Search

Purpose: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous authors have published data demonstrating retinal changes found in patients with COVID-19. However, others have debated the significance of these findings and the effects of COVID-19 on the retina remain uncertain. This study aims to better understand retinal findings in patients with COVID-19. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of patients with a history of a positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test was performed between March 1st, 2020 and October 31st, 2020. Patients were included if they presented within 90 days of their first positive COVID-19 test and underwent color fundus photography and/or OCT of the macula. All images were reviewed by two independent graders who assessed the presence of retinal heme, cotton wool spots, vascular sheathing, and disc edema, as well as hyper-reflective changes, intra-retinal fluid, and sub-retinal fluid on OCT. Results: A total of 119 eyes from 61 patients were included. Among 83 eyes which underwent OCT of the macula, inner retinal hyper-reflective changes were seen in 16.9% (n=14), outer retinal hyper-reflective changes in 18.1% (n=15), intra-retinal fluid in 28.9% (n=24), and sub-retinal fluid in 14.5% (n=12). Among 48 eyes which underwent color fundus photography, retinal hemorrhage was seen in 27.1% (n=13), optic disc edema in 2.1% (n=1), and cotton wool spots in none of the eyes. Sub-analysis of 70 eyes from 41 patients with no alternative retinal pathology to potentially explain the above findings revealed none of the above exam findings on OCT of the macula (n=35), fundus photography (n=28), or documented exam (n=66). Conclusion: While a number of patients seen after COVID-19 infection demonstrated retinal findings, all could be explained by pre-existing retinal conditions. In a sub-group of eyes without pre-existing retinal disease, we did not identify any retinal findings that could be associated with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients with glaucoma who do not keep their follow-up eye care appointments are at risk for developing more severe ocular disease. The primary aim of the current study was to evaluate whether the use of a patient navigator altered adherence to follow-up eye care appointments in community-versus office-based settings. Patients and methods: Patients diagnosed with a glaucoma-related condition following a comprehensive eye examination at 43 community sites in Philadelphia, PA, USA, were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Patients were randomized into three groups for a 1-year period: Group 1 (G1) received follow-up eye care in a community-based setting with assistance from a patient navigator; Group 2 (G2) received follow-up eye care in an office-based setting with assistance from a patient navigator; and Group 3 (G3) received follow-up eye care in an office-based setting without a patient navigator (usual care). Adherence rates were compared among these three groups using a chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. Results: A total of 155 patients with glaucoma-related diagnoses were enrolled. The mean age (±standard deviation) was 71.2 (±10.0) years. Patients were predominantly female (65.8%, n=102/155) and African-American (71.6%, n=111/155). The mean (±standard deviation) number of follow-up visits during the 1-year study period was 1.3 (±1.3) for G1, 1.6 (±1.3) for G2, and 1.3 (±1.1) for G3 (P=0.48). Appointment adherence, defined as attendance of ≥1 follow-up visit, was 69.8% (n=37/53) for G1, 82.5% (n=47/57) for G2, and 73.3% (n=33/45) for G3, (P=0.28). Sub-analysis of adherence rates for patients who attended ≥2 follow-up visits were 91.3% (n=21/23) for G1, 74.3% (n=26/35) for G2, and 66.7% (n=18/27) for G3, (P=0.11). Conclusion: Help from a patient navigator did not increase the likelihood of keeping ≥1 follow-up appointment in an office-based setting. Adherence rates for follow-up appointments reached close to 70% or above in a self-selected patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adnexal and periocular involvement in Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) infection is rare. This report describes the case of a patient with a delayed diagnosis of gonococcal dacryoadenitis with contiguous conjunctivitis and corneal involvement. She underwent extensive inpatient laboratory and infectious workup but rapidly progressed to corneal perforation requiring emergent penetrating keratoplasty prior to a positive culture confirming the diagnosis. To date, this is the first reported case of ophthalmologic NG infection with associated conjunctivitis, dacryoadenitis, and corneal perforation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]