Limbal stem cell deficiency:Concept, aetiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis and management

Defects in renewal and repair of ocular surface as a result of limbal stem cell deficiency are now known to cause varying ocular, surface morbidity including persistent photophobia, repeated and persistent surface breakdown and overt conjunctivalisation of the cornea. Ocular conditions with abnormalities of ocular surface repair include pterygium, limbal tumours, aniridia, severe scarring following burns, cicatricial pemphigoid and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, sequelae of mustard gas exposure and Herpes simplex epithelial disease, radiation keratopathy, contact lens induced keratopathy, neuroparalytic keratitis and drug toxicity. Restoring ocular health in these eyes has traditionally been frustrating. An understanding of these intricate cell renewal and maintenance processes has spurred the evolution in recent years of new treatment methods for several blinding diseases of the anterior segment; many more exciting modalities are in the offing. However, there is inadequate awareness among ophthalmologists about the current principles of management of ocular surface disorders. The purpose of this article is to help elucidate the important principles and current treatment methods relevant to ocular surface disorders.

Successful medical treatment of Acanthamoeba keratitis

Purpose: To describe the outcome of a series of Acanthamoeba keratitis treated with a similar regimen. Methods: All cases diagnosed with Acanthamoeba keratitis in a referral centre from June 1994 through June 1997 were included. Diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis was based in clinical presentation and laboratory results. Positive laboratory identification of Acanthamoeba from corneal scraping or contact lens was required, unless the patient had very characteristic symptoms (severe pain) and signs of the infection, including perineural infiltrates. Initial intensive treatment included topical polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) 0.02%, propamidine isothionate 0.1% and broad-spectrum antibiotics. The treatment was gradually tapered. After documented response to anti-acanthamoeba therapy, topical steroids were introduced; they were discontinued before cessation of the antiAcanthamoeba regimen. Results: Six males and four females, with a mean age of 30.0 ± 7.4 years were included in this study. All cases weared contact lenses. On presentation all cases had severe pain, and epitheliopathy was associated with stromal infiltrate in most (seven of ten) cases. Four patients had anterior uveitis. Perineural infiltrates were present in three cases and ring infiltrate in one patient. Anti-amoebic treatment was started 12.7 ± 7.2 days after beginning of symptoms. The clinical response to therapy was very satisfactory in all patients. Within two to three weeks all patients had remarkable lessening of pain and photophobia, and improvement of clinical signs. At two to three months, visual acuity had improved in all patients. Two patients required penetrating keratoplasty for visual rehabilitation. Conclusion: The use of PHMB and propamidine cured all cases of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Cautious introduction of steroids was associated with expedited resolution of inflammation and provided symptomatic relief.

Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND: Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.