Jump to:

Scientific Presentations

2019

Bitton E, Srinivasan S, Elder M, Luensmann D, Jones L. Dry Eye Disease (DED) in Canada: A retrospective chart review American Academy of Optometry, Orlando, 2019 [ Show Abstract ]

Purpose: Dry eye disease (DED) is a complex and common condition across populations, with an estimated prevalence ranging between 5 and 50%, affecting females more than males. While numerous epidemiological studies exist, few have focused on DED in a Canadian population. The objective of this retrospective study was to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of DED patients in University-based optometric clinics in Canada.

Methods: Charts of patients with DED were randomly reviewed at the University of Waterloo (UW) using ICD-9 diagnostic codes and at the dry eye clinic, University of Montreal (UM), which only accepts DED referrals. Demographics, health history, symptoms, diagnostic and management options were evaluated.

Results: 200 charts (100/clinic) were reviewed. The cohorts examined were broadly similar, consisting of similar ages (UM 57±15; UW 53±20yrs), were mainly female (76% UM, 72% UW) and used systemic medications frequently (76% UM; 62% UW). Symptom scores (0-100) by OSDI (ocular surface disease index) were: 38 UM; 33 UW. Clinical tests included TBUT (4.9sec UM; 3.9sec UW), cotton thread test (21mm UM; 20mm UW), positive corneal staining (46% UM; 68% UW). Recommended therapies included artificial tears (94% UM; 96% UW), warm compresses (63% UM; 83% UW), lid hygiene (29% UM; 22% UW), and Omega 3 supplementation (47% UM; 42% UW).

Conclusion: This review supports the literature that DED is typically seen with higher age, in females, and patients with systemic disease who use medications which can contribute to iatrogenic DED. No clear association was found between symptoms and signs, underlining the complexity of DED.

Tichenor A, Cofield S, Gann D, Elder M, Ng A, Walsh K, Jones L, Nichols J. Frequency of contact lens complications between contact lens wearers using multipurpose solutions versus hydrogen peroxide in the United States and Canada American Academy of Optometry, Orlando, 2019 [ Show Abstract ]

Purpose: To retrospectively compare frequency and likelihood of contact lens complications in long-term soft contact lens (CL) users of hydrogen peroxide (PXD) and multipurpose solutions (MPS).

Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review study of soft CL patient records. The study was conducted at two academic clinic sites, the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Optometry and CORE, School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Waterloo, and across five private practice clinical sites (three in the US and two in Canada). Records of established, adult soft CL wearers were reviewed from the three most recent full examination visits. Patients must have used the same CL solution technology (either MPS or PXD) documented at the first and last visit for at least three years. Data collected included demographics, CL solution, and any complications for either eye. Univariate analyses were conducted using Chi-Square or Fisher’s Exact test for categorical measures, as applicable. Covariate adjusted logistic regression models were used for categorical outcomes using Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square Test.

Results: In total, there were 1137 subjects included across the seven clinical locations, with 670 (59%) MPS users and 467 (41%) PXD users. The MPS users were 57% female with a mean (±SD) age of 42.9 (±14.7) years. The PXD users were 43% female with a mean age of 43.2
(±14.2) years. At the academic clinic sites, 428 records (38%) were reviewed of which 244 (57%) were MPS users. At the private practice sites, 709 records (62%) were reviewed and 426 (60%) were MPS users. Of all subjects, 706 (62%) experienced at least one complication over three visits; 409 were MPS users and 297 were PXD users. The most common complication was papillae (n=311, 27%) followed by hyperemia (n=242, 21%) and discomfort (n=240, 21%).There was no difference in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one complication over the three visits between MPS (61%) and PXD (64%) users (p=0.38). Nonetheless, MPS users were more likely to report discomfort at least one time over the three visits compared to PXD users (p=0.04). Infectious keratitis was experienced by 25 subjects (2%); 19 were MPS users and 9 were PXD users (p=0.60).

Conclusion: While no differences were found in the frequency of contact lens complications between MPS and PXD users, the ocular surface health benefits of PXD should be considered when determining the best lens care option for patients. In addition, MPS users were more likely to report low levels of discomfort at least once over the time period reviewed. Therefore, PXD may be a beneficial solution alternative in CL users who report discomfort.

Professional Publications

2018

Elder M. Evaluation of Interprofessional Education and Collaboration in Optometry ContactLensUpdate.com 2018

Elder M, Srinivasan S. Tear Osmolarity: an overview Optician 2018;257, 6637: 30-33

Elder M, Srinivasan S. Meibography overview Optician 2018;257, 6634: 26-30

Elder M, Srinivasan S, Jones L. Tear ferning: an overview Optician 2018;258, 6671: 29-32

2017

Elder M. Summary: Epidemiology report ContactLensUpdate.com 2017

Elder M, Srinivasan S, Jones L. A new look at tears Optician 2017, June 2nd: 34-36