Clinical Connection Home
  Welcome To
Clinical Connection
 
Be notified of new studies!
Find Clinical Trials!
Message Board
Share This Page
Conjunctivitis Clinical Trials, Diagnosis, and Treatment
Thank you for your interest in clinical trials for Conjunctivitis.

Please click "Search" to find Conjunctivitis clinical trials and medical research studies or read below for information on Conjunctivitis diagnosis and treatment.

If you receive too many study listings you may enter your zip code to find the locations closest to you.


Any Of These Words:
OR
All Of These Words
OR
This Exact Phrase:
AND
Zip Code:
Distance:
Your Search Returned No Results.
Search results will appear below.
Browse All Available Clinical Trials

Join Now to be Notified of New Clinical Trials

View Information and Clinical Trials for Other Conditions


Conjunctivitis

Conjunctivitis, commonly called "Pink Eye" and "Red Eye" in the UK, and "Madras Eye" in India is an inflammation of the conjunctiva (the outermost layer of the eye and the inner surface of the eyelids), most commonly due to an allergic reaction or an infection (usually bacterial, or viral).

Current Research

For current research articles click - here

Causes

Some forms of conjunctivitis are extremely contagious while others are not. It all depends on the etiology.

Diagnosis

Symptoms

Redness, irritation and watering of the eyes are symptoms common to all forms of conjunctivitis. Itch and the closing of the throat is variable.

Acute allergic conjunctivitis is typically itchy. Sometimes distressingly so, and the patient often complains of some lid swelling. Chronic allergy often causes just itch or irritation, and often much frustration because the absence of redness or discharge can lead to accusations of hypochondria.

Viral conjunctivitis is often associated with an infection of the upper respiratory tract, a common cold, and/or a sore throat. Its symptoms include watery discharge and variable itch. The infection usually begins with one eye, but may spread easily to the fellow eye.

Bacterial conjunctivitis due to the common pyogenic (pus-producing) bacteria causes marked grittiness/irritation and a stringy, opaque, grey or yellowish mucopurulent discharge (gowl, goop, "gunk", "eye crust", sleep, or other regional names) that may cause the lids to stick together (matting), especially after sleeping. Another symptom that could be caused by Bacterial Conjunctivitis is severe crusting of the infected eye and the surrounding skin. However discharge is not essential to the diagnosis, contrary to popular belief. Many other bacteria (e.g., Chlamydia, Moraxella) can cause a non-exudative but very persistent conjunctivitis without much redness. The gritty and/or scratchy feeling is sometimes localised enough for patients to insist they must have a foreign body in the eye. The more acute pyogenic infections can be painful. Like viral conjunctivitis, it usually affects only one eye but may spread easily to the other eye. However, it is dormant in the eye for three days until patient shows signs of symptoms.

Irritant or toxic conjunctivitis is irritable or painful when the infected eye is pointed far down or far up. Discharge and itch are usually absent. This is the only group in which severe pain may occur.

Signs

Infection (redness) of the conjunctiva on one or both eyes should be apparent, but may be quite mild. Except in obvious pyogenic or toxic/chemical conjunctivitis, a slit lamp (biomicroscope) is needed to have any confidence in the diagnosis. Examination of the tarsal conjunctiva is usually more diagnostic than the bulbar conjunctiva.

Allergic conjunctivitis shows pale watery swelling or edema of the conjunctiva and sometimes the whole eyelid, often with a ropy, non-purulent mucoid discharge. There is variable redness.

Viral conjunctivitis, commonly known as "pink eye", shows a fine diffuse pinkness of the conjunctiva which is easily mistaken for the 'ciliary infection' of iritis, but there are usually corroborative signs on biomicroscopy, particularly numerous lymphoid follicles on the tarsal conjunctiva, and sometimes a punctate keratitis.

Pyogenic bacterial conjunctivitis shows an opaque purulent discharge, a very red eye, and on biomicroscopy there are numerous white cells and desquamated epithelial cells seen in the 'tear gutter' along the lid margin. The tarsal conjunctiva is a velvety red and not particularly follicular. Non-pyogenic infections can show just mild injection and be difficult to diagnose. Scarring of the tarsal conjunctiva is occasionally seen in chronic infections, especially in trachoma.

Irritant or toxic conjunctivitis show primarily marked redness. If due to splash injury, it is often present only in the lower conjunctival sac. With some chemicals—above all with caustic alkalis such as sodium hydroxide—there may be necrosis of the conjunctiva with a deceptively white eye due to vascular closure, followed by sloughing of the dead epithelium. This is likely to be associated with slit-lamp evidence of anterior uveitis.

Differential Diagnosis

Conjunctivitis symptoms and signs are relatively non-specific. Even after biomicroscopy, laboratory tests are often necessary if proof of aetiology is needed.

A purulent discharge strongly suggests bacterial cause, unless there is known exposure to toxins. Infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae should be suspected if the discharge is particularly thick and copious.

A diffuse, less "injected" conjunctivitis (looking pink rather than red) suggests a viral cause, especially if numerous follicles are present on the lower tarsal conjunctiva on biomicroscopy.

Scarring of the tarsal conjunctiva suggests trachoma, especially if seen in endemic areas, if the scarring is linear (von Arlt's line), or if there is also corneal vascularisation.

Clinical tests for lagophthalmos, dry eye (Schirmer test) and unstable tear film may help distinguish the various types of dry eye.

Other symptoms including pain, blurring of vision and photophobia should not be prominent in conjunctivitis. Fluctuating blurring is common, due to tearing and mucoid discharge. Mild photophobia is common. However, if any of these symptoms are prominent, it is important to exclude other diseases such as glaucoma, uveitis, keratitis and even meningitis or caroticocavernous fistula.

Many people who have conjunctivitis have trouble opening their eyes in the morning because of the dried mucus on their eyelids. There is often excess mucus over the eye after sleeping for a long period of time.

Investigations

These are done infrequently because most cases of conjunctivitis are treated empirically and (eventually) successfully, but often only after running the gamut of the common possibilities.

Swabs for bacterial culture are necessary if the history & signs suggest bacterial conjunctivitis, but there is no response to topical antibiotics. Research studies indicate that many bacteria implicated in low-grade conjunctivitis are not detected by the usual culture methods of medical microbiology labs, so negative results are common. Viral culture may be appropriate in epidemic case clusters. Conjunctival scrapes for cytology can be useful in detecting chlamydial and fungal infections, allergy and dysplasia, but are rarely done because of the cost and the general lack of laboratory staff experienced in handling ocular specimens. Conjunctival incisional biopsy is occasionally done when granulomatous diseases (e.g., sarcoidosis) or dysplasia are suspected.

Treatment and Management

Conjunctivitis sometimes requires medical attention. The appropriate treatment depends on the cause of the problem. For the allergic type, cool water constricts capillaries, and artificial tears sometimes relieve discomfort in mild cases. In more severe cases, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and antihistamines may be prescribed. Some patients with persistent allergic conjunctivitis may also require topical steroid drops.

Bacterial conjunctivitis is usually treated with antibiotic eye drops or ointments that cover a broad range of bacteria (chloramphenicol or fusidic acid used in UK). However evidence suggests that this does not affect symptom severity and gains only modest reduction in duration from an average of 4.8 days (untreated controls) to 3.3 days for those given immediate antibiotics. Deferring antibiotics yields almost the same duration as those immediately starting treatment with 3.9 days duration, but with half the two-week clinic reattendance rate.

Although there is no cure for viral conjunctivitis, symptomatic relief may be achieved with warm compresses and artificial tears. For the worst cases, topical corticosteroid drops may be prescribed to reduce the discomfort from inflammation. However prolonged usage of corticosteroid drops increases the risk of side effects. Antibiotic drops may also be used for treatment of complementary infections. Patients are often advised to avoid touching their eyes or sharing towels and washcloths. Viral conjunctivitis usually resolves within 3 weeks. However in worst cases it may take over a month.

Conjunctivitis due to burns, toxic and chemical require careful wash-out with saline, especially beneath the lids, and may require topical steroids. The more acute chemical injuries are medical emergencies, particularly alkali burns, which can lead to severe scarring, and intraocular damage. Fortunately, such injuries are uncommon.


(adapted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctivitis)





Findings From Current Research

Tacrolimus Ointment 0.03% in the Eye for Treatment of Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis

Authors: Kymionis GD, Goldman D, Ide T, Yoo SH.

Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. kymionis@med.uoc.gr

PURPOSE: To report a case of refractory giant papillary conjunctivitis (GPC) treated by using topical tacrolimus 0.03% ointment. METHODS: A 16-year-old white boy with a history of GPC was referred to our department for severe GPC with eye itching, tearing, photophobia, discharge, and blepharospasm. The patient had received previous treatments with antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, topical corticosteroid ointments, and surgical resection-cryopexy of GPC that were ineffective. RESULTS: Topical tacrolimus 0.03% ointment (Protopic; 0.5 cm) was applied into the lower fornix twice a day. An improvement of the patient's symptoms was observed during the first 5 days of therapy, and the GPC was resolved within 15 days. After 1 month of continued topical tacrolimus ointment treatment, there was no evidence of GPC. Topical tacrolimus was tapered during the next 2 months. Six months after treatment, there were no GPC findings, and no side effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Topical tacrolimus 0.03% ointment for severe GPC, refractory to conventional therapy, appears to be an effective alternative treatment.

Journal: Cornea. 2008 Feb;27(2):228-9.
Adapted from PubMed; click here to access full journal article.




Evaluation of the Effects of Plopatadine Ophthalmic Solution, 0.2% on the Ocular Surface of Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis and Dry Eye

Authors: Mah FS, O'Brien T, Kim T, Torkildsen G.

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

PURPOSE: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% (Pataday, Alcon, Fort Worth, USA) is a topical ocular anti-allergic agent that has shown high rates of efficacy in treating ocular itching, the primary symptom of allergic conjunctivitis, and allows for once-daily dosing. Since some patients suffer from signs or symptoms of dry eye in addition to ocular allergy, this study was designed to evaluate the safety of olopatadine 0.2% in a population of patients with both allergic conjunctivitis and dry eye. METHODS: This was a single-center, 3-visit, double-masked, randomized study. Fifty-two patients diagnosed with ocular allergy and mild-to-moderate dry eye were evaluated. After a run-in period, patients were randomized to receive either olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% or a tear saline, and self-dosed once-daily for 1 week. Outcome measures included tear film break-up time, corneal and conjunctival staining, tear volume and flow as measured by fluorophotometry, Schirmer's test, injection, and symptom evaluations. RESULTS: No significant differences between the treatment groups were observed (p > 0.05). No serious adverse events occurred during the trial. Variability in the presentation of dry eye can hinder the observation of treatment effects. Although the study design facilitated the comparison of olopatadine 0.2% against an agent that was certain to not exacerbate dry eye, future comparison of olopatadine 0.2% against other agents in its drug class would provide useful information about relative drug tolerabilities. CONCLUSION: As there were no significant changes in the signs and symptoms of dry eye, olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% is safe to use in ocular allergy patients with mild-to-moderate dry eye.

Journal: Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Feb;24(2):441-7.
Adapted from PubMed; click here to access full journal article.




Perception and Quality of Life Associated with the use of Olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday) in Patients with Active Allergic Conjunctivitis

Authors: Scoper SV, Berdy GJ, Lichtenstein SJ, Rubin JM, Bloomenstein M, Prouty RE, Vogelson CT, Edwards MR, Waycaster C, Pasquine T, Gross RD, Robertson SM.

Virginia Eye Consultants, Norfolk, Virginia 23507, USA. sscoper@vec2020.com

This 28-d, open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical study was designed to evaluate perceptions of olopatadine 0.2% in patients with active ocular allergic signs and symptoms. The study enrolled 330 patients, 5 to 94 y of age, who had previously used olopatadine 0.1% for active allergic conjunctivitis. Most patients were white (n=230; 70.1%) and female (n=239; 72.9%). Of all enrolled patients, 328 were evaluable for analysis. Throughout the study, patients instilled 1 drop of olopatadine 0.2% into each eye once daily; adverse events were documented and ocular evaluations were conducted to ensure patient safety. Direct evaluations of efficacy were not performed. On days 1 and 7, patients completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, recorded their perceptions of olopatadine 0.1% (day 1) or 0.2% (day 7), and had their ocular allergies assessed globally. On each of the first 6 d of treatment, patients also completed a telephone-based perception questionnaire. On day 28, patients returned to the study center, reported their treatment perceptions, had their ocular allergies assessed, and exited the trial. Overall, patients had a positive perception of olopatadine 0.2%. Patients were more satisfied with olopatadine 0.2% than they remembered being with olopatadine 0.1% (289 vs 257 patients; 87.6% vs 77.8%; P<.05). The majority of the 48 patients who wore contact lenses (n=42; 88%) believed that they could wear their contacts as desired. Significant improvement was noted in all categories of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (P<.0001). No unexpected safety findings were reported. Patients perceived olopatadine 0.2% to be effective and well tolerated.

Journal: Adv Ther. 2007 Nov-Dec;24(6):1221-32.
Adapted from PubMed; click here to access full journal article.




Treating the Ocular Component of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and Related Eye Disorders

Authors: Bielory L, Katelaris CH, Lightman S, Naclerio RM.

UMDNJ, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA. bielory@umdnj.edu

CONTEXT: Allergy symptoms that affect the eyes are common in adults and children worldwide, and are often associated with nasal allergy symptoms, prompting the term 'rhinoconjunctivitis' to describe the condition. However, this condition has not always been recognized, and earlier literature reported allergic conjunctivitis only within a subset of nasal allergy patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: To assess the current state of ocular allergy epidemiology, pathophysiology, and currently available treatment options, we performed a MEDLINE search for articles regarding ocular allergy, rhinoconjunctivitis, vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC), atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC), and giant papillary conjunctivitis (GPC). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The more severe forms of ocular allergy are not only distressing, but can also threaten a patient's vision. Each type of ocular allergy is associated with ocular redness, itching, and tearing; however, AKC and VKC can threaten the cornea, and research has revealed that involvement of different immune cell populations (mast cells, eosinophils, and lymphocytes) may cause these more severe symptoms. A variety of treatment options exist to control ocular allergy symptoms. Nonpharmacologic options include allergen avoidance and lubrication with saline, and if these fail to be sufficiently effective, symptom relief may be provided by medicinal agents that are either applied topically to the eye or taken orally. Recent evidence suggests that nasal allergy treatments applied topically to the nose may also positively affect ocular allergy symptoms, which raises the interesting possibility that a parasympathetic nasal-ocular neural reflex pathway may be involved in the stimulation of allergic responses in the eye. CONCLUSIONS: Ocular allergy is underdiagnosed and has a significant impact on the life of the patient. It is vital to reach a better understanding of ocular allergic mechanisms and inflammation, which may lead to improved treatment.

Journal: MedGenMed. 2007 Aug 15;9(3):35.
Adapted from PubMed; click here to access full journal article.




Role of Rigid Gas-Permeable Scleral Contact Lenses in the Management of Advanced Atopic Keratoconjunctivitis

Authors: Margolis R, Thakrar V, Perez VL.

Cornea Service, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

PURPOSE: To describe the use of rigid gas-permeable scleral contact lenses (ScCL) in the treatment and visual rehabilitation of patients with medically controlled advanced atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC). METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 10 eyes with medically controlled advanced AKC whose treatment included the use of ScCL for protection of the cornea from the ocular surface environment and visual rehabilitation. Outcomes measured were changes in biomicroscopic findings and visual acuity. RESULTS: Median follow-up period after ScCL fitting was 20.5 months (range, 14-32 months). An improvement in conjunctival hyperemia and corneal epithelial defects was observed in all eyes. Median best-corrected visual acuity before ScCL was logMAR 0.651 (Snellen 20/90; range, 20/45-20/400). After proper ScCL fitting, median logMAR visual acuity was 0.239 (Snellen 20/35; range, 20/20-20/50; P = 0.001). All patients gained at least 1 line of vision after initiation of ScCL, and 9 of 10 eyes experienced an improvement of at least 2 lines of vision. ScCL use was well tolerated by all patients, and no complications or infections occurred as a result of ScCL wear. CONCLUSIONS: Rigid gas-permeable ScCL are useful and safe to use in the management of the ocular surface and in the visual rehabilitation of eyes with medically controlled advanced AKC.

Journal: Cornea. 2007 Oct;26(9):1032-4.
Adapted from PubMed; click here to access full journal article.




Join Now - Become a free member and get notified about studies in your area when they become available.

Browse Our Current Studies - Look over all of our current studies being conducted throughout the United States.

View Information and Clinical Trials for Other Conditions - Access all of our health-related content.
Depression - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


Asthma in African Americans - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


Diabetes (Insulin Delivery) - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


Genital Warts - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


Atrial Fibrillation (Lovaza) - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


ADHD in Children and Adolescents - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


B-Cell Lymphoma - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


Treatment Resistant Depression - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


Brain Tumors and Brain Cancers - NATIONWIDE
in NATIONWIDE,


 


© 1998-2008 Clinical Trials Home | Links | Terms And Conditions | Sitemap | Suggestion/Feedback
All trademarks are property of their legal owners. | All Rights Reserved

ClinicalConnection.com is a resource that provides individuals with information regarding clinical trials that are being conducted nationwide.
ClinicalConnection.com does not conduct these clinical trials nor endorse them. Please consult your doctor or physician before participating.