Background Though several procedures of IOL implantation have been described (sutured scleral fixation, intra-scleral fixation, angle-supported anterior chamber, and anterior chamber or retropupillary iris-claw IOLs), there are no randomized trials which are comparing different techniques. Hence, the surgical treatment of aphakia still remains controversial and challenging. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy and the rate of complications of anterior versus posterior Iris-claw intraocular lenses (IOL) implantation to correct for the treatment of aphakia without sufficient capsule support. Methods and findings Consecutive eyes having secondary implantation of aphakic iris-fixated IOLs with a follow-up of at least 5 years were considered. Mean correct distance visual acuity (CDVA) changes, percentage of eyes with CDVA improvement, mean corneal endothelial cell density (CECD) loss and the rate of other complications were used for statistical analysis. The study evaluated a total of 180 eyes (Group A: 87 anterior chamber iris-claw fixation, Group B: 93 retropupillary iris-claw implantation) of 180 consecutive different patients, with aphakia of various reasons. CDVA improved significantly in both groups after surgery (P<0.001, ANOVA), and was remarkably higher than baseline in both groups from first week and during the entire follow-up (P<0.001, Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference). There was no statistically significant difference in CDVA between the two groups during each follow-up visits (P = NS, unpaired t-test) and in the CDVA improvement percentage between the two groups (P = 0.882, Chi-square test). No significant changes in CECD were noted after surgery in both groups (ANOVA Group A: P = 0.067, Group B: P = 0.330P). No intra-operative complications occurred in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups (P = NS, Chi-square test), except for pigment precipitates which were higher in Group A (P<0.05, Chi-square test). Conclusions Five-year follow-up shows that secondary implantation of aphakic IOLs is effective and safe for the correction treatment of aphakia in eyes without capsule support.

No abstract

Clinical efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs has been widely demonstrated in several angiogenesis-driven eye diseases including diabetic macular edema and the neovascular form of age-related macular degeneration. Pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and aflibercept have been approved for use in the eye, whereas bevacizumab is widely used by ophthalmologists to treat patients "off-label". These drugs are active in the nanomolar to picomolar range; however, caution is required when establishing the rank order of affinity and potency due to in vitro inter-experimental variation. Despite the small doses used for eye diseases and the intravitreal route of administration may limit systemic side effects, these drugs can penetrate into blood circulation and alter systemic VEGF with unknown clinical consequences, particularly in vulnerable groups of patients. Clinical pharmacokinetics of ocular anti-VEGF agents should therefore be taken into account when choosing the right drug for the individual patient. The gaps in current understanding that leave open important questions are as follows: (i) uncertainty about which drug should be given first, (ii) how long these drugs can be used safely, and (iii) the choice of the best pharmacological strategy after first-line treatment failure. The current review article, based on the information published in peer-reviewed published papers relevant to anti-VEGF treatments and available on the PubMed database, describes in detail the clinical pharmacology of this class of drugs to provide a sound pharmacological basis for their proper use in ophthalmology clinical practice.

The recent outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The scientific community has put in much effort and published studies that described COVID-19’s biology, transmission, clinical diagnosis, candidate therapeutics, and vaccines. However, to date, only a few data are available on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on ophthalmological care in different health care systems, its future consequences in terms of disability, and access to sight-saving cures for many patients. To reduce human-to-human transmission of the virus and also ensure supply of infrastructures, human resources, and disposable medical devices to many regions, it is crucial to assess risks and postpone non-essential outpatient visits and elective surgical procedures, especially in older patients and those with comorbidities. This delay or suspension in essential eye procedures may cause significant and rapid vision impairment to irreversible blindness. Determining the risk-benefit profile of treating these ocular pathologies is a public health issue of supreme priority, even though many patients benefiting from therapeutic treatments are elderly, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19. If not reversible, this process could lead to a dramatic increase in disability and unsustainable social costs for many Governments.

Keratoplasty is one of the irreplaceable treatment options for corneal diseases. Currently, there is no evidence to substantiate that harvested corneal grafts from COVID-19 patients can contain SARS-CoV-2 virus and lead to a systemic infection. Although the risk of transmission through corneal stromal tissue is low, it potentially exists. Lack of clinical data, unclear potential of donor-derived infection and non-established recommendations for transplantation during the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of keratoplasty and cornea donors at ophthalmology departments and eye banks. To eliminate the risk of infection of recipients and medical personnel, we suggest that the blood samples of all donors should be screened with RT-PCR tests and nasopharyngeal swabs should be taken. In addition, a chest CT scan should be performed if the circulation is maintained. Moreover, the donors' clinical and epidemiological medical history must be screened for typical symptoms and potential contact with SARS-CoV-2 carriers to reduce the risk of transmission. The Guidelines of the Eye Bank Association of America (EBAA), Global Alliance of Eye Bank Associations (GAEBA) and European Association of Tissue Banks provide useful recommendations to eliminate the risk of transmission according to previous experiences based on similar viruses.

PurposeTo evaluate frequency, conversion rate, and risk factors for blindness in glaucoma patients treated in European Universities.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective study included 2402 consecutive patients with glaucoma in at least one eye. Medical charts were inspected and patients were divided into those blind and the remainder (‘controls’). Blindness was defined as visual acuity≤0.05 and/or visual field loss to less than 10°.ResultsUnilateral and bilateral blindness were respectively 11.0% and 1.6% at the beginning, and 15.5% and 3.6% at the end of the observation period (7.5±5.5 years, range:1–25 years); conversion to blindness (at least unilateral) was 1.1%/year. 134 eyes (97 patients) developed blindness by POAG during the study. At the first access to study centre, they had mean deviation (MD) of -17.1±8.3 dB and treated intraocular pressure (IOP) of 17.1±6.6 mmHg. During follow-up the IOP decreased by 14% in these eyes but MD deteriorated by 1.1±3.5 dB/year, which was 5-fold higher than controls (0.2±1.6 dB/year). In a multivariate model, the best predictors for blindness by glaucoma were initial MD (p<0.001), initial IOP (p<0.001), older age at the beginning of follow-up (p<0.001), whereas final IOP was found to be protective (p<0.05).ConclusionsIn this series of patients, blindness occurred in about 20%. Blindness by glaucoma had 2 characteristics: late diagnosis and/or late referral, and progression of the disease despite in most cases IOP was within the range of normality and target IOP was achieved; it could be predicted by high initial MD, high initial IOP, and old age.

No abstract

Since the end of 2019, an outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), originating in the Chinese city of Wuhan has spread rapidly worldwide causing thousands of deaths. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is supported by SARS-CoV-2 and represents the causative agent of a potentially fatal disease that is of great global public health concern. Italy has been the first European country recording an elevated number of infected forcing the Italian Government to call for total lockdown. The lockdown had the aim to limit the spread of infection through social distancing. The purpose of this study is to analyze how the pandemic has affected the patient's accesses to the Ophthalmological Emergency Department of a tertiary referral center in central-northern Italy, during the lockdown period. The charts of all patients that came to the Emergency Department during the lockdown period (March 10-May 4, 2020) have been retrospectively collected and compared with those in the same period of 2019 and the period from 15 January-9 March 2020. A significant reduction of visits during the lockdown has been observed, compared with those of pre-lockdown period (reduction of 65.4%) and with those of the same period of 2019 (reduction of 74.3%). Particularly, during the lockdown, minor and not urgency visits decreased whereas the undeferrable urgency ones increased. These pieces of evidence could be explained by the fear of patients to be infected; but also revealed patients misuse of emergency services.