Purpose: To study the short-term intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect and optic nerve head (ONH) blood flow improvement after switching from latanoprost 0.005% w/v to latanoprostene bunod 0.024% w/v. Methods: This prospective study ran from May 2022 to December 2022 and included 40 patients with open-angle glaucoma who switched from latanoprost 0.005% w/v to latanoprostene bunod 0.024% w/v. The IOP, ONH blood flow, and conjunctival hyperemia, corneal erosion, and eyelid pigmentation status were measured 3 months after switching. We recorded all possible side effects. Results: The baseline IOP significantly dropped from 17.53 ± 6.49 to 16.00 ± 8.06 mmHg at 3 months (p = 0.032). The best-corrected visual acuity did not significantly change (0.24 ± 0.19 to 0.23 ± 0.16); neither did eyelid pigmentation (1.16 ± 0.78 to 1.16 ± 0.82) nor the corneal erosion score (0.58 ± 0.85 to 0.39 ± 0.76). Conjunctival hyperemia significantly decreased from 2.00 ± 0.69 to 1.67 ± 0.63 (p = 0.010). Neither the whole-image vessel density nor the peripapillary vessel density significantly changed. However, pruritus became significantly worse after the change (p = 0.008). Conclusions In the short term, latanoprostene bunod 0.024% w/v lowered the IOP more effectively than did latanoprost 0.005% w/v. However, there was no significant change in ONH blood flow after the switch.

Purpose: We present a case of spontaneous toric intraocular lens (IOL) rotation in the late postoperative period (after 10 months).Case summary: A 44-year-old male underwent phacoemulsification and placement of an IOL (AcrySof IQ Toric, Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, FL, USA) in the right eye. The preoperative best corrected visual acuities (BCVAs) were 0.2 in the right eye and 0.3 in the left eye, and the corneal astigmatisms -2.25 × 175° and -2.25 × 178°. Ten months later, the astigmatic IOL axis was 85° (the initial [correct] value). The BCVA after surgery was 1.0. At 11 months postoperatively, the patient presented with a sudden decrease in visual acuity in the right eye. The IOL had rotated 50° clockwise; we decided to reposition it. A capsular tension ring had been placed during surgery. The IOL was re-aligned but rotated again 1 week later. We replaced the IOL with a monofocal non-toric IOL (enVista MX60, Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY, USA). Conclusions Severe toric IOL rotation is a late postoperative complication.

Purpose: The corona virus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in mandatory masking of patients and physicians during outpatient visits. This study evaluated the changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) according to mask use. Methods: This prospective study enrolled 30 healthy volunteers (60 eyes). IOP was measured via Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) for the subjects wearing one of four commonly used masks: dental, bi-folding Korean Filter (KF)94, tri-folding KF94, and dust masks. Subjects with IOP measurement errors of more than 5 mmHg were rechecked with another GAT type. Results: The mean IOP measured via GAT before mask wearing was 13.7 ± 1.7 mmHg. It was 13.5 ± 2.1, 14.0 ± 2.3, 14.3 ± 2.5, and 13.8 ± 1.6 mmHg with the dental, bi-folding KF94, tri-folding KF94, and dust masks, respectively. There were no significant differences in IOP according to mask type (p = 0.635). IOP errors above 5 mmHg were detected in three subjects who had contact between the GAT feeler arm and tri-folding KF94 mask during IOP measurement. Conclusions The IOP as measured via GAT is artificially elevated by mechanical interference from the tri-fold KF94 mask. To minimize such mask-induced artifacts in GAT measurements, compress the patient’s mask or change the mask type to prevent any contact during measurement.

Background/Aims: Prokinetics such as mosapride citrate CR (conventional-release; Gasmotin) are commonly used in functional dyspepsia (FD). This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-a-day mosapride citrate SR (DWJ1252), a sustained-release formulation of mosapride citrate, compared with mosapride citrate CR 3 times a day, in patients with FD. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study, 119 patients with FD (by the Rome III criteria, 60 for mosapride citrate SR and 59 for mosapride citrate CR) were randomly allocated to mosapride citrate SR once daily or mosapride citrate CR thrice daily for 4 weeks in 16 medical institutions. Primary end point was the change in gastrointestinal symptom (GIS) score from baseline, assessed by GIS questionnaires on 5-point Likert scale after 4-week treatment. Secondary end points and safety profiles were also analyzed. Results: The study included 51 and 49 subjects in the mosapride citrate SR and mosapride citrate CR groups, respectively. GIS scores at week 4 were significantly reduced in both groups (mean ± SD: − 10.04 ± 4.45 and − 10.86 ± 5.53 in the mosapride citrate SR and mosapride citrate CR groups, respectively; P < 0.001), and the GIS changes from baseline did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, 0.82 point; 95% CI, − 1.17, 2.81; P = 0.643). Changes in GIS at weeks 2 and 4 and quality of life at week 4, and the improvement rates of global assessments at weeks 2 and 4, did not differ between the groups. Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups, and there were no serious adverse events. Conclusion In patients with FD, mosapride citrate SR once daily is as effective as mosapride citrate CR thrice daily, with a similar safety profile.

Purpose: To determine whether travoprost 0.003% has a similar intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction effect to that of travoprost 0.004% while reducing side effects. Methods: This was a prospective study from January 2018 to December 2018 that included 102 patients diagnosed with open angle glaucoma who switched from travoprost 0.004% to travoprost 0.003%. We investigated the changes in IOP, conjunctival hyperemia, corneal erosion, and eyelid pigmentation before and at 3 months after switching to travoprost 0.003%. Additionally, a questionnaire survey of these patients was conducted to determine possible side effects, including hyperemia, stinging, pruritus, irritation, blurred vision, dryness, and foreign body sensation. Results: IOP readings before and after switching to travoprost 0.003% were 12.95 ± 4.25 and 12.94 ± 3.89 mmHg, respectively, showing no significant change (p = 0.974). No changes were observed in corneal erosion or eyelid pigmentation; however, conjunctival hyperemia was reduced significantly from 1.60 ± 0.88 to 1.36 ± 0.84 (p = 0.001). No significant changes in hyperemia, stinging, pruritus, irritation, or foreign body sensation were reported; however, a significant improvement was noted for blurred vision and dryness (p = 0.008, p = 0.007, respectively). Conclusions We were able to show the effectiveness and safety of travoprost 0.003% as being as effective as travoprost 0.004% in reducing IOP and injections while improving blurred vision and dryness.