Practice Patterns and Clinician Opinions for Treatment of Ocular Rosacea
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved..
PURPOSE: Management of ocular rosacea is challenged by the limited evidence-based systemic treatment guidelines and lack of elucidated mechanisms of treatment efficacy.
METHODS: We conducted an online survey of clinicians who regularly treat ocular rosacea to elicit their opinions on treatment algorithms and understanding of the treatment's primary mechanism of action. Descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons were reported.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two participants completed the online survey. Of the 132 respondents, 74% were cornea specialists. Most respondents (85%) favored systemic tetracyclines over macrolides. Providers' specialty training did not significantly influence preference between tetracyclines and macrolides for ocular rosacea management. Among tetracycline prescribers, there was no consensus regarding initial dosage and duration prescribing patterns. Most macrolide prescribers (88%) initiated a 3-week course of 1 gram of azithromycin weekly. Long-term management strategy for treatment-responsive patients varied: 46% preferred to half the initial dose, 29% discontinued pharmacotherapy, and 16% chronically pulse-dosed patients. Most tetracycline prescribers (90%) and macrolide prescribers (73%) postulate their chosen agents' primary mechanism of effect for ocular rosacea is anti-inflammatory. However, there was no consensus in identifying anti-inflammatory doses of either drug class. Furthermore, there is discordance between prescribers' intended mechanistic effect with the selection of initial dosages for both tetracycline and macrolides for ocular rosacea.
CONCLUSIONS: Among clinicians who commonly treat ocular rosacea, there is significant community equipoise regarding which dose of tetracycline is best for initial systemic treatment of this disease. In addition, a consensus understanding regarding mechanism of action of this treatment is lacking.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:42 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Cornea - 42(2023), 11 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 1349-1354 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Kaur, Gurbani [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Anti-Bacterial Agents |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 20.12.2023 Date Revised 20.12.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1097/ICO.0000000000003157 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM347127428 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM347127428 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231227134705.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003157 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1233.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM347127428 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36197332 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kaur, Gurbani |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Practice Patterns and Clinician Opinions for Treatment of Ocular Rosacea |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 20.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 20.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a PURPOSE: Management of ocular rosacea is challenged by the limited evidence-based systemic treatment guidelines and lack of elucidated mechanisms of treatment efficacy | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: We conducted an online survey of clinicians who regularly treat ocular rosacea to elicit their opinions on treatment algorithms and understanding of the treatment's primary mechanism of action. Descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons were reported | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two participants completed the online survey. Of the 132 respondents, 74% were cornea specialists. Most respondents (85%) favored systemic tetracyclines over macrolides. Providers' specialty training did not significantly influence preference between tetracyclines and macrolides for ocular rosacea management. Among tetracycline prescribers, there was no consensus regarding initial dosage and duration prescribing patterns. Most macrolide prescribers (88%) initiated a 3-week course of 1 gram of azithromycin weekly. Long-term management strategy for treatment-responsive patients varied: 46% preferred to half the initial dose, 29% discontinued pharmacotherapy, and 16% chronically pulse-dosed patients. Most tetracycline prescribers (90%) and macrolide prescribers (73%) postulate their chosen agents' primary mechanism of effect for ocular rosacea is anti-inflammatory. However, there was no consensus in identifying anti-inflammatory doses of either drug class. Furthermore, there is discordance between prescribers' intended mechanistic effect with the selection of initial dosages for both tetracycline and macrolides for ocular rosacea | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Among clinicians who commonly treat ocular rosacea, there is significant community equipoise regarding which dose of tetracycline is best for initial systemic treatment of this disease. In addition, a consensus understanding regarding mechanism of action of this treatment is lacking | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Tetracycline |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a F8VB5M810T |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Anti-Bacterial Agents |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Tetracyclines |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Macrolides |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Anti-Inflammatory Agents |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Redd, Travis K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Seitzman, Gerami D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Cornea |d 1989 |g 42(2023), 11 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 1349-1354 |w (DE-627)NLM012620696 |x 1536-4798 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:42 |g year:2023 |g number:11 |g day:01 |g month:11 |g pages:1349-1354 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000003157 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 42 |j 2023 |e 11 |b 01 |c 11 |h 1349-1354 | ||