Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is a group of diseases in which a mutation in one of the large variety of genes causes death of rod photoreceptors. After rods die, cone photoreceptors gradually die resulting in constriction of visual fields and eventual blindness in many patients. Studies in animal models of RP have demonstrated that oxidative damage is a major contributor to cone cell death. In this study, we extended those findings to patients with RP, because compared to control patients, those with RP showed significant reduction in the reduced to oxidized glutathione (GSH/GSSG) ratio in aqueous humor and a significant increase in aqueous protein carbonyl content. In contrast, there was no significant decrease in the serum GSH/GSSG ratio or increase in carbonyl content of serum proteins. These data indicate that patients with RP have ocular oxidative stress and damage in the absence of manifestations of systemic oxidative stress and/or damage indicating that demonstrations of oxidative damage-induced cone cell death in animal models of RP may translate to human RP. These observations lead to the hypothesis that potent antioxidants will promote cone survival and function in patients with RP and that the aqueous GSH/GSSG ratio and carbonyl content on proteins may provide useful biomarkers. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 23, 643-648.

Sustained IOP elevations can occur in normotensive eyes undergoing intravitreal bevacizumab treatment for neovascular AMD. This phenomenon was related to shorter intervals between injections, with 8 weeks being taken as the cut-off point. AMD eyes that receive intravitreal bevacizumab injections need to be monitored for IOP changes, especially those in which the intervals between injections are <8 weeks.

IMPORTANCE Diagnosing diabetic macular edema (DME) from monocular fundus photography vs optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield thickness (CST) can yield different prevalence rates for DME. Epidemiologic studies and telemedicine screening typically use monocular fundus photography, while treatment of DME uses OCT CST. OBJECTIVE To compare DME prevalence from monocular fundus photography and OCT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective cross-sectional study of DME grading based on monocular fundus photographs and OCT images obtained from patients with diabetic retinopathy at a single visit between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, at a university-based practice and analyzed between July 30, 2014, and May 29, 2015. Presence of DME, including clinically significant macular edema (CSME), on monocular fundus photographs used definitions from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Presence of DME on OCT used Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network eligibility criteria thresholds of CST for trials evaluating anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prevalence of DME based on monocular fundus photographs or OCT. RESULTS A total of 246 eyes of 158 participants (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [11.9] years; 48.7% women; 60.8% white) were included. Among the 246 eyes, the prevalences of DME (61.4%) and CSME (48.5%) based on MESA definitions for monocular fundus photographs were greater than the DME prevalence based on OCT (21.1%) by 40.2% (95% CI, 32.8%-47.7%; P < .001) and 27.2% (95% CI, 19.2%-35.3%; P < .001), respectively. Using NHANES definitions, DME and CSME prevalences from monocular fundus photographs (28.5% and 21.0%, respectively) approximated the DME prevalence from OCT (21.1%). However, among eyes without DME on OCT, 58.2% (95% CI, 51.0%-65.3%) and 18.0% (95% CI, 12.9%-24.2%) were diagnosed as having DME on monocular fundus photographs using MESA and NHANES definitions, respectively, including 47.0% (95% CI, 39.7%-54.5%) and 10.3% (95% CI, 6.3%-15.7%), respectively, with CSME. Among eyes with DME on OCT, 26.9% (95% CI, 15.6%-41.0%) and 32.7% (95% CI, 20.3%-47.1%) were not diagnosed as having either DME or CSME on monocular fundus photographs using MESA and NHANES definitions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These data suggest that many eyes diagnosed as having DME or CSME on monocular fundus photographs have no DME based on OCT CST, while many eyes diagnosed as not having DME or CSME on monocular fundus photographs have DME on OCT. While limited to 1 clinical practice, caution is suggested when extrapolating prevalence of eyes that may benefit from anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy based on epidemiologic surveys using photographs to diagnose DME.