Purpose: To explore the risk factors for central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) by comparing a large sample of patients with healthy controls. Materials and Methods: Multi-center case-control study. The study group includes patients affected by central retinal vein occlusion, confirmed angiographically, aged 50 years old or above (Group A). The control group includes healthy subjects without an history of retinal vein occlusion (Group B). Outcome measures: age, gender, active smoking, presence of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (uHTN), presence of the following comorbidities: diabetes mellitus type II (DMII), chronic liver disease (CLD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease (TD), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), hyperhomocystenemia (HHcy), dyslipidemia (DLip), carotid artery disease (CAD), glaucoma, atrial fibrillation (AF), migraine headache (MH), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), history of myocardial infarction (MI). Odds-ratios were calculated with logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 203 patients (Group A) and 339 controls (Group B). Statistically-significant differences were found for the following variables: age (OR: 1.109 [1.081–1.138], p < .001), active smoking (OR: 2.048 [1.210- 3.466], p < .008), DMII (OR: 4.533 [2.097–9.803], p < .001), HHcy (OR: 4.507 [2.477–10.001 ], p < .001), DLip (OR: 2.255 [1.352–3.762], p = .002), CAD (OR: 6.632 [2.944- 14.942], p < .001), glaucoma (OR: 4.656 [2.031–10.673], < .001), OSAS (OR: 1.744 [1.023–2.975], < .041), uHTN (OR: 3.656 [2.247–5.949], < .001). No statistically-significant differences were found for the other variables. Conclusions: Older age, active smoking, as well as presence of DMII, HHcy, DLip, CAD, glaucoma, OSAS, and uHTN, all increase the risk for CRVO. A comprehensive assessment of patients with CRVO is paramount. Adequate control of all the aforementioned risk factors is likely of great significance in reducing the incidence of CRVO among the general population, and it likely plays an important role in improving the prognosis following the occlusive event.

Purpose: Dexamethasone and other corticosteroids are administered intravitreally to treat a variety of retinal diseases. As a side effect, they can alter intraocular pressure (IOP). The purpose of this study is to describe the incidence, severity, and management of ocular hypertension following the administration of multiple intravitreal injections of dexamethasone implants. Materials and Methods: A total of 78 eyes of 78 subjects (males 62%; females 38%; mean age 67 ± 13 years SD) received a total of 152 intravitreal injections of 0.7 mg dexamethasone implants over 4 years. Indications included retinal vein occlusion (87%), diabetic macular edema (9%), wet-type age-related macular degeneration (4%). Ocular hypertension was defined as intraocular pressure above 23 mmHg or any pressure increase of 10 mmHg or more from baseline values. IOP was measured by applanation tonometry before the injection (T0), as well as one week (T1), one month (T2), and three months (T3) afterwards. Results: Five percent (4/78) of subjects developed ocular hypertension after the 1st injection. On the second and third rounds, additional 7.2% (3/42) and 4.2% (1/24) of subjects developed the same side effect. Among the 8 subjects who received a fourth injection, none was found with OHT. Pressure elevations were detected at T2 and T3. In all patients, topical medical therapy was sufficient to lower the IOP below threshold. Mean pressure variations following the first injection as compared to previous recorded values were +0.97 mmHg (T1), +0.92 mmHg (T2), and − 0.41 mmHg (T3) (p < 0.05). Mean pressure variations following the second injection were +0.54 mmHg (T1), +0.23 mmHg (T2) and − 0.66 mmHg (T3) (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Ocular hypertension is a recognized side effect of intravitreal dexamethasone. Some patients develop it right after the first injection, while others develop it subsequently, on the 2nd or 3rd round. This side effect becomes most apparent 30– 90 days following the implantation procedure and responds well to topical pressure-lowering medications.

Purpose: Gene therapy actually seems to have promising results in the treatment of Leber Congenital Amaurosis and some different inherited retinal diseases (IRDs); the primary goal of this strategy is to change gene defects with a wild-type gene without defects in a DNA sequence to achieve partial recovery of the photoreceptor function and, consequently, partially restore lost retinal functions. This approach led to the introduction of a new drug (voretigene neparvovec-rzyl) for replacement of the RPE65 gene in patients affected by Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA); however, the treatment results are inconstant and with variable long-lasting effects due to a lack of correctly evaluating the anatomical and functional conditions of residual photoreceptors. These variabilities may also be related to host immunoreactive reactions towards the Adenovirus-associated vector. A broad spectrum of retinal dystrophies frequently generates doubt as to whether the disease or the patient is a good candidate for a successful gene treatment, because, very often, different diseases share similar genetic characteristics, causing an inconstant genotype/phenotype correlation between clinical characteristics also within the same family. For example, mutations on the RPE65 gene cause Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA) but also some forms of Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP), Bardet Biedl Syndrome (BBS), Congenital Stationary Night Blindness (CSNB) and Usher syndrome (USH), with a very wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. These confusing elements are due to the different pathways in which the product protein (retinoid isomer-hydrolase) is involved and, consequently, the overlapping metabolism in retinal function. Considering this point and the cost of the drug (over USD one hundred thousand), it would be mandatory to follow guidelines or algorithms to assess the best-fitting disease and candidate patients to maximize the output. Unfortunately, at the moment, there are no suggestions regarding who to treat with gene therapy. Moreover, gene therapy might be helpful in other forms of inherited retinal dystrophies, with more frequent incidence of the disease and better functional conditions (actually, gene therapy is proposed only for patients with poor vision, considering possible side effects due to the treatment procedures), in which this approach leads to better function and, hopefully, visual restoration. But, in this view, who might be a disease candidate or patient to undergo gene therapy, in relationship to the onset of clinical trials for several different forms of IRD? Further, what is the gold standard for tests able to correctly select the patient? Our work aims to evaluate clinical considerations on instrumental morphofunctional tests to assess candidate subjects for treatment and correlate them with clinical and genetic defect analysis that, often, is not correspondent. We try to define which parameters are an essential and indispensable part of the clinical rationale to select patients with IRDs for gene therapy. This review will describe a series of models used to characterize retinal morphology and function from tests, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) and electrophysiological evaluation (ERG), and its evaluation as a primary outcome in clinical trials. A secondary aim is to propose an ancillary clinical classification of IRDs and their accessibility based on gene therapy’s current state of the art. Material and Methods: OCT, ERG, and visual field examinations were performed in different forms of IRDs, classified based on clinical and retinal conditions; compared to the gene defect classification, we utilized a diagnostic algorithm for the clinical classification based on morphofunctional information of the retina of patients, which could significantly improve diagnostic accuracy and, consequently, help the ophthalmologist to make a correct diagnosis to achieve optimal clinical results. These considerations are very helpful in selecting IRD patients who might respond to gene therapy with possible therapeutic success and filter out those in which treatment has a lower chance or no chance of positive results due to bad retinal conditions, avoiding time-consuming patient management with unsatisfactory results.

Purpose: to explore the potential consequences of the COVID-19 lockdown on the prevalence of myopia among Italian children aged 5–12 years. Materials and Methods: retrospective multicenter study conducted in Italy. Population: children aged 5–12. Selection: random selection of children who received an eye exam between 2016 to 2021. Inclusion criteria: healthy children presenting for a routine eye exam. Exclusion criteria: presence of ocular comorbidities other than refractive error, such as blepharoptosis, media opacities, corneal or retinal dystrophies, strabismus, amblyopia, or concurrent therapy with atropine 0.01%. Outcome measure: age and spherical equivalent (SE) measured in diopters (D) in the right eye (RE) in cycloplegia. Statistical analysis: ANOVA test. Results: total of 803 children. In the years prior to COVID-19, the mean SE ± SD of healthy age-school children was: 0.54 ± 1.49 D in 2016; 0.43 ± 1.84 D in 2017; 0.34 ± 1.41 D in 2018; 0.35 ± 1.75 D in 2019 (ANOVA, p = .659). In 2021, the mean SE changed to −0.08 ± 1.44 D (ANOVA, p = .005). Mean age was comparable in all groups (ANOVA, p = .307). The prevalence of myopes (SE ≤−0.5D) and hyperopes (SE ≥ 2D) was respectively 24.10% and 9.64% among children aged 60–96 months, and 63.86% and 6.02% among children aged 97–144 months. These values represent a statistically-significant increase in the number of myopes (Chi-square, p = .016) and decrease in the number of hyperopes (Chi-square, p = .001), as compared to previous years (.06 and.48 respectively). Conclusion: this retrospective study shows a statistically-significant decrease in the mean SE in children aged 5–12 in the year following the COVID-19 lockdown. The percentage of myopes has increased significantly, while the percentage of hyperopes has decreased. The lifestyle changes caused by the lockdown led children to spend more time on near-work activities and digital devices, and less time outdoors. These are known risk factors for the development and progression of myopia. Studies in different countries are encouraged.

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) micro implant in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema (cDME). Prospective study recruiting subjects with cDME. Inclusion criteria: cDME for at least 2 years documented with OCT imaging; pseudophakia; previous treatments with laser photocoagulation and intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF and/or dexamethasone. Exclusion criteria: phakia; ocular hypertension; tractional component visible on OCT; glaucoma; previous vitrectomy. Outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BVCA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and central macular thickness (CMT), measured 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-injection. Data were compared with the Friedman test and significance was set at p < 0.05. A total of 18 eyes with a median duration of cDME of 45 months (25–118 months). The 77% of subjects either maintained or improved their BVCA. About 17% and 33% of subjects showed an improvement of 15 ETDRS letters or more at 3 and 12 months respectively. The 17% and 28% of subjects showed a CMT <250 microns at 3 and 12 months, respectively. The median change in CMT thickness was of −370 and −373.5 microns at 3 and 12 months post-injection respectively (p-value is 0.025). Changes in median IOP at 3 and 12 months post-injection were not statistically significant (p-value is 0.210). Ocular hypertension (OHT) was detected in two eyes (11%). The FAc micro implant has proved efficacy in improving and/or maintaining BVCA in 77% of patients with cDME up to 12 months post-injection. Ocular hypertension is the most common side effect but responds well to topical therapy.