TL;DR: Recognizing the need for emergent referral to an ophthalmologist is key in the primary care management of red eye when severe pain is not relieved with topical anesthetics; topical steroids are needed; or the patient has vision loss, copious purulent discharge, corneal involvement, traumatic eye injury, recent ocular surgery, distorted pupil, herpes infection, or recurrent infections.
Abstract: Red eye is the cardinal sign of ocular inflammation The condition is usually benign and can be managed by primary care physicians Conjunctivitis is the most common cause of red eye Other common causes include blepharitis, corneal abrasion, foreign body, subconjunctival hemorrhage, keratitis, iritis, glaucoma, chemical burn, and scleritis Signs and symptoms of red eye include eye discharge, redness, pain, photophobia, itching, and visual changes Generally, viral and bacterial conjunctivitis are self-limiting conditions, and serious complications are rare Because there is no specific diagnostic test to differentiate viral from bacterial conjunctivitis, most cases are treated using broad-spectrum antibiotics Allergies or irritants also may cause conjunctivitis The cause of red eye can be diagnosed through a detailed patient history and careful eye examination, and treatment is based on the underlying etiology Recognizing the need for emergent referral to an ophthalmologist is key in the primary care management of red eye Referral is necessary when severe pain is not relieved with topical anesthetics; topical steroids are needed; or the patient has vision loss, copious purulent discharge, corneal involvement, traumatic eye injury, recent ocular surgery, distorted pupil, herpes infection, or recurrent infections
TL;DR: Diquafosol was effective for various dry eye patients in clinical practice, and no significant safety-related problems occurred.
Abstract: This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 3% diquafosol ophthalmic solution in dry eye patients in clinical practice. Subjects were dry eye patients who had never used diquafosol, and observation was conducted prospectively over 2 months. The corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining score, tear film break-up time, 12 dry eye-related subjective symptoms, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse events were investigated. Data were collected from 465 medical institutions for 3,196 patients. Diquafosol led to significant improvement in all subjective symptoms and objective findings (P < 0.001, paired t test). Diquafosol was effective regardless of the degree of severity according to the corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining score or therapeutic pattern. Overall, 76.0% patients responded that their condition had improved. Adverse reactions were observed in 6.3% of patients. The major adverse reactions were eye discharge, eye irritation, and eye pain. Diquafosol was effective for various dry eye patients in clinical practice, and no significant safety-related problems occurred.
TL;DR: Breast milk contains various protective components, such as immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, lysozyme, oligosaccharides and immune cell subsets, which are evaluated in infants with eye discharge in a randomised controlled study.
Abstract: Aim Breast milk (BM) contains various protective components, such as immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, lysozyme, oligosaccharides and immune cell subsets. We evaluated the effectiveness of BM eye drops in infants with eye discharge in a randomised controlled study. Methods Subjects were breastfed infants aged ≤180 days, with eye discharge. We randomly assigned patients to receive eye drops of BM or sodium azulene sulphonate hydrate 0.02% ophthalmic solution (OS). The patients received drop of BM or OS for 7 days. Improvement score of eye discharge in the groups was compared using a non-inferiority test. Results The number of patients improved eye discharge was 119/155 (76.8%) and 119/157 (75.8%) in BM and OS groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups. The improvement score in eye discharge was 1.76 ± 0.91 in the BM group and 1.71 ± 0.96 in the OS group. The BM group was considered non-inferior to the OS group. Conclusions This study demonstrated that BM is no less effective than OS in infants with eye discharge aged ≤6 months. The results suggested that the use of breast milk as eye drops could be considered as a first-line treatment for infants aged ≤6 months with eye discharge.
TL;DR: Wiping lid margins using Eye Brush enhanced the cleansing power of Eye Shampoo, suggesting a daily healthcare routine using both products could be a safe and effective option for daily lid hygiene.
Abstract: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of using a lid hygiene brush prototype to wipe the lid margins with lid hygiene shampoo in subjects with normal meibomian glands. Twelve eyes of 6 subjects were all evaluated just before and after wiping lid margins using 1) tap water alone, 2) Eye Shampoo, 3) Eye Brush, or 4) both products, each during a different week. The results after using both products twice daily for 1 month were also evaluated. Wiping efficacy was determined by post-wiping scores for the remaining fluorescein-stained 0.3% Tarivid ointment fully applied to eyelids and lid margins under microscopic view illuminated by blue light just after performing each of the four lid hygiene methods described above. No significant deterioration in ocular conditions occurred. Eyestrain, eye discharge, and dryness decreased with tap water (P = 0.020), Eye Shampoo (P = 0.036), and Eye Brush (P = 0.014), respectively. Sensations of eye discharge increased after 1 month of using both products (P = 0.042). The wiping efficacy of Eye Brush, Eye Shampoo or both was significantly greater than that of tap water alone (two-sided test, P = 0.003, 0.003, 0.002), and using both significantly increased efficacy above Eye Shampoo use alone (one-sided test, P = 0.009). Wiping lid margins using Eye Brush enhanced the cleansing power of Eye Shampoo. A daily healthcare routine using both products could be a safe and effective option for daily lid hygiene. UMIN000016905
. Registration date: March 24, 2015; the study was prospectively registered.