The current evidence on whether annual diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening intervals can be extended was reviewed. A systematic review protocol was followed (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022359590). Original longitudinal articles that specifically assessed DR screening intervals were in English and collected data after 2000 were included. Two reviewers independently conducted the search and reviewed the articles for quality and relevant information. The heterogeneity of the data meant that a meta-analysis was not appropriate. Twelve publications were included. Studies were of good quality and many used data from DR screening programs. Studies fit into three categories; those that assessed specific DR screening intervals, those that determined optimal DR screening intervals and those that developed/assessed DR screening risk equations. For those with type 2 diabetes, extending screening intervals to 3- to 4-yearly in those with no baseline DR appeared safe. DR risk equations considered clinical factors and allocated those at lower risk of DR progression screening intervals of up to five years. Those with baseline DR or type 1 diabetes appeared to have a higher risk of progression to STDR and needed more frequent screening. DR screening intervals can be extended to 3-5 yearly in certain circumstances. These include patients with type 2 diabetes and no current DR, and those who have optimal management of other risk factors such as glucose and blood pressure.

Central retinal vein occlusion and branch retinal vein occlusion are common causes of visual loss due to associated macular oedema. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions improving vision and treating macular oedema in central retinal vein occlusion and branch retinal vein occlusion.
Medical search engines and clinical trial registries were systematically searched. Randomised clinical trials with ≥90 eyes and real-world outcome studies with ≥100 eyes each with ≥6 months follow-up were included.
There were 11 randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for central retinal vein occlusion which met the inclusion criteria and 10 for branch retinal vein occlusion. There were 10 real world outcome studies of central retinal vein occlusion and 5 real world outcome studies of branch retinal vein occlusion. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that met the defined inclusion criteria. Main outcomes were change in visual acuity at 6-, 12-, 24- and 36 months by treatment.
Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial derived growth factor is recommended as first line treatment over intravitreal corticosteroid due to its effectiveness and lower rate of ocular adverse events. Best outcomes are achieved when intravitreal treatment is started early. Macular laser may have an adjunctive role in branch retina vein occlusion but not central retinal vein occlusion.

Systemic administration of agents that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and therefore vascular proliferation is often used to treat various cancers. However, these agents are associated with a number of side effects, including proteinuria and renal injury. Intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents has become the cornerstone of macular disease treatment. Since these agents cross the blood-retina barrier and enter the circulation, systemic side effects have been reported. We report the novel case of a 57-year-old patient who presented with macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion, underwent three monthly loading-dose injections with the anti-VEGF agent ranibizumab, and 2 weeks after the second injection presented with biopsy-verified membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis. Twelve weeks after presenting with renal failure and 10 weeks after his last anti-VEGF injection, the patient demonstrated spontaneous recovery of his kidney function. The patient had a history that promoted renal fragility, including hypertension, liver transplantation 6 years earlier for alcohol-related cirrhosis and new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplant. Our literature review and case suggest that although adverse renal events after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections are very rare, ophthalmologists and nephrologists should be aware of this risk.

The prevalence of diabetes is rapidly increasing, and it is now the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Although early detection of diabetic retinopathy is key to preventing vision loss, many patients do not receive appropriate examinations. Using a multidisciplinary approach, primary care physicians and eye care providers should follow evidence-based recommendations for screening and monitoring diabetic patients while working to improve patients\' glycaemic index, blood pressure, and metabolic risk factors. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injections in combination with panretinal photocoagulation and focal laser treatment remain the cornerstones of modern therapy. The many landmark studies for diabetic eye disease management should guide counselling and decision making for treating diabetic macular oedema, proliferative retinopathy and other diabetes-related eye diseases.

OBJECTIVE: Although taxanes are a frequently used group of chemotherapy agents, they can, rarely, lead to macular oedema. The purpose of this article is to review and communicate, in an integrated way, the data of the cases previously reported in the literature, as well as to present a new case.
METHODS: Narrative review of reports of cases of macular oedema associated with taxanes, and communication of the clinical case of a 73-year-old woman who, after treatment with paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, developed macular oedema that disappeared after discontinuing the drug.
RESULTS: The review included 57 cases with data from 109 eyes collected in 52 articles. The large majority (76.79%) of the cases were women, and the mean age was 58.75 years. The cancer that most frequently motivated the treatment was breast cancer (60.72%), and 92.5% of cases had metastases. The most frequently associated drug was paclitaxel (52.63%). The median time to symptom development was 4.25 months. At the initial examination, 92.86% of the cases had bilateral oedema and the mean visual acuity was 0.4 (decimal scale). The mean macular thickness was 509.63 microns, and 97.83% of the eyes had no or minimal angiographic findings. In 90.57% of the cases, the treatment with taxanes was interrupted, and some other treatment was used in 43.86% of the cases, with the most widely used being acetazolamide. The outcome was favourable, to a greater or lesser extent, in 96.23% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite being a rare entity, macular oedema associated with the use of taxanes is a disorder that every oncologist and ophthalmologist should be aware of, taking into account the good outcome of the condition that usually occurs when treatment is suspended.

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).
Systematic review and meta-analysis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 10 December 2019, without language restrictions.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observation studies comparing the efficacy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of patients with RVO, naïve or almost naïve to both arms, were included.
Two reviewers independently extracted data for mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and product safety. Review Manager V.5.3 and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.
Four RCTs and 12 real-world studies were included. An average lower letter gain in BCVA was determined for the DEX implant (mean difference (MD) = -6.59; 95% CI -8.87 to -4.22 letters) administered at a retreatment interval of 5-6 months. Results were similar (MD6 months=-12.68; 95% CI -21.98 to -3.37 letters; MD12 months=-9.69; 95% CI -12.01 to -7.37 letters) at 6 and 12 months. The DEX implant resulted in comparable or marginally less CST reduction at months 6 and 12 but introduced relatively higher risks of elevated intraocular pressure (RR=3.89; 95% CI 2.16 to 7.03) and cataract induction (RR=5.22; 95% CI 1.67 to 16.29). Most real-life studies reported an insignificant numerical gain in letters for anti-VEGF drugs relative to that for DEX implant. However, the latter achieved comparable efficacy with a 4-month dosage interval.
Compared with anti-VEGF agents, DEX implant required fewer injections but had inferior functional efficacy and safety. Real-life trials supplemented the efficacy data for DEX implant.

Cavitations in the inner nuclear layer associated with severe optic atrophy and loss of retinal ganglion cells have clinically been termed microcystic macular oedema (MME). We describe a case series of MME in patients of all ages but predominantly younger patients with a wide range of optic atrophies ranging from acute onset optic disc drusen associated ischemic optic neuropathy to slowly progressive disease as glaucoma. There were no physical distinctions between MME in different causes of optic atrophy suggesting a common causative mechanism. We reviewed the literature on MME and it appears that MME is associated with more severe visual loss, and is more common in hereditary optic neuropathies and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disease rather than in patients with optic atrophy secondary to multiple sclerosis and glaucoma. Three main causative mechanisms have been proposed, including increased vitreal traction on the macular as the ganglion cells are lost. Others have suggested that trans-synaptic loss of cells in the inner nuclear layer causes formation of empty spaces or cavities. Finally, some have hypothesized a disturbance in the fluid homeostasis of the inner retina as Müller cells are lost or their function is impaired. There are no known treatments of MME. In conclusion, MME seems to be a marker of severe optic nerve atrophy irrespective of the underlying cause.

OBJECTIVE: To review systematically the randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence for treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, CENTRAL and meeting abstracts (January 2005 to March 2013).
METHODS: RCTs with at least 12 months of follow-up assessing pharmacological treatments for CRVO were included with no language restrictions.
METHODS: 2 authors screened titles and abstracts and conducted data extracted and Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was not possible due to lack of comparable studies.
RESULTS: 8 studies (35 articles, 1714 eyes) were included, assessing aflibercept (n=2), triamcinolone (n=2), bevacizumab (n=1), pegaptanib (n=1), dexamethasone (n=1) and ranibizumab (n=1). In general, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept and triamcinolone resulted in clinically significant increases in the proportion of participants with an improvement in visual acuity of ≥15 letters, with 40-60% gaining ≥15 letters on active drugs, compared to 12-28% with sham. Results for pegaptanib and dexamethasone were mixed. Steroids were associated with cataract formation and increased intraocular pressure. No overall increase in adverse events was found with bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept or pegaptanib compared with control. Quality of life was poorly reported. All studies had a low or unclear risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: All studies evaluated a relatively short primary follow-up (1 year or less). Most had an unmasked extension phase. There was no head-to-head evidence. The majority of participants included had non-ischaemic CRVO.
CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept and triamcinolone appear to be effective in treating macular oedema secondary to CRVO. Long-term data on effectiveness and safety are needed. Head-to-head trials and research to identify \'responders\' is needed to help clinicians make the right choices for their patients. Research aimed to improve sight in people with ischaemic CRVO is required.

Retinal vein occlusions are important causes of loss of vision; indeed, they are the second most common retinal vascular disease, following diabetic retinopathy. For this reason alone, primary eye-care providers must be well versed in diagnosis and management. Risk factors, though not universally agreed upon, include but are not limited to advancing age, systemic hypertension, arteriolarsclerosis, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, blood hyperviscosity, thrombophilia, ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Typically, visual loss is secondary to macular oedema and/or retinal ischaemia. Treatment modalities have included observation, systemic thrombolysis and haemodilution, radial optic neurotomy, chorioretinal anastomosis, vitrectomy, laser photocoagulation and intravitreal injection of anti-inflammatory and, most recently, anti-vascular endothelial growth factors.