ABSTRACT
The delivery of ophthalmic drugs is challenging despite easy accessibility via the ocular surface. Topical instillation of eye drops is a relatively easy and most commonly used as a conduit for drug delivery for treating a myriad of ocular morbidities, particularly involving the anterior segment, and has an additional benefit of avoiding the first-pass metabolism while passing through the systemic circulation. The primary challenges of drug administration through traditional methods include-inadequate patient education for proper drug instillation technique, compliance, adherence, and persistence. Various dynamic (choroidal and conjunctival blood flow, lymphatic clearance, and tear dilution) and static (namely, different layers of cornea, sclera, and retina including blood aqueous and blood-retinal barriers) ocular barriers limit drug delivery to the target ocular tissues. The maintenance of the therapeutic drug levels on the ocular surface for a prolonged duration is an added challenge, thus preventing persistent delivery for longer durations. These factors result in inadequate management, leading to poor prognosis in vision loss in as many as 27% of the patients diagnosed with glaucoma. We have reviewed the research and advancements in the development of novel and well-tolerated drug delivery systems with the common goal of overcoming the factors limiting adequate drug delivery to the target tissues in glaucomatous patients with traditional techniques. In the recent past, multiple research groups have successfully designed noninvasive, sustained drug delivery systems, promoting the efficacy as well as the feasibility of delivering topical drugs to the anterior segment.
ABSTRACT
Importance: In improving clinical outcomes, developing a sustainable, transformative care delivery model is important for accessible, efficient, low-cost, high-quality community-based imaging and diagnosis of retinal diseases. Objective: To test the feasibility and accuracy of the remote diagnosis imaging model as a clinical screening tool to facilitate the identification of referable macular degeneration. Design, Setting, and Participants: A nonrandomized study of 159 patients was conducted in sites with a relatively high disease prevalence (Duke University Health System endocrinology clinic and 2 Duke University Health System assisted living centers in North Carolina). All patients underwent remote diagnosis imaging, defined as color fundus photography (CFP) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) of nondilated pupils, acquired by nonexpert imagers using a retinal imaging device located at the point of service. The criterion standard examination was defined as a traditional dilated eye examination performed by retinal specialists. Deidentified remote diagnosis images were graded for interpretability and presence of referable macular degeneration, defined as any condition requiring a retinal specialist attention. Data analysis was performed from November 20, 2015, to February 10, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was feasibility of the remote retinal imaging. Secondary outcomes were operational characteristics and diagnostic and referral accuracy. Results: Of the 159 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age of enrolled participants was 65 (17) years, with a female to male ratio of 1.3 to 1. Most patients were white (111 [69.8%]), 44 were black patients (27.7%), approximately 1% were Asian patients and Hispanic patients, and 2 patients declined to disclose their race/ethnicity. Thirty-five eyes (22.0%) were determined to require referral to the retinal specialist by criterion standard examination. Remote diagnosis image interpretability was better when OCT was used compared with CFP (241 [96.4%] vs 164 [65.6%]). Remote diagnosis had high diagnostic accuracy in identifying referable macular degeneration: OCT and CFP both had 94% sensitivity (95% CI, 84%-98%), and OCT had specificity higher than for CFP (93% [95% CI, 87%-96% ] vs 63% [95% CI, 53%-71%]). Substantial agreement was found between the criterion standard and OCT (κ = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001) and between the criterion standard and CFP (κ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; P < .001). The nonvalidated patient satisfaction survey revealed that 122 participants (76.7%; mean score, 4.16; 95% CI, 3.98-4.35) preferred remote imaging over the standard care examination. Conclusions and Relevance: Remote diagnosis imaging and a standard examination by a retinal specialist appeared equivalent in identifying referable macular degeneration in patients with high disease prevalence; these results may assist in delivering timely treatment and seem to warrant future research into additional metrics.
