Purpose: To evaluate the 5-year incidence rate of blebitis and bleb-associated endophthalmitis in the United States. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we utilized a large commercial health insurance claim-based database during 2007–2011 and identified all patients who had a record of trabeculectomy in 2007. These patients were followed until the end of 2011. During the follow-up period, all incidences of blebitis, confirmed bleb-associated endophthalmitis, and presumed bleb-associated endophthalmitis were recorded. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was utilized to calculate 5-year cumulative incidence rates of blebitis and bleb-associated endophthalmitis following trabeculectomy procedures. Results: Among the 1,461 trabeculectomies included in our analysis, eight cases of blebitis, five cases of confirmed bleb-associated endophthalmitis, and eight cases of presumed bleb-associated endophthalmitis were identified. We found that the 5-year cumulative incidence of blebitis was 0.55%±0.19%. The 5-year cumulative incidence of bleb-associated endophthalmitis was 0.45%±0.2% when only confirmed cases were included and 1.3%±0.34% when presumed cases were also added to the analysis. The mean time from procedure to diagnosis was 45 months for blebitis and 33 months for bleb-associated endophthalmitis. Conclusion: Blebitis and bleb-related endophthalmitis are uncommon in the United States. The 5-year cumulative incidence was 0.55% for blebitis and 0.45%–1.3% for bleb-associated endophthalmitis.

The treatment of arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (AAION), non-arteritic ischemic optic neuropathy (NAAION), and posterior ischemic optic neuropathy (PION) is a topic of ongoing research with mixed evidence on some pharmacotherapies and a need for more consensus. This manuscript provides an overview of these conditions’ current, potential future, and attempted pharmacotherapies. AAION’s current treatment regimen consists of high-dose steroids, with methotrexate, tocilizumab, and abatacept, being the most viable steroid-sparing therapy candidates. As for NAAION, the treatments being tried are vast, with mixed evidence supporting each modality. Similarly, despite the various treatment options explored, there still needs to be a universally effective therapy for PION. More research is needed to formulate an agreed-upon treatment regimen for these conditions.

Purpose: To determine if intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma drainage device (GDD) erosions. Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted including patients with diabetic retinopathy and had a GDD implanted at a large academic institution. The rate of GDD erosions was compared between eyes that did or did not receive intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. A subanalysis was also performed the relationship between diabetic macular edema (DME) and intravitreal steroid injections and GDD erosions. Results: A total of 677 eyes from 608 patients was included. A total of 447 eyes received at least one anti-VEGF injection; 230 eyes never received such therapy. Twenty eyes (4.5%) receiving anti-VEGF had at least one erosion event, compared to 7 eyes (3.0%) of patients not receiving anti-VEGF therapy (OR 1.49, p=0.37). Diabetic macular edema was associated with a significantly increased rate of erosion in eyes not receiving anti-VEGF (71.4% versus 31.4%, p=0.034), but not in eyes receiving anti-VEGF (30.0% versus 40.7%, p=0.34). Receiving more than one specific anti-VEGF agent, an increased frequency or total number of anti-VEGF injections, or receiving intravitreal steroids were not associated with an increased risk of erosion (p> 0.05). Conclusion: In patients with diabetic retinopathy, the use of anti-VEGF does not result in an increased rate of GDD erosions or recurrent erosions. Further research is needed over a longer follow-up period to determine if longer or more frequent anti-VEGF treatment is a risk factor for recurrent erosions.