Efficacy of treatments for Demodex blepharitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count, improvement of symptoms and mites' eradication, stratified on type of treatments and mode of delivery of treatments (local or systemic). METHOD: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google scholar and Science Direct databases were searched for studies reporting an efficacy of treatments for Demodex blepharitis. RESULTS: We included 19 studies (14 observational and 5 randomized clinical trials), for a total of 934 patients, 1741 eyes, and 13 different treatments. For mites count, eradication rate, and symptoms improvement, meta-analysis included fifteen, fourteen and thirteen studies, respectively. The overall effect sizes for efficiency of all treatments, globally, were 1.68 (95CI 1.25 to 2.12), 0.45 (0.26-0.64), and 0.76 (0.59-0.90), respectively. Except usual lid hygiene for mites count, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario ointment (CHEO) for both eradication rate and symptoms, and CHEO, 2% metronidazole ointment, and systemic metronidazole for eradication rate, all treatments were efficient. Stratified meta-analysis did not show significant differences between local and systemic treatments (1.22, 0.83 to 1.60 vs 2.24, 1.30 to 3.18 for mites count; 0.37, 0.21 to 0.54 vs 0.56, 0.06 to 0.99 for eradication rate; and 0.77, 0.58 to 0.92 vs 0.67, 0.25 to 0.98 for symptoms improvement). CONCLUSION: We reported the efficiency of the different treatments of Demodex blepharitis. Because of less systemic side effects, local treatments seem promising molecules in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis.

Efficacy of Different Procedures of Intra-Corneal Ring Segment Implantation in Keratoconus: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the functional, keratometric, and refractive postoperative parameters of intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation in keratoconus and its association with collagen cross-linking (CXL), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on case series published between 2007 and 2017. Results: We included 95 case series with a total of 4560 patients. We included 64 studies of the ICRS procedure, 20 studies of ICRS+CXL, 9 studies of ICRS+CXL+PRK, and 5 studies of ICRS+IOL. We demonstrated an overall improvement of all parameters in all procedures. Cylinder was decreased with an overall effect size (ES) of -1.15 (-1.36 to -0.95; I2 = 93.7%). Corrected distance visual acuity was improved with an overall ES of 0.89 (0.78 to 1.00; I2 = 81.9%). Maximal keratometry was decreased with an overall ES of 0.98 (0.85 to 1.11; I2 = 78.9%). ICRS+IOL is the best procedure to improve spherical equivalent and uncorrected distance visual acuity (P < 0.05) compared with other procedures. ICRSs versus ICRS+CXL are similar in all parameters except for corrected distance visual acuity. ICRS+CXL+PRK is better than ICRS alone in all parameters except for the correction of spherical equivalent. Conclusions: Although the quality and strength of the data are questionable, ICRS implantation is an effective strategy to preserve visual function in keratoconic patients. Particularly, ICRS+CXL+PRK could be a low invasive procedure to propose to young keratoconic patients. Translational Relevance: To propose an overview of postoperative parameters on each ICRS procedure on keratoconus.

Oxidative and Anti-Oxidative Stress Markers in Chronic Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chronic glaucoma is a multifactorial disease among which oxidative stress may play a major pathophysiological role. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the levels of oxidative and antioxidative stress markers in chronic glaucoma compared with a control group. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Science Direct databases were searched for studies reporting oxidative and antioxidative stress markers in chronic glaucoma and in healthy controls using the following keywords: "oxidative stress" or "oxidant stress" or "nitrative stress" or "oxidative damage" or "nitrative damage" or "antioxidative stress" or "antioxidant stress" or "antinitrative stress" and "glaucoma". We stratified our meta-analysis on the type of biomarkers, the type of glaucoma, and the origin of the sample (serum or aqueous humor). We included 22 case-control studies with a total of 2913 patients: 1614 with glaucoma and 1319 healthy controls. We included 12 studies in the meta-analysis on oxidative stress markers and 19 on antioxidative stress markers. We demonstrated an overall increase in oxidative stress markers in glaucoma (effect size = 1.64; 95%CI 1.20-2.09), ranging from an effect size of 1.29 in serum (95%CI 0.84-1.74) to 2.62 in aqueous humor (95%CI 1.60-3.65). Despite a decrease in antioxidative stress marker in serum (effect size = -0.41; 95%CI -0.72 to -0.11), some increased in aqueous humor (superoxide dismutase, effect size = 3.53; 95%CI 1.20-5.85 and glutathione peroxidase, effect size = 6.60; 95%CI 3.88-9.31). The differences in the serum levels of oxidative stress markers between glaucoma patients and controls were significantly higher in primary open angle glaucoma vs primary angle closed glaucoma (effect size = 12.7; 95%CI 8.78-16.6, P < 0.001), and higher in pseudo-exfoliative glaucoma vs primary angle closed glaucoma (effect size = 12.2; 95%CI 8.96-15.5, P < 0.001). In conclusion, oxidative stress increased in glaucoma, both in serum and aqueous humor. Malonyldialdehyde seemed the best biomarkers of oxidative stress in serum. The increase of some antioxidant markers could be a protective response of the eye against oxidative stress.

Antibioprophylaxis in Prevention of Endophthalmitis in Intravitreal Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Despite endophthalmitis being the most feared complication, antibioprophylaxis remains controversial in intravitreal injections. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of antibioprophylaxis in intravitreal injections in the prevention of endophthalmitis. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Science Direct databases were searched for studies comparing groups with and without antibiotics in intravitreal injection, with the use of the following keywords: "antibiotic*", "endophthalmitis" and "intravitreal injection*". To be included, studies needed to specify number of participants and number of endophthalmitis within each group (with and without antibiotics). We conducted meta-analysis on the prevalence of clinical endophthalmitis including both culture-proven and culture negative samples. Nine studies were included. A total of 88 incidences of endophthalmitis were reported from 174,159 injections (0.051% i.e., one incidence of endophthalmitis for 1979 injections). Specifically, 59 incidences of endophthalmitis were reported from 113,530 injections in the group with antibiotics (0.052% or one incidence of endophthalmitis for 1924 injections) and 29 incidences of endophthalmitis from 60,633 injections in the group without antibiotics (0.048% or one endophthalmitis for 2091 injections). Our meta-analysis did not report a significant difference in the prevalence of clinical endophthalimitis between the two groups with and without topical antibiotics: the odds ratio of clinical endophthalimitis was 0.804 (CI95% 0.384-1.682, p = 0.56) for the antibiotic group compared with the group without antibiotics. In conclusion, we performed the first large meta-analysis demonstrating that antibioprophylaxis is not required in intravitreal injections. Strict rules of asepsis remain the only evidence-based prophylaxis of endophthalmitis. The results support initiatives to reduce the global threat of resistance to antibiotics.