Search

Lisa Nijm,1,2 Cynthia Matossian,3 Michelle K Rhee,4 John D Stephens,5 Maria E Rosselson,6 Parag A Majmudar,6 Subba Rao Gollamudi,7 Ravi H Patel,8 Aditi Bauskar,9 Alyssa Montieth,9 Srilatha Vantipalli,9 Andrea Gibson,9 Jamie Lynne Metzinger,9 Michael H Goldstein,9 Rabia Gurses Ozden9 1Warrenville EyeCare and LASIK, Warrenville, IL, USA; 2University of Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, Chicago, IL, USA; 3CM Associates, LLC, New Hope, PA, USA; 4Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; 5Tyson Eye, Fort Myers, FL, USA; 6Chicago Cornea Consultants, Ltd, Chicago, IL, USA; 7Eye Specialty Group, Memphis, TN, USA; 8Eye Associates of Central Texas, Round Rock, TX, USA; 9Ocular Therapeutix, Inc, Bedford, MA, USACorrespondence: Aditi Bauskar, Ocular Therapeutix, Inc, 15 Crosby Drive, Bedford, MA, 01730, USA, Tel +1 210-452-8029, Email abauskar@ocutx.comPurpose: To evaluate both the early experience of real-world patients treated with dexamethasone ophthalmic insert (0.4 mg; DEXTENZA®), hereafter referred to as DEX, after cataract surgery as well as staff/practice integration of DEX relative to eyedrops.Patients and Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey study of 23 cataract practices in the United States. Respondents were patients and practice staff who had experience with DEX following cataract surgery. Both patients and practice staff completed an online survey. Descriptive statistics summarized the survey responses to portray the experience of the respondents.Results: Surveys were completed by 62 patients and 19 practice staff. Almost all patients (93%) were satisfied or extremely satisfied with DEX. Patients highly preferred DEX (93%) to topical steroid drops (7%) based on past experiences with topical steroid drops. Most practice staff (95%) were satisfied or highly satisfied with DEX, reporting a 45% reduction in time spent educating patients on postoperative drop use and a 46% decrease in time spent addressing calls from pharmacies regarding postoper

Neel S Vaidya,1,2 Arvin Daneshmand,3 Randy J Epstein,1,2 Parag A Majmudar,1,2 Michael W Belin,4,5 Edward C Parsons,5 Roy S Rubinfeld5– 7 1Chicago Cornea Consultants, Highland Park, IL, USA; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA; 3Georgetown University Medical School, Washington, DC, USA; 4Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 5CXL Ophthalmics, LLC, Encinitas, CA, USA; 6Department of Ophthalmology, Georgetown University Medical School/Washington Hospital Cente, Washington, DC, USA; 7Re:Vision Private Practice, Rockville, MD, USACorrespondence: Neel S Vaidya, Chicago Cornea Consultants, 806 Central Ave Suite 300, Highland Park, IL, 60035, USA, Email nsv@chicagocornea.comPurpose: To assess the change in corneal pachymetry after a novel epithelium-on (EpiSmart®) corneal crosslinking procedure (CXL).Methods: Eyes treated as part of the open-label, non-controlled arm of the study “Collagen Crosslinking with Ultraviolet-A in Asymmetric Corneas” (NCT01097447) were examined at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-months post-CXL. Thinnest pachymetry readings based on Pentacam (OCULUS GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) were recorded.Results: A total of 101 eyes met the study inclusion criteria. Thinnest pachymetric readings at baseline averaged 451 ± 50 microns. The mean (± SD) minimum thickness was 450 ± 46 microns at 3 months, 452 ± 47 microns at 6 months, and 451 ± 48 microns at 12 months post-CXL. The changes from baseline (mean ± SE) at 3, 6, and 12 months post-CXL were − 1.2 ± 1.5 microns, 0.5 ± 1.6 microns, and 0.4 ± 1.6 microns, respectively. Student’s t-tests showed no statistically significant change in pachymetry from baseline for any exam period.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that, after EpiSmart® epithelium-on CXL, there was no substantial corneal thinning observable on Scheimpflug tomography out to 12 months.Keywords: corneal thinning, cross-linking, epithelium-on, keratoconus, pachymetry

Cynthia Matossian,1 John D Stephens,2 Michelle K Rhee,3 Stephen E Smith,4 Parag A Majmudar,5 Subba Rao Gollamudi,6 Ravi H Patel,7 Maria E Rosselson,5 Aditi Bauskar,8 Alyssa Montieth,8 Fabiana Q Silva,8 Srilatha Vantipalli,8 Andrea Gibson,8 Jamie Lynne Metzinger,8 Michael H Goldstein8 1CM Associates, LLC, New Hope, PA, USA; 2Tyson Eye, Fort Myers, FL, USA; 3Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; 4Eye Associates, Fort Myers, FL, USA; 5Chicago Cornea Consultants, Ltd., Chicago, IL, USA; 6Eye Specialty Group, Memphis, TN, USA; 7Eye Associates of Central Texas, Round Rock, TX, USA; 8Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., Bedford, MA, USACorrespondence: Srilatha Vantipalli, Ocular Therapeutix, Inc, 24 Crosby Drive, Bedford, MA, 01730, USA, Tel +1 413-230-7242, Email SVantipalli@ocutx.comPurpose: To describe the early real-world experience of physicians with an intracanalicular dexamethasone insert (DEX) in patients undergoing cataract surgery and to capture the clinical impact of adopting this therapy.Patients and Methods: 23 United States sites including Ambulatory Surgical Center Setting (ASC) and Outpatient Clinical settings. Respondents were physicians who had early experience with DEX in cataract surgery patients. This was a Phase 4 experiential cross-sectional survey study comprised of 3 sequential online physician surveys. Descriptive statistics summarized the surveys’ responses to determine the early impressions of the respondents.Results: Forty-two physicians completed surveys. On average, physicians reported feeling comfortable administering DEX after placing 3 inserts (mean 2.7; standard deviation 1.9). Most physicians (92%) were satisfied with DEX, and all physicians (100%) reported that DEX improved patient compliance. Most physicians (62.5%) indicated they would highly prefer DEX over traditional steroid eyedrops for the management of post-surgical inflammation and pain.Conclusion: The surveys exploring the early use of DEX suggest that DEX is a cl