Penny A Asbell1, Scott Spiegel. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. penny.asbell@mssm.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand ophthalmologists' current perceptions and treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe dry eye disease (DED). SETTING: Online survey. METHODS: The online survey was sent to 7,882 ophthalmologists, including 51 corneal specialists, throughout the United States from October 9 to 21, 2008. The response rate was 3.1% (n = 245), typical for this type of survey. Only ophthalmologists who treated four or more moderate-to-severe DED patients per month (235 of 245 [96%]) were asked to complete the survey. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent of respondents agreed that more treatment options are needed for moderate-to-severe DED. Corneal specialists were more likely to strongly agree (63%) than general ophthalmologists (54%). Only 33% overall felt that current therapies were extremely or very effective for moderate DED and only 5% for severe disease. Ninety-two percent agreed that multiple therapeutic agents are needed to manage moderate-to-severe DED. The respondents prescribed or recommended a mean of 3.2 different treatments (standard deviation = 1.2) for moderate DED patients over the course of a year and 4.9 (standard deviation = 2.2) for patients with severe DED. The most highly ranked goals for treatment of moderate-to-severe DED patients were maintaining and protecting the ocular surface (ranked 1 or 2 x 74%) and lubricating and hydrating the ocular surface (ranked 1 or 2 x 67%). Corneal specialists ranked maintaining and protecting the ocular surface even more highly (ranked 1 or 2 x 82%). CONCLUSIONS: Results reflected the difficulty of treating moderate-to-severe DED, the importance of using multiple treatment approaches, the limitations of current treatment options, and the need for additional treatment options.
PURPOSE: To understand ophthalmologists' current perceptions and treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe dry eye disease (DED). SETTING: Online survey. METHODS: The online survey was sent to 7,882 ophthalmologists, including 51 corneal specialists, throughout the United States from October 9 to 21, 2008. The response rate was 3.1% (n = 245), typical for this type of survey. Only ophthalmologists who treated four or more moderate-to-severe DED patients per month (235 of 245 [96%]) were asked to complete the survey. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent of respondents agreed that more treatment options are needed for moderate-to-severe DED. Corneal specialists were more likely to strongly agree (63%) than general ophthalmologists (54%). Only 33% overall felt that current therapies were extremely or very effective for moderate DED and only 5% for severe disease. Ninety-two percent agreed that multiple therapeutic agents are needed to manage moderate-to-severe DED. The respondents prescribed or recommended a mean of 3.2 different treatments (standard deviation = 1.2) for moderate DED patients over the course of a year and 4.9 (standard deviation = 2.2) for patients with severe DED. The most highly ranked goals for treatment of moderate-to-severe DED patients were maintaining and protecting the ocular surface (ranked 1 or 2 x 74%) and lubricating and hydrating the ocular surface (ranked 1 or 2 x 67%). Corneal specialists ranked maintaining and protecting the ocular surface even more highly (ranked 1 or 2 x 82%). CONCLUSIONS: Results reflected the difficulty of treating moderate-to-severe DED, the importance of using multiple treatment approaches, the limitations of current treatment options, and the need for additional treatment options.
Authors: Carlos Belmonte; Jason J Nichols; Stephanie M Cox; James A Brock; Carolyn G Begley; David A Bereiter; Darlene A Dartt; Anat Galor; Pedram Hamrah; Jason J Ivanusic; Deborah S Jacobs; Nancy A McNamara; Mark I Rosenblatt; Fiona Stapleton; James S Wolffsohn Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Aileen Sy; Stephen D McLeod; Elisabeth J Cohen; Todd P Margolis; Mark J Mannis; Thomas M Lietman; Nisha R Acharya Journal: Cornea Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Vatinee Y Bunya; Karen B Fernandez; Gui-Shuang Ying; Mina Massaro-Giordano; Ilaria Macchi; Michael E Sulewski; Kristin M Hammersmith; Parveen K Nagra; Christopher J Rapuano; Stephen E Orlin Journal: Eye Contact Lens Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.018
Authors: Eduardo M Rocha; Giovanni Di Pasquale; Paola Perez Riveros; Kathrina Quinn; Beverly Handelman; John A Chiorini Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Alyssa M Flores; Scott D Casey; Christian M Felix; Puay W Phuan; A S Verkman; Marc H Levin Journal: FASEB J Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Zahra Sadrai; William Stevenson; Andre Okanobo; Yihe Chen; Thomas H Dohlman; Jing Hua; Francisco Amparo; Sunil K Chauhan; Reza Dana Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 4.799