eyes), he would have referred 20 of 26 eyes with moderate or severe maculopathy and 33 of 36 eyes with moderate or severe background retinopathy: sensitivities of 0.77 and 0.92 respectively. This compares favourably with previous studies and we suggest that ophthalmic opticians with suitable training would be an effective body to screen for diabetic retinopathy.