The effects of preservatives of antiglaucoma medications on corneal surface and tear function have been widely shown in literature; it’s not the same as regards the active compounds themselves. The purpose of our study was to compare Ocular Surface Disease (OSD) signs and symptoms of Tafluprost 0.0015% versus preservative free (PF) Timolol 0.1% eyedrops in ocular hypertensive (OH) and in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients. A cross-sectional study included patients in monotherapy for at least 36 months with Tafluprost 0.0015% (27) or PF Timolol 0.1% (24) and 20 healthy age and sex-matched volunteers. All subjects underwent clinical tests (Schirmer I and break-up time), in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and were surveyed using Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Glaucoma Symptoms Scale (GSS) questionnaires. The groups were compared with ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, t-test, Mann-Whitney test and Bonferroni’s adjustment of p-values. No significant differences were found in questionnaires scores, clinical tests, IVCM variables between therapy groups. Tafluprost 0.0015% group showed significantly higher OSDI score, basal epithelial cells density, stromal reflectivity, sub-basal nerves tortuosity (p = 0.0000, 0.037, 0.006, 0.0000) and less GSS score, number of sub-basal nerves (p = 0.0000, 0.037) than controls but similar clinical tests results (p > 0.05). PF Timolol group had significantly higher OSDI score, basal epithelial cells density, stromal reflectivity and sub-basal nerve tortuosity (p = 0.000, 0.014, 0.008, 0.002), less GSS score, BUT and number of sub-basal nerves (p = 0.0000, 0.026, 0.003) than controls. Compared to PF Timolol 0.1%, Tafluprost 0.0015% showed similar safety with regards to tear function and corneal status and a similar tolerability profile. Both therapy groups show some alterations in corneal microstructure but no side effects on tear function except for an increased tear instability in PF Timolol 0.1% group. Ophtalmologists should be aware that even PF formulations may lead to a mild ocular surface impairment.

Diabetic macular edema (DME)’s therapeutic approach can frequently be challenging. The purpose of the review is to propose evidence-based recommendations on the employment of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) when approaching patients suffering from DME. Seven national consensuses redacted by different groups of retina specialists from Europe and Asia were examined and confronted. Each consensus was redacted utilizing a Delphi approach, in person meetings, or by reviewing the literature. DEX can be studied as a first-line strategy in individuals suffering from DME with inflammatory OCT biomarkers, in vitrectomized eyes, in patients with recent cardiovascular events, in pregnant women, in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery or with poor compliance. The other parameters considered were the indications to the DME treatment, when to switch to DEX, the definition of non-responder to anti-VEGFs agents and to the DEX implant, whether to combine DEX with laser photocoagulation, the association between glaucoma and DEX, and the management of DEX and the cataract. Although several years have passed since the introduction of DEX implants in the DME treatment, there is still not a unified agreement among retina specialists. This paper compares the approach in the DME treatment between countries from different continents and provides a broader and worldwide perspective of the topic.