Comparison of Horizontal Corneal Diameter Measurements Using Orbscan IIz, OPD Scan III, and IOLMaster 700.

PURPOSE: To compare three automated devices for measuring the horizontal corneal diameter (white to white [WTW]). METHODS: In 65 eyes of 38 patients, the WTW distance was measured independently by three examiners using the following techniques: Orbscan IIz tomography system (Bausch & Lomb), IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), and OPD Scan III (NIDEK). We tested for systematic differences in measurements and estimated the limits of agreement (LoA) using linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: The mean WTW distance was 11.8±0.40 mm with Orbscan IIz, 12.1±0.5 mm with IOLMaster 700 and 12.0±0.4 mm with OPD Scan III. The mean difference between IOLMaster 700 and Orbscan IIz was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.38; P<0.001), between OPD Scan III and Orbscan IIz was 0.24 mm (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.28; P<0.001), and between IOL Master 700 and OPD Scan III was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.12; P<0.001). The 95% LoA for Orbscan IIz versus IOLMaster 700 was -0.69 to 0.03 mm, Orbscan IIz versus OPD Scan III was -0.52 to -0.03 mm, and OPD versus IOLMaster 700 was -0.39 to 0.22 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that these devices are not interchangeable for usual clinical practice. Adjustments based on mean differences were not enough to compensate for interinstrument discrepancy in WTW measurements.

[Role of Azathioprine in steroid resistant non infectious ocular inflammatory diseases]. / Eficacia de la azatioprina en la enfermedad ocular inflamatoria no infecciosa resistente a tratamiento esteroidal sistémico.

BACKGROUND: Topical and systemic steroids are the first line of treatment of non infectious inflammatory ocular disease. Immunosuppresants are reserved as a second line treatment. AIM: To evaluate the role of Azathioprine (AZA) as a coadyuvant immunosuppressive treatment for non infectious ocular inflammatory diseases (OIDs) resistant to systemic steroid therapy in a retrospective, noncomparative interventional case series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients using oral Prednisone due to an active or recurrent OID, without clinical response, and not receiving any other immunosuppressive treatment were studied. A standard protocol of oral Prednisone (0.5 mg/kg/ day) and oral AZA (2-3 mg/kg/day) during one year was used. Ocular and systemic monthly evaluations were done including relapse rate, steroid dosage, inflammatory score and visual acuity. RESULTS: Thirty patients (10 male) aged 18-75 years (mean 44 years) were studied. Three had bilateral anterior uveitis, one had pars planitis, four had diffuse uveitis, eight Vogt-Koyanahi-Harada syndrome, three Behget's disease, three necrotizing scleritis and eight had retinochoroidopathy A complete initial response was observed in 26 patients (87%). The time of response was between 1 to 6 months (mean 2.65 months). Seventeen percent of these had a relapse 6 to 12 months after AZA was started. In 61 %, visual acuity improved. The ocular inflammatory score decreased in 86.5%. Eleven patients had mild controlled side effects that did not require discontinuation of AZA. CONCLUSIONS: Combined systemic steroid and oral AZA therapy is safe and effective in controlling steroid resistant non infectious inflammatory ocular diseases.

Eficacia de la azatioprina en la enfermedad ocular inflamatoria no infecciosa resistente a tratamiento esteroidal sistémico / Role ofAzathioprine in steroid resistant non infectious ocular inflammatory diseases

Background: Topical and systemic steroids are the first line of treatment of non infectious inflammatory ocular disease. Immunosuppresants are reserved as a second line treatment. Aim: To evaluate the role ofAzathioprine (AZA) as a coadyuvant immunosuppressive treatment for non infectious ocular inflammatory diseases (OIDs) resistant to systemic steroid therapy in a retrospective, noncomparative interventional case series. Patients and methods: Patients using oral Prednisone due to an active or recurrent OID, without clinical response, and not receiving any other immunosuppressive treatment were studied. A standard protocol of oral Prednisone (0.5 mg/kg/ day) and oral AZA (2-3 mg/kg/day) during one year was used. Ocular and systemic monthly evaluations were done including relapse rate, steroid dosage, inflammatory score and visual acuity. Results: Thirty patients (10 male) aged 18-75 years (mean 44 years) were studied. Three had bilateral anterior uveitis, one had pars planitis, four had diffuse uveitis, eight Vogt-Koyanahi-Harada syndrome, three Behget's disease, three necrotizing scleritis and eight had retinochoroidopathy A complete initial response was observed in 26 patients (87 percent). The time of response was between 1 to 6 months (mean 2.65 months). Seventeen percent of these had a relapse 6 to 12 months after AZA was started. In 61 percent, visual acuity improved. The ocular inflammatory score decreased in 86.5 percent. Eleven patients had mild controlled side effects that did not require discontinuation of AZA. Conclusions: Combined systemic steroid and oral AZA therapy is safe and effective in controlling steroid resistant non infectious inflammatory ocular diseases.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and loteprednol etabonate 0.2% ophthalmic suspension in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and loteprednol etabonate 0.2% ophthalmic suspension are topical antiallergic agents indicated for treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC), respectively. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine, loteprednol, and placebo in inhibiting the early-phase allergic reaction (within 30 minutes) after conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC). METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked, parallel-controlled CAC study. It consisted of 3 visits, with CAC performed at visit 1, confirmation and randomization at visit 2, and evaluation of the treatments at visit 3. Subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were randomized to receive olopatadine, loteprednol, or placebo in a 2:2:1 ratio. Because loteprednol requires a loading period to achieve maximum efficacy, subjects assigned to this treatment received loteprednol QID bilaterally for a 14-day period; the olopatadine and placebo groups received placebo QID bilaterally during this period. At the evaluation visit, subjects received 1 drop of the assigned treatment in each eye. Fifteen minutes later, they were challenged with allergen. Subjects evaluated itching at 3, 5, and 10 minutes after challenge using a standardized 5-point scale; the investigator evaluated redness at 10, 15, and 20 minutes after challenge. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at baseline and after the 14-day loading period. Nonparametric analyses were performed on the change from visit 2 to visit 3 in mean itching and redness scores for each time point, and on the change in mean IOP from visit 1 to visit 3. RESULTS: Fifty subjects (86% white; 42% male, 58% female; age range, 21-71 years) were enrolled and completed the study (20 olopatadine, 20 loteprednol, 10 placebo). The allergens to which subjects reacted were ragweed pollen (40%), cat hair or dander (30%), grass pollen (24%), and tree pollen (6%). The difference in inhibition of itching and redness was clinically significant (> or =1 unit difference) and statistically significant (P < 0.05) in favor of olopatadine compared with loteprednol at all 3 time points. The loteprednol group had a statistically significant increase in IOP after 2 weeks of treatment (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the population studied, olopatadine was more efficacious than loteprednol in reducing the acute signs and symptoms of SAC during the early phase of the ocular allergic reaction and appeared to be better tolerated.