Objectives: To evaluate the risk factors, causative microorganisms, and presenting features of infection in patients with contact lens–associated microbial keratitis (CLAMK) admitted to a tertiary referral center in Turkey. Methods: A retrospective review of the medical records of 62 patients who were diagnosed as CLAMK in our clinic between 2012 and 2018 was conducted. Results: The mean age of the patients (22 men and 40 women) at the time of diagnosis was 24.5±8.3 years (range, 16–48). The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.7±0.9 log of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) (0–3) before treatment and increased to 0.1±0.1 logMAR (0–0.4) at the end of the follow-up. All patients, except one using rigid gas-permeable CL, were frequent replacement soft CL users. Thirty-one (50%) patients declared overnight wear, and 37 (58.9%) patients declared showering or swimming in CLs regularly. Cultures of either corneal scrapings or CL materials were positive in 40 (64.5%) eyes, 12 (19.4%) of which had mixed infections. Thirteen strains of microorganisms were demonstrated, among which there were seven (53.8%) gram-negative bacteria, one (7.7%) gram-positive bacteria, four (30.7%) fungi, and Acanthamoeba (7.7%). The most common pathogen was Pseudomonas aeruginosa, followed by Serratia marcescens and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. According to culture results, P. aeruginosa infections were associated with significantly worse BCVA. Keratitis foci were either centrally or paracentrally located in 39 (62.9%) eyes, and 16 eyes (25.8%) presented with hypopyon. Conclusion: Along with growing number of CL users, CLAMK constitutes an important problem with possibly worse visual outcomes. Thus, in addition to meticulous treatment, management of risk factors and behavioral modifications is crucial.

Gene therapy has emerged as a research topic of choice in recent years. The eye in particular is one of few organs of the body for which gene therapy has received Food and Drug Administration approval, and it remains a field of great interest for gene therapy development. However, its associated immune and inflammatory reactions may render the treatment ineffective or harmful, which are of particular concern for the eyes due to their susceptibility to inflammation. The severity of immune and inflammatory reactions depends on the choice of vector and its route of administration. Furthermore, most preclinical and clinical studies have shown that the dose of vectors is correlated with the degree of humoral response and ocular inflammation. The route of administration directly impacts the degree of immune and inflammatory reaction. Subretinal delivery produces a weaker humoral response than the intravitreal route. However, some studies have demonstrated that the subretinal delivery induces a stronger inflammatory reaction. On the other hand, several instances of vision loss due to severe late onset intraocular inflammation were reported in a clinical trial involving intravitreal delivery of viral vectors. When compared with the intravitreal route, suprachoroidal gene delivery has been shown to produce weaker humoral response. However, unlike the subretinal space, the suprachoroidal space is not known to have immune privilege status. Inflammatory reactions following ocular gene therapy are typically mild and most clinical and preclinical studies have shown that they can be controlled with topical, local or systemic steroids. However, severe inflammatory responses may occur and require aggressive management to avoid permanent vision loss. Further investigations are required to elucidate and expand our knowledge of inflammatory reactions, and their optimal management, following ocular gene therapy.

No abstract

Background: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the leading cause of visual loss in patients with diabetic retinopathy. There has been a paradigm shift in the treatment of DME since the advent of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy. The safety and efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy has been well established. Although efficacious, currently approved anti-VEGF agents are associated with certain limitations, which include, among others: frequent need for injections, high treatment cost and variable response to treatment. These challenges have led to an active search for more novel agents that may be able to overcome these limitations. Areas covered: The index review focuses on novel treatment agents that target various pathways in patients with DME. These agents are used either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in the management of DME. Drugs discussed include novel anti-VEGF inhibitors, TIE-2 receptor modulators, integrin peptide inhibitors, rho kinase inhibitors, and future therapies such as neuroprotection and gene therapy. Conclusions: The future of investigational pharmacological therapy appears promising for patients with DME. Results from early clinical trials indicate that newer agents highlighted in the study may be safe and efficacious treatment options for patients with DME. However, data from large multicenter clinical trials need to be analyzed before these agents can be incorporated into clinical practice.

No abstract