Long-term progression at individual mean intraocular pressure levels in primary open-angle and exfoliative glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To describe progression and non-progression rates at individual mean intraocular pressure (IOP) levels for patients with primary open-angle and exfoliative glaucoma. METHODS: A meta-analysis of five previously published retrospective studies describing progression and non-progression rates at individual intraocular pressure levels over 5 or more years of follow-up. All patients had primary open-angle (four studies) or exfoliative glaucoma (one study). RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 822 patients of whom 655 (80%) had primary openangle glaucoma and 167 (20%) had exfoliative glaucoma. In total, 220 patients progressed (27%), while 602 (73%) remained stable over 5 years. The mean IOP was 20.0 for progressed and 17.1 mmHg for stable patients (p=0.0004). The peak IOP was 29.1 for progressed and 23.6 mmHg for stable patients (p=0.0014). At an IOP level >18 mmHg, 49% of patients remained stable; at 18 mmHg, 78%; between 13 and 17 mmHg, 82%; and <13 mmHg, 96%. Additional factors associated with progression were older age (p=0.0004) and exfoliative glaucoma (p=0.0001). However, multivariant regression analysis identified only mean IOP as a risk factor for progression (p=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that maintaining an IOP well within the normal range over 5 years in patients with primary open-angle or exfoliative glaucoma helps to prevent glaucomatousprogression.

The clinical validity of the treatment satisfaction survey for intraocular pressure in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients.

PURPOSE: To provide initial validation of the Treatment Satisfaction Survey-Intraocular Pressure (TSS-IOP) quality-of-life survey that analyses specific issues related to side effects, patient satisfaction, and compliance. METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort of 250 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension was administered the TSS-IOP survey. RESULTS: Factors that correlated with patient satisfaction included perceived effectiveness of the medicine (F=7.47, P<0.001), ocular irritation (F=6.06, P<0.001), conjunctival hyperaemia (F=4.40, P<0.001), ease of use (F=8.52, P<0.001), and convenience of use (F=6.90, P<0.001). Patient compliance, acceptance of their illness, and knowledge of glaucoma were also related to perceived effectiveness of the medicine (P<0.001), ease of use (P<0.05) and convenience (P<0.001). Physician ratings of patient pressure control, side effects, and instillation problems also were significantly correlated to patient satisfaction (R=0.13-0.26, P=0.05-0.001). The physician ratings of patient compliance, however, were not significantly related to any dimension of patient satisfaction (P>0.05). Among monotherapy prostaglandin treatments, latanoprost demonstrated statistically greater satisfaction than bimatoprost or travoprost regarding conjunctival hyperaemia (P<0.05) and eye irritation (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial evidence that patient satisfaction may be related to compliance, perceived effectiveness of treatment, adverse side effects, ease and convenience of use, acceptance of illness, and knowledge of glaucoma.

Safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% versus timolol maleate 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of bimatoprost given every evening versus the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (DTFC) given twice daily in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients. METHODS: A double-masked, three-center, prospective, randomized, crossover comparison with two 8-week treatment periods following a 4-week medicine free washout period. Diurnal curve intraocular pressures (IOPs) were taken at 08:00 (trough) and 10:00 and 16:00 hours. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were enrolled and 32 completed all evaluations. The diurnal untreated baseline intraocular pressures was 24.8 +/- 2.4 mmHg. On the last day of treatment the mean diurnal intraocular pressures was 17.4 +/- 2.9 for bimatoprost and 18.1 +/- 2.8 mmHg for DTFC (p = 0.35). The individual time points for intraocular pressures were not statistically different between groups. Both groups statistically reduced the intraocular pressures from baseline for each time point and for the diurnal curve (p < 0.05). Regarding ocular safety and tolerability, there was more conjunctival hyperemia with bimatoprost (n = 15) than with DTFC (n = 7, p = 0.013) and more burning and stinging with DTFC (n = 12) than with bimatoprost (n = 0, p = 0.0005). Few systemic adverse events were recorded and there was no statistical difference between groups for any individual event (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the intraocular pressures are lowered to a statistically similar amount with DTFC compared to bimatoprost in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients.

Brimonidine 0.2% vs unoprostone 0.15% both added to timolol maleate 0.5% given twice daily to patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of brimonidine 0.2% vs unoprostone 0.15%, both added to timolol maleate 0.5% each given twice daily. METHODS: In this prospective, multi-centred, double-masked, crossover comparison, patients were randomized to one treatment group for a 6-week treatment period, and then crossed over to the opposite treatment. Measurements were performed at 0800, 1000, 1600, 1800, and 2000 h at baseline and at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: In all, 33 patients entered this trial and 29 completed. The baseline trough intraocular pressure (IOP) was 23.3+/-2.4 and the diurnal curve IOP was 22.0+/-1.3 mmHg. For the brimonidine and timolol maleate treatment group, the trough IOP was 21.6+/-3.3 and the diurnal curve IOP was 19.8+/-2.1 mmHg, while the timolol and unoprostone treatment showed a trough IOP of 20.9+/-3.8 and a diurnal curve IOP of 19.3+/-2.4 mmHg. There was no significant difference between treatment groups at any time point for the diurnal curve, or in the reduction from baseline (P>0.05). Both treatments failed to statistically reduce the IOP from baseline at 1800 h. There was no difference between treatment groups regarding ocular and systemic unsolicited adverse events, but patients admitted to more dryness (P=0.02) and burning upon instillation (P<0.0001) with unoprostone by survey. CONCLUSION: Brimonidine 0.2% or unoprostone 0.15% added to timolol maleate 0.5% provide similar efficacy and safety throughout the daytime diurnal curve.

Brimonidine purite 0.15% versus dorzolamide 2% each given twice daily to reduce intraocular pressure in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of brimonidine purite versus dorzolamide given twice daily in primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive subjects. METHODS: In this double masked, multicentre, prospective, crossover comparison 33 subjects were randomised to brimonidine purite or dorzolamide for the first 4 week treatment period after a 4 week washout. Subjects began the opposite treatment for the second 4 week period after another 4 week washout. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 08:00 (trough) and 10:00, 18:00, and 20:00 hours after dosing at each baseline and at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: The baseline diurnal IOP was 22.9 (SD 2.8) for brimonidine purite and 22.2 (SD 2.4) mm Hg for dorzolamide. The trough IOP following 4 weeks of therapy was 21.0 (SD 3.7) for brimonidine purite and 21.0 (SD 3.1) mm Hg for dorzolamide (p = 0.90). The mean diurnal IOP was 19.3 (SD 3.1) for brimonidine purite and 19.8 (SD 2.4) mm Hg for dorzolamide (p = 0.46). Dorzolamide caused more ocular stinging upon instillation (n = 8) than brimonidine purite (n = 1) (p = 0.02). No statistical differences existed between groups for systemic adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that brimonidine purite and dorzolamide each given twice daily have similar efficacy in primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive subjects. However, a trend was observed at 10:00 of greater brimonidine purite efficacy compared with dorzolamide.

Efficacy and safety of the latanoprost/timolol maleate fixed combination vs concomitant brimonidine and latanoprost therapy.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of latanoprost/timolol maleate fixed combination (LTFC) given once daily vs the concomitant therapy of brimonidine twice daily and latanoprost once daily in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive subjects. METHODS: A prospective, double-masked, active-controlled comparison in which qualified subjects had all glaucoma medicines discontinued for 1 month and then were randomized to either LTFC or brimonidine and latanoprost concomitant therapy for 6 weeks. They were then switched to the other treatment regimen. The intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 0800, 1200, and 1600 h at baseline and at the end of Periods 1 and Period 2. RESULTS: In 32 subjects, the diurnal curve of the untreated IOP of 26.0+/-3.4 decreased to 17.8+/-2.5 on LTFC and 17.2+/-2.8 mmHg on brimonidine and latanoprost (P=0.31). At 0800 and 1600 h, the IOPs were statistically similar between the groups (P>0.05). At 1200 h the latanoprost and brimonidine treatment IOP was statistically lower (16.2+/-3.2) than LTFC (18.0+/-2.8 mmHg). However, the reduced IOP from untreated baseline was not statistically different at each time point and for the diurnal curve for each therapy (P<0.05). Safety was similar between groups for both solicited and unsolicited side effects (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that LTFC and concomitant therapy of brimonidine and latanoprost provide statistically similar diurnal IOP reduction from an untreated baseline.

Short-term ocular tolerability of dorzolamide 2% and brinzolamide 1% vs placebo in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension subjects.

PURPOSE: To compare ocular tolerability of dorzolamide 2%, brinzolamide 1%, and placebo given three times daily. METHODS: A prospective, double-masked, three-centre, crossover comparison in which 25 ocular hypertensive or primary-open angle glaucoma subjects were randomized to receive dorzolamide, brinzolamide, or placebo three times daily for 3 days. Intraocular pressure, visual acuity, a visual analogue scale, and ocular and systemic symptom queries were completed at the end of each period. RESULTS: After chronic dosing, there was a significant difference in ocular pain on the visual analogue scale among the groups at the 10-s postinstillation time point with dorzolamide having the highest level (22.5+/-28.9) compared to brinzolamide (5.0+/-8.7) or placebo (3.2+/-10.4) (P=0.0006). No differences between groups were observed preinstillation nor following dosing at 3 or 10-min postinstillation. On the initial instillation, the 10-s postinstillation pain was rated as 43.3+/-77.1, which was significantly higher than after chronic dosing (P=0.017). On the ocular symptom query, dorzolamide had the highest incidence of burning/stinging and redness compared to the other groups, but was generally characterized as mild. There were no significant differences in the visual acuity at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that subjects treated with dorzolamide suffer more ocular pain upon instillation compared to brinzolamide or placebo. However, pain symptoms are fewer following chronic dosing and are generally characterized as mild.

Effect of timolol 0.5% gel and solution on pulmonary function in older glaucoma patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of timolol maleate solution or gel forming solution versus placebo on pulmonary function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension without reactive airway disease. METHODS: After a screening visit, each patient was randomized by a Latin square technique to receive placebo twice daily, 0.5% timolol solution twice daily, or 0.5% timolol gel once a day (placebo given as second dose) to each eye for 2 weeks. Subjects then were crossed over to the two other treatments for 2-week treatment intervals. At each visit, patients were received a dose 15 minutes before pulmonary function testing. RESULTS: This study began with 25 patients, and 20 finished the trial. There was no difference between treatment groups for the forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC ratio (P > 0.1). The mean FEV1 for timolol solution, timolol gel, and placebo was 2.42 L, 2.45 L, and 2.50 L, respectively. The mean FVC for timolol solution, timolol gel, and placebo was 3.33 L, 3.38 L, and 3.44 L, respectively. No difference in intraocular pressure was observed between the timolol solution (17.1 +/- 3.3 mm Hg) and timolol gel (17.1 +/- 3.6 mm Hg) between the treatment periods (P > 0.1). No difference in side effects was observed between treatment groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In older patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension without reactive airway disease, nonselective beta-blockers should not worsen pulmonary function.

The efficacy and safety of latanoprost 0.005% once daily versus brimonidine 0.2% twice daily in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of latanoprost 0.005% given topically every evening versus brimonidine 0.2% given topically twice daily in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, crossover, double-masked comparison. After a 28-day treatment-free period, patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized for 6 weeks to brimonidine or latanoprost and then crossed over to the opposite treatment. At baseline and after each treatment period, patients underwent intraocular pressure measurements every 2 hours from 08:00 to 20:00. RESULTS: In 33 patients the mean baseline trough (08:00) was 23.2 +/- 2.1 mm Hg and the diurnal curve pressure was 19.8 +/- 2.7 mm Hg. The trough and diurnal intraocular pressures for brimonidine were 19.6 +/- 3.4 mm Hg and 17.6 +/- 2.2 mm Hg, respectively. Brimonidine statistically reduced the pressure from baseline at each time point except hours 10 and 12 (P =.14 and P =.21, respectively). For latanoprost, the trough and diurnal pressures were 16.2 +/- 2.9 mm Hg and 15.4 +/- 2.5 mm Hg, respectively, and the pressure was statistically reduced at each time point (P <.001) and for the diurnal curve (P <.001). When compared directly, the intraocular pressure level for latanoprost was lower than brimonidine for the diurnal pressure and at each time point (P <.05). One patient was discontinued early from latanoprost treatment because of eyelid swelling; also, latanoprost caused more hyperemia than brimonidine (P =.04). CONCLUSION: This study suggests latanoprost dosed daily in the evening statistically reduces intraocular pressure more during daytime and evening hours than brimonidine dosed twice daily. Brimonidine may not consistently decrease the pressure 10 and 12 hours past dosing from nontreated levels.

Northern Initiative for Social Action: an occupation-based mental health program.

Northern Initiative for Social Action (NISA) is a consumer-run, occupation-based, nonprofit organization located in northeastern Ontario, Canada. The NISA organization has grown in response to research revealing few opportunities for participation in personally meaningful and socially valued occupation for persons with mental illness living in the community of study. This article describes a mixed-design research study conducted by the ParNorth Research Unit of NISA and an occupational therapist. The study purposes were to (a) better understand the emerging characteristics of the NISA program and identify which the participants found helpful; (b) evaluate whether participation in NISA improved members' quality of life; and (c) ascertain whether participation reduced members' need for more traditional and costly methods of care (e.g., hospitalization, crisis services). Focus groups, daily participant observation, a quality of life interview, a consumer member survey and objective review of hospitalization data were used for data collection. Qualitative results indicated that NISA helped to meet participants' being, belonging, and becoming needs. Quantitative data indicated that overall, NISA members perceive an improvement in their subjective quality of life and sense of well-being. Their perceptions are supported by minimal use of crisis services and hospitalization, improved socioeconomic status, and several members' success in obtaining paid employment either within or outside NISA. Future challenges include the need to clearly describe the evolving NISA model and to ensure that the growth of this new organization does not exceed secured human or fiscal resources.

Factors associated with long-term progression or stability in primary open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term risk factors for progression or stability in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. METHOD: We retrospectively included consecutively reviewed patients who had primary open-angle glaucoma for at least 5 years in this multicenter trial. Historical and clinical factors in these patients were evaluated for their association with stability or progression of the glaucoma. RESULTS: We included 218 patients in this study; of these, 34 progressed over an average length of follow-up of 45.5 +/- 30.0 months, and 184 were stable over an average of 72.8 +/- 18.3 months. The mean intraocular pressure over the follow-up period for the progressed group was 19.5 +/- 3.8 mm Hg and for the stable group 17. 2 +/- 3.1 mm Hg (P =.001). The average standard deviation of individual intraocular pressures was greater in the progressed group (5.1 mm Hg) than the stable group (3.9 mm Hg, P =.012). Baseline characteristics indicating a greater potential to progress were a larger cup-to-disk ratio (P <.001), a greater number of medications (P =.02), older age (P.007), and worse visual acuity (P =.003). However, no difference was observed in pressure levels that prevented progression in these subpopulations compared with the total sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that lowering the intraocular pressure is important in the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma to help prevent long-term progression. Lowering the pressure, however, is not uniformly effective in preventing progression. Additionally, risk factors for progression do not further help identify pressure levels that prevent worsening of glaucoma.

Brimonidine 0.2% versus dorzolamide 2% each given three times daily to reduce intraocular pressure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of brimonidine compared with dorzolamide given three times daily as monotherapy in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: In a double-masked, multicenter, crossover comparison in 40 patients, qualified patients were washed out from their previous medication and randomized to dorzolamide 2% or brimonidine 0.2% for the first 6-week treatment period. Patients then were washed out for 2 weeks and started on the opposite medication for the second 6-week period. RESULTS: Baseline intraocular pressure for all 40 subjects (76 eyes) was 24.1 +/- 2.0 mm Hg. This study found that the 8:00 AM trough intraocular pressure after 6 weeks of therapy for dorzolamide was 20. 7 +/- 3.1 mm Hg and for brimonidine 20.8 +/- 3.2 mm Hg (P =.99). The peak intraocular pressure (2 hours after dosing) for dorzolamide was 18.6 +/- 3.4 mm Hg and for brimonidine 17.8 +/- 2.7 mm Hg (P =.10 ). Dorzolamide caused more stinging upon instillation (P <.01) and brimonidine more itching (P =.01). No statistical differences existed between groups for systemic adverse events. Six patients, all on brimonidine, were discontinued from a treatment period early. Of these, two were discontinued for inadequate pressure control, two with dizziness and fatigue, one with ocular pain, and one for lifestyle reasons (P =.07). CONCLUSIONS: This study found similar efficacy and safety between monotherapy treatment with dorzolamide or brimonidine when each was given three times daily to patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of latanoprost 0.005% compared to brimonidine 0.2% or dorzolamide 2% when added to a topical beta-adrenergic blocker in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan, Pharmacia & Upjohn), brimonidine (Alphagan, Allergan), and dorzolamide (Trusopt, Merck Inc.) when added to a beta-blocker in patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma. This was a multicenter, retrospective analysis which included all reviewed patient records in which latanoprost, brimonidine or dorzolamide were added to a beta-blocker for at least three months. Patients who were treated for less than three months, who failed therapy due to ineffectiveness of the medicine or an adverse event also were included. The study included 141 patients. Latanoprost (n = 50) showed an intraocular pressure of 16.7 +/- 3.3 mm Hg (-6.3 +/- 4.1 mm Hg, P < 0.001), brimonidine (n = 24) 17.4 +/- 4.9 mm Hg (-4.2 +/- 4.5 mm Hg, P < 0.001), and dorzolamide (n = 67) 20.1 +/- 6.1 mm Hg (-3.1 +/- 5.1 mm Hg, P < 0.001) at three months. A significant difference was observed in the absolute level of intraocular pressure (P < 0.005) and the change from baseline between groups (P < 0.005) at three months. A significant difference was observed between groups in the success rate of therapy between latanoprost (70%), brimonidine (58%) and dorzolamide (40%) (P = 0.008). No significant differences were observed between groups for rate or type of adverse events leading to discontinued therapy. This study showed that latanoprost, when added to beta-blockers, compares favorably in ocular hypotensive efficacy and is similar in safety to brimonidine and dorzolamide.

Therapeutic success of latanoprost 0.005% compared to brimonidine 0.2% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success rate ofmonotherapy with latanoprost 0.005% once daily versus brimonidine 0.2% twice daily in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Patients who were prescribed latanoprost or brimonidine as monotherapy were included in this study, and their consecutive charts were retrospectively reviewed. The primary efficacy variable was success of therapy, defined as a reduction in intraocular pressure > or =3 mm Hg without an adverse event leading to discontinuation over a potential of six months of therapy. We included 157 patients in this study. In the latanoprost group, 64 of 92 (70%) were considered successes; 26 of 65 (40%) were successful with brimonidine (P < 0.001). Nine failed brimonidine therapy, and one latanoprost, because of an adverse event, and the rest failed because of inadequate intraocular pressure response. The change from baseline in intraocular pressure was significantly greater with latanoprost (mean +/- S.D., 21.6 +/- 5.1 to 17.1 +/- 3.3 mm Hg) than brimonidine (23.7 +/- 5.6 to 21.9 +/- 5.7 mm Hg) (P = 0.001). Overall, 52 (80%) brimonidine- and 41 (45%) latanoprost-treated patients required additional visit(s) to adjust therapy to further lower intraocular pressure or to assess an adverse event (P < 0.001). In conclusion, latanoprost more likely provides a successful response to therapy than brimonidine when used as monotherapy in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients.

Efficacy and safety of timolol solution once daily vs timolol gel added to latanoprost.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of timolol hemihydrate 0.5% (Betimol, Ciba Vision Ophthalmics, Duluth, Georgia) vs timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% (Timoptic-XE, Merck, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania), both given every morning added to latanoprost 0.005% given every evening. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, crossover comparison was performed in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After at least a 4-week run-in period with latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan, Pharmacia & Upjohn, Kalamazoo, Michigan), both eyes from 30 patients (60 eyes) were randomly assigned to one of the two adjunctive therapies, timolol hemihydrate or timolol maleate gel for 6 weeks. At the end of the first period, the study medicine was discontinued for a 2-week washout period. Patients then received the opposite medication for the second 6-week period. This study had an 80% power to exclude a 1-mm Hg difference between groups. RESULTS: The baseline intraocular pressure after 1 month of latanoprost treatment only for all 30 subjects was 20.8 +/- 2.6 mm Hg. After 6 weeks of timolol hemihydrate, the 24-hour trough intraocular pressure was 17.5 +/- 3.4 mm Hg, and for timolol maleate gel, 17.9 +/- 3.5 mm Hg (P = .74). The peak level 2 hours after dosing for timolol hemihydate was 16.4 +/- 2.6 mm Hg, and for timolol maleate gel, 16.8 +/- 3.8 mm Hg (P = .84). No patient was discontinued from the study because of lack of efficacy. No differences were observed between treatments in visual acuity, anterior segment findings, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily beta-blocker therapy is an effective ocular hypotensive adjunctive treatment 24 hours after dosing when added to latanoprost, for which timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution and timolol maleate gel 0.5% appear equally effective and safe.

Severe acute graft-versus-host disease of conjunctivae after allogeneic blood progenitor cell infusion.

A 37-year-old woman with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia received allogeneic bone marrow transplants after first and second relapses from different HLA-identical brothers. After a third relapse, blood progenitor cells from one of the brothers were infused after six doses of cytarabine 1.5 g/m2 in an attempt to induce a graft-versus-leukemia effect. Seven weeks after the infusion, the patient developed delayed but severe acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) including the unusual manifestation of conjunctival involvement.

Feline cholangiohepatitis complex.

Feline cholangiohepatitis complex causes a diffuse intrahepatic cholestasis of unknown etiology. Recognized histologic forms include acute suppurative cholangitis/cholangiohepatitis, long-term nonsuppurative cholangitis/cholangiohepatitis, and biliary cirrhosis. Treatment of cholangiohepatitis complex varies based on histologic type. Thus a liver biopsy is necessary for definitive diagnosis and treatment. Because cholangiohepatitis complex causes diffuse hepatic change, percutaneous needle biopsies are often sufficient for obtaining a diagnosis. Antibiotics are used to treat all forms of feline cholangiohepatitis complex, but steroids may be of equal or greater importance for use in the treatment of long-term nonsuppurative cholangiohepatitis. Prognosis is guarded for cats with any form of cholangiohepatitis complex due to the variable response to treatment seen in many cats. Spontaneous remission occasionally occurs.

Evaluation of total serum bile acids concentration and bile acid profiles in healthy cats after oral administration of ursodeoxycholic acid.

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA; 10 mg/kg of body weight) was administered orally to 5 healthy cats for 3 months. Signs of illness were not apparent in any cat during treatment with UDCA. Results of monthly CBC, serum biochemical analysis, and urinalysis were unchanged during drug administration. There was a decrease in serum cholesterol concentration in 4 cats. Total postprandial serum bile acids (PPSBA) concentration was significantly (P = 0.0003) increased over total preprandial serum bile acids (PRSBA) concentration at all sample collection periods. The PRSBA and PPSBA concentrations were significantly (P < 0.05) increased at all sample collection periods after administration of UDCA, compared with baseline values. Ursodeoxycholic and tauroursodeoxycholic acids were not detected in serum prior to initiating administration of UDCA. Both bile acids were detected in the serum of all cats 1 and 2 months after UDCA administration and were detected in the serum of 2 cats 3 months after initiating UCDA administration. Hepatic ultrasonographic findings were normal before and after completion of UDCA administration. A mild, focal lymphocytic infiltrate was observed in 3 cats 3 months after initiating UDCA administration. Results of the study indicate that UDCA is absorbed into the systemic circulation of cats after oral administration, undergoes hepatic conjugation, and appears to be safe.

Clinical and subclinical ophthalmic findings with retinol deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Patients at risk for retinol deficiency in developed countries include those with hepatic dysfunction and malabsorption states. Symptoms of retinol deficiency may go unrecognized or unreported. METHODS: The authors describe 15 patients with hepatic dysfunction, two of whom had procedures that would predispose to malabsorption and were ophthalmologically symptomatic of retinol depletion. The other 13 patients were ophthalmologically asymptomatic liver transplant candidates examined prospectively for subclinical evidence of retinol deficiency. Combined laboratory analysis, Schirmer's testing, conjunctival impression cytology, and electroretinography were performed. RESULTS: Twelve of 15 patients had serum retinol levels below the lower limit of normal. Aqueous tear production was reduced in 7 of 14 patients. Abnormal conjunctival morphology was noted in 6 of 12 patients. Electroretinograms were abnormal in the two patients who were visually symptomatic and in seven of nine patients who were ophthalmologically asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: Subclinical, physiologically significant retinol deficiency may be a frequent and unrecognized problem among patients with hepatic dysfunction.

Postoperative evaluation of renal function after surgical correction of a ureterovaginal fistula in a cat.

Unilateral hydronephrosis and urinary incontinence, secondary to a ureterovaginal fistula, were corrected in a cat after surgical excision of the fistula and implantation of the affected ureter into the bladder. Salvage of the kidney was attempted because underlying chronic bilateral renal disease was suspected. Renal scintigraphy was used to monitor improvement in the function of the previously obstructed kidney after surgery.