Search

Background/objectives: Dupilumab-associated ocular surface disease (DAOSD) is of particular relevance in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). Guidance on DAOSD assessment and management in the Australian setting is needed to reduce its impact and minimise disruption to treatment., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify data pertaining to the incidence, pathophysiology, risk factors and management of DAOSD. A critical review of this literature was used to inform a decision framework for dupilumab-prescribers and develop a graded severity scoring tool to guide appropriate management options., Results: DAOSD typically emerges within 4 months of commencing dupilumab and the occurrence of new events diminishes over time. The reported incidence varies widely depending on the nature and source of the data: 8.6-22.1% (clinical trials programme), 0.5-70% (real-world data; differences in study size, duration of follow-up, ophthalmologist intervention, use of prophylaxis). Occurrence increases with AD severity and in patients with prior history of ocular disease; pathophysiology is still to be fully characterised. Management options have evolved over time and include lubricants/artificial tears, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, antihistamines, anti-inflammatory agents and antimicrobial agents. Current therapies aim to resolve symptoms or reduce severity to levels sufficiently tolerable to enable continuation of dupilumab therapy., Conclusions: Recommendations for DAOSD assessment and management include identification of high-risk patients, vigilance for red flags (keratoconus, herpetic and bacterial keratitis), regular assessment of symptom severity (before and during dupilumab therapy), conservative management of mild DAOSD by the prescribing physician and ophthalmologist referral for collaborative care of moderate-severe DAOSD and high-risk patients., (© 2022 The Authors. Australasian Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian College of Dermatologists.)

Healthcare in the twenty-first century has witnessed an increased use of prescription drugs. As a member of a patient's health care team, optometrists should be aware of the pharmaceuticals taken by patients and their potential ocular complications. This paper will discuss the most prescribed medications in Australia today and their effects on the visual system. The paper will review the agents used to treat six common systemic conditions, their frequency of use, mechanism of action, clinical indications, and potential ocular manifestations. Literature has documented both positive and negative associations of systemic medications on the eye's health. Many associations documented here have shown conflicting evidence, thus warranting further investigation. Based on the frequency and severity of the ocular manifestations in the literature, recommendations for clinical care are given. Being familiar with the most common ocular side effects associated with common systemic medications aids in the correct and timely diagnosis of ocular complications to prevent permanent sequelae.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the burden and trends of eye diseases, utilisation of eye health care services, and ophthalmic medications among older people living in residential aged care facilities in Australia., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Registry of Senior Australians. Individuals aged ≥65 years who entered permanent residential aged care facilities between 2008 and 2015 were included. The prevalence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of eye diseases by year, eye health care services, and ophthalmic medication use within a year of entry into the service were evaluated. Poisson regression models estimated adjusted rate of change using prevalence ratio (PR) by age, sex, state, and frailty scores., Results: Of the 409,186 people studied, 43.6% (N = 178,367) had an eye condition. Of the total cohort, 32.9% (N = 134,566) had chronic eye conditions and 19.7% (N = 80,661) had an acute eye condition. Common chronic eye conditions were glaucoma (13.6%, N = 55,830), cataract (8%, (N = 32,779), blindness (4.5%, N = 18,856), and poor vision (10.3%, N = 42,245). Prevalence of any eye condition (2008: 42.7%, 95% CI = 42.2%-43.2% and 2015: 41.2%, 95% CI = 40.8-41.6%, PR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99-0.99, P < 0.001), acute eye conditions (2008: 19.8%, 95% CI = 19.4%-20.2% and 2015: 17.4%, 95% CI = 17.1%-17.6%, PR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.97-0.98, P < 0.001), and blindness (2008: 5.2%, 95% CI = 5.0%-5.4% and 2015: 3.7%, 95% CI = 3.5%-3.9%, PR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.93-0.94, p < 0.001). decreased over the study period. The prevalence of glaucoma (2008: 13.5%, 95% CI = 13.2%-13.8% and 2015: 13.8%, 95% CI = 13.5%-13.7%; PR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.99-1.10, P < 0.001) and cataract (2008: 7.4%, 95% CI = 7.2%-7.7% and 2015: 8.5%, 95% CI = 8.3%-8.7%, PR = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00-1.01, P < 0.001) remained stable or slightly increased. Overall, 46.4% (N = 82,769) of individuals with eye conditions, accessed at least one eye health service within the first year of entering residential care and 70.5% (N = 125,673) used at least one ophthalmic medication. Optometric services (41.7%, N = 74,358) were the most used eye health care services and anti-infective eye drops (37.2%, N = 66,331) were the most commonly dispensed medications., Conclusions: The prevalence of blindness among older Australian using residential aged care services decreased over the study period. However, the burden of eye diseases remained high between 2008 and 2015, whereas the use of eye health care services was disproportionately low. This study provides evidence of a significant need for eye health care services for older people with an eye disease in residential aged care facilities., Translational Relevance: Four in ten long term aged care residents in Australia had at least one eye condition over the study period, indicating potential for a high eye health care needs in aged care settings.

Optometrists in Australia employ ophthalmic medicines in their paediatric practice to assist clinical diagnosis and to treat ocular conditions. Prior to employing ocular medicines or initiating treatment, it is important to consider the risks versus benefits of ophthalmic medicines and determine the minimum dose required to safely achieve a diagnostic or therapeutic benefit. Instilling drops in infants and young children may require techniques that do not depend on full cooperation, particularly to maintain appropriate dosing and limit the rate of elimination from the eye. Diagnostic cycloplegic agents are highly recommended for the accurate determination of refractive error in infants and young children. Topical atropine is commonly prescribed in paediatric optometry practice in highly variable concentrations. 1% atropine eye drops are used for pharmacological penalisation in management of amblyopia, and, increasingly, low concentration (< 0.1%) atropine is used to manage the progression of childhood myopia. Doses of topical ocular medicines to treat inflammation, infection or glaucoma are generally identical to those use in adults; however, there is potential for increased ocular and systemic side effects with certain medications. It is, therefore, timely to present, summarise and comment on the use of ophthalmic diagnostic and therapeutic agents in children and reference where practitioners can look for more detailed information. The perspective is set in the Australian context of a collaborative approach between paediatric optometry and ophthalmology eye care practitioners for delivery of best practice care in infants and young children. Inclusion of the more complex spectrum of paediatric eye disease in a tertiary ophthalmological setting is provided to build practitioner knowledge of treatment regimens their patients may be using, even though management of these conditions lies outside their scope of practice.

Importance: Health care prices may drive differences in health care costs across high-income nations. Adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept are high-cost medications in the United States and Australia. A comparison of their prices over time may elucidate how ophthalmic medication prices contribute to health care costs., Objective: To compare changes in the prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in the United States and Australia, the highest and lowest spenders on health care, respectively, among high-income nations., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective price comparison study examined prices paid by government entities in the United States (Medicare) and Australia (Pharmaceuticals and Benefits Scheme). The analysis and data collection were conducted from March 28 to May 4, 2018, in accordance with guidelines set by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force on Good Research Practices and prior published studies. No human participants or related data were included in this study., Exposures: The change in mean prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in the United States and Australia., Main Outcomes and Measures: Initial, final, and change in medication price annually from 2013 to 2017 in inflation-adjusted 2017 US dollars., Results: The mean prices (US dollar prices unadjusted for inflation) in 2013 and 2017 in the United States were $1114 ($1053) and $1818 ($1818), respectively, for adalimumab; $2102 ($1988) and $1904 ($1904), respectively, for ranibizumab; and $2074 ($1961) and $1956 ($1956), respectively, for aflibercept. The mean (Australian dollar prices unadjusted for inflation) 2013 and 2017 prices in Australia were $1854 (A $1797) and $1206 (A $1574), respectively, for adalimumab; $2157 (A $2090) and $972 (A $1268), respectively, for ranibizumab; and $2030 (A $1967) and $996 (A $1300), respectively, for aflibercept. The estimated annual change in price for adalimumab was +12.8% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.5%) in the United States compared with -11.1% (95% CI, -15.0% to -7.1%) in Australia, a difference of 23.9% per year (95% CI, 19.7%-28.0%; P < .001). The annual change in price for ranibizumab was -2.6% (95% CI, -3.9% to -1.3%) in the United States compared with -18.5% (95% CI, -29.3% to -7.8%) in Australia, a difference of 15.9% per year (95% CI, 7.6%-24.2%; P = .003). The annual change in price for aflibercept was -1.5% (95% CI, -2.2% to -0.7%) in the United States compared with -16.9% (95% CI, -25.1% to -8.6%) in Australia, a difference of 15.4% (95% CI, 9.1%-21.8%; P = .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study indicate that the prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept significantly decreased during the past 5 years in Australia compared with the United States. These data do not indicate why these differences are noted or what actions might affect future pricing in either country.

Inflammatory eye disease (IED) is often the most severe manifestation of Behçet's syndrome (BS). This disease is a common cause of uveitis in Mediterranean countries, the Middle East and Japan. In order to ascertain the prevalence of this disease in Australia, we reviewed the aetiology of patients attending our uveitis clinic over a five-year period. Twelve of 426 patients with inflammatory eye disease had definite Behçet's syndrome. Four patients had anterior uveitis, four had posterior uveitis, four had retinal vasculitis and one also had optic neuritis. Although inflammatory eye disease was the initial clinical feature of Behçet's syndrome in only three of our patients, it was the feature that led to a definite diagnosis in all but one patient. The inflammatory eye disease of Behçet's syndrome was characteristically recurrent and severe with significantly decreased vision in 10 eyes, cataracts in six eyes, macula oedema in four eyes and glaucoma in two eyes. We conclude that Behçet's syndrome is a rare cause of inflammatory eye disease in Australia and is unlikely to be recognised as a distinct clinical entity prior to the onset of ocular involvement. The visual prognosis of ocular inflammation in Behçet's syndrome remains guarded despite the use of a variety of immunosuppressive agents.

Steroid/antiinfective combinations have a number of advantages over the separate ingredients, but the possibility of complications has been a subject of concern. Based on data obtained from the files of eight pharmaceutical companies and the health registry records of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand for the period 1964-1973, it is concluded that the statistical incidence of adverse reactions was no greater with the steroid/antiinfective combinations than with their separate ingredients. In addition, there was no increase in incidence of the reactions during the same period with combinations. These conclusions were borne out by adverse reaction data reported in the literature and in certain unpublished prospective clinical studies. It was not feasible to obtain data from ophthalmologists who may have observed adverse reactions, but not reported them. A critical evaluation by Dr. Philip Ellis follows the review.