Person:

Wang, Haobing

Purpose.

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical pazopanib in the treatment of corneal neovascularization (CNV).

Methods.

Twenty eyes of 20 patients with stable CNV were enrolled in a prospective, open label, noncomparative study and treated with topical pazopanib 0.5% for 3 weeks, and followed for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was to determine the tolerability and safety of topical pazopanib in the treatment of CNV defined by the occurrence of ocular and systemic adverse events during the study. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the effect of topical pazopanib on the reduction of (1) neovascular area (NA), defined as the area of the corneal vessels themselves, (2) invasion area (IA), defined as the fraction of the total cornea into which the vessels extend, (3) vessel length (VL), defined as the mean measurement of the extent of vessels from end to end, and (4) vessel caliber (VC), defined as the mean diameter of the corneal vessels.

Results.

There were no severe adverse events following the use of topical pazopanib. Compared with the baseline visit, NA and VL showed a statistically significant decrease at week 3 (P = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively); and NA, IA, and VL statistically significantly decreased at week 12 (P = 0.03, 0.04, and <0.01, respectively). Visual acuity maintained without changes after the 12 week follow-up.

Conclusions.

This preliminary study suggests that topical treatment with pazopanib 0.5% is safe, well tolerated, and may have a role as an alternative for the treatment of CNV (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01257750).

Purpose.

To develop and validate a novel automated system to assess ocular redness (OR) in clinical images.

Methods.

We developed a novel software that quantifies OR in digital images based on a mathematic algorithm using a centesimal continuous scoring scale. Subsequently, we conducted a study to validate the scores obtained with this system by correlating them with those obtained by two physicians using two image-based comparative subjective scales, the Efron and the Validated Bulbar Redness (VBR) grading scales. Additionally, we evaluated the level of clinical agreement between the Ocular Redness Index (ORI) score and the two image-based methods by means of the Bland-Altman analysis. Main outcome measures included correlation and level of agreement between the ORI score, Efron score, and the VBR score.

Results.

One hundred and two clinical photographs of eyes with OR were evaluated. The ORI scores significantly correlated with the scores obtained by the two clinicians using the Efron (Observer 1, R = 0.925, P < 0.001; Observer 2, R = 0.857, P < 0.001), and VBR (Observer 1, R = 0.830, P < 0.001; Observer 2, R = 0.821, P < 0.001) scales. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed levels of disagreement of up to 30 and 27 units for the ORI–Efron and ORI–VBR score comparisons, respectively.

Conclusions.

The ORI provides an objective and continuous scale for evaluating ocular injection in an automated manner, and without need for a trained physician for scoring. The ORI may be used as a new alternative for objective OR evaluation in clinics and in clinical trials.