Search

Our purpose is to present an evidence-based approach, directed primarily towards eye-care specialists, clarifying whether certain drugs should or should not be used in patients with sulfonamide allergy. We conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify the risk of ophthalmic-specific drugs in patients with a self-reported sulfonamide allergy. MeSH key words included “sulfonamide” and “hypersensitivity”. Articles specifically geared towards ophthalmic diseases were sought. The evidence illustrates that individuals with sulfonamide allergy are intrinsically predisposed to higher rates of allergic reaction that is not specific towards sulfonamide non-antimicrobials or sulfur-based medications. We provide a simplified algorithm using the 2017 Clinical Guide to Ophthalmic Drugs to help busy eye care clinicians determine whether a certain common ophthalmic medication is safe or unsafe to prescribe in a patient with a “sulfa allergy”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The corneal endothelium plays an integral role in regulating corneal hydration and clarity. Endotheliitis, defined as inflammation of the corneal endothelium, may disrupt endothelial function and cause subsequent visual changes. Corneal endotheliitis is characterized by corneal edema, the presence of keratic precipitates, anterior chamber inflammation, and occasionally limbal injection, neovascularization, and co-existing or superimposed uveitis. The disorder is classified into four subgroups: linear, sectoral, disciform, and diffuse. Its etiology is extensive and, although commonly viral, may be medication-related, procedural, fungal, zoological, environmental, or systemic. Not all cases of endothelial dysfunction leading to corneal edema are inflammatory in nature. Therefore, it is imperative that practitioners consider a broad differential for patients presenting with possible endotheliitis, as well as familiarize themselves with appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The primary objective was to show our initial surgical single-site experience with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) after the official enrollment in March 2017 following Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for simple myopia in late 2016 in the United States and, subsequently, compare our results to the earliest and most advanced generation of excimer platforms for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery.Methods: This was a retrospective single-site study of 68 eyes from 35 patients who had SMILE surgery. The patients’ preoperative and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest sphere, manifest cylinder, intraoperative complications, and preoperative and postoperative visual symptoms were collected. We compared our findings to the results from the FDA SMILE study, and to the three earliest (1999-2000) and three of the most updated (2013-2016) platforms for LASIK.Results: The cumulative UDVA was 20/20 and 20/40 or better in 74% and 100% of patients, respectively. The intended target refraction was within ± 0.5 and ± 1.00 D in 80% and 93% of cases, respectively. The prevalence of dry eyes decreased by nearly half from 1-week to the 6-month postoperative interval. Patients noted improvement in glare (17%), halos (17%), fluctuation (25%), and depth perception (8%) at the 6-month interval compared to preoperative levels.Conclusions: This study’s findings are consistent with current SMILE reports. Notably, the results are superior to the earliest generation of LASIK, however inferior to the latest excimer platforms. SMILE does meet the efficacy and safety criteria met by FDA; however, there is a definite need for further improvement to reach the superior refractive outcomes produced by the latest generation of LASIK platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]