Federal Practitioner

Tixagevimab copackaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is a safe and effective preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in patients undergoing B-cell-depleting therapies who have poor immune response to COVID-19 vaccination and are at high risk for serious COVID-19 illness, a small, single-site study suggests.

Evusheld, the only COVID-19 PrEP option available, has Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of immunocompromised patients who may not respond sufficiently to COVID-19 vaccination and patients who’ve had a severe adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination.

“We report the largest real-world experience of Evusheld in this population, and our findings are encouraging,” lead study author Cassandra Calabrese, DO, rheumatologist and infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“Of 412 patients who received Evusheld, 12 [2.9%] developed breakthrough COVID-19, with 11 having mild courses and 1 who required hospitalization but recovered,” she added.

“Our data suggest that Evusheld PrEP, in combination with aggressive outpatient treatment of COVID-19, is likely effective in lowering risk of severe COVID in this vulnerable group.

“Practitioners who care for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases should triage high-risk patients for Evusheld as well as rapid diagnosis and aggressive outpatient therapy if infected,” Dr. Calabrese advised.

For the study, Dr. Calabrese and colleagues at Cleveland Clinic searched the health care system pharmacy records for patients with immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) or inborn errors of humoral immunity (IEI) who met the criteria to receive Evusheld. The researchers included patients on B-cell-depleting therapies or with humoral IEI who had received at least one dose of Evusheld and were later diagnosed with COVID-19, and they excluded those treated with B-cell-depleting therapies for cancer.
 

EVUSHELD was well tolerated

After extracting data on COVID-19 infection, vaccination status, and outcomes, they found that, between Jan. 18 and May 28, 2022, 412 patients with IMIDs or humoral IEI received Evusheld. No deaths occurred among these patients and, overall, they tolerated the medication well.

All 12 patients who experienced breakthrough COVID-19 infection were treated with B-cell-depleting therapies. Among the 12 patients:

• Six patients developed infection 13-84 (median 19) days after receiving 150 mg/150 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab.
• Six patients developed infection 19-72 (median of 38.5) days after either a single dose of 300 mg/300 mg or a second dose of 150 mg/150 mg.
• Eleven patients had mild illness and recovered at home; one patient was hospitalized and treated with high-flow oxygen. All cases had been vaccinated against COVID-19 (five received two vaccinations, six received three, and one received four).
• One possible serious adverse event involved a patient with COVID-19 and immune-mediated thrombocytopenia (ITP) who was hospitalized soon after receiving Evusheld with ITP flare that resolved with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Dr. Calabrese acknowledged limitations to the study, including few patients, lack of a comparator group, and the study period falling during the Omicron wave.

“Also, nine of the breakthrough cases received additional COVID-19 therapy (oral antiviral or monoclonal antibody), which falls within standard of care for this high-risk group but prevents ascribing effectiveness to individual components of the regimen,” she added.

“Evusheld is authorized for PrEP against COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe COVID due to suboptimal vaccine responses. This includes patients receiving B-cell-depleting drugs like rituximab, and patients with inborn errors of humoral immunity,” Dr. Calabrese explained.

“It is well known that this group of patients is at very high risk for severe COVID and death, even when fully vaccinated, and it has become clear that more strategies are needed to protect this vulnerable group, including use of Evusheld as well as aggressive treatment if infected,” she added.  
 

Evusheld not always easy to obtain

Although the medication has been available in the United States since January 2022, Dr. Calabrese said, patients may not receive it because of barriers including lack of both awareness and access.

Davey Smith, MD, professor of medicine and head of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California San Diego, in La Jolla, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the results, but added that the study was conducted in too few patients to draw any strong conclusions or affect patient care.

“This small study that showed that breakthrough infections occurred but were generally mild, provides a small glimpse of real-world use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab as PrEP for immunocompromised persons,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the study.

“In the setting of Omicron and vaccination, I would expect the same outcomes reported even without the treatment,” he added.

Dr. Smith recommends larger related randomized, controlled trials to provide clinicians with sufficient data to guide them in their patient care.

Graham Snyder, MD, associate professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted that the study “adds to a quickly growing literature on the real-world benefits of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to protect vulnerable individuals with weakened immune systems from the complications of COVID-19.

“This study provides a modest addition to our understanding of the role and benefit of Evusheld,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “By characterizing only patients who have received Evusheld without an untreated comparison group, we can’t draw any inference about the extent of benefit the agent provided to these patients.

“Substantial data already show that this agent is effective in preventing complications of COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised individuals,” added Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“ ‘Immunocompromised’ represents a very diverse set of clinical conditions,” he said. “The research agenda should therefore focus on a more refined description of the effect in specific populations and a continued understanding of the effect of Evusheld in the context of updated vaccination strategies and changing virus ecology.”

Dr. Calabrese and her colleagues wrote that larger, controlled trials are underway.

 

FDA: Evusheld may not neutralize certain SARS-CoV-2 variants

“The biggest unanswered question is how Evusheld will hold up against new variants,” Dr. Calabrese said.

In an Oct. 3, 2022, update, the Food and Drug Administration released a statement about the risk of developing COVID-19 from SARS-CoV-2 variants that are not neutralized by Evusheld. The statement mentions an updated fact sheet that describes reduced protection from Evusheld against the Omicron subvariant BA.4.6, which accounted for nearly 13% of all new COVID-19 cases in the United States in the week ending Oct. 1.

There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Snyder said he is an unpaid adviser to an AstraZeneca observational study that’s assessing the real-world effectiveness of Evusheld.

Tixagevimab copackaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is a safe and effective preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in patients undergoing B-cell-depleting therapies who have poor immune response to COVID-19 vaccination and are at high risk for serious COVID-19 illness, a small, single-site study suggests.

Evusheld, the only COVID-19 PrEP option available, has Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of immunocompromised patients who may not respond sufficiently to COVID-19 vaccination and patients who’ve had a severe adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination.

“We report the largest real-world experience of Evusheld in this population, and our findings are encouraging,” lead study author Cassandra Calabrese, DO, rheumatologist and infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“Of 412 patients who received Evusheld, 12 [2.9%] developed breakthrough COVID-19, with 11 having mild courses and 1 who required hospitalization but recovered,” she added.

“Our data suggest that Evusheld PrEP, in combination with aggressive outpatient treatment of COVID-19, is likely effective in lowering risk of severe COVID in this vulnerable group.

“Practitioners who care for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases should triage high-risk patients for Evusheld as well as rapid diagnosis and aggressive outpatient therapy if infected,” Dr. Calabrese advised.

For the study, Dr. Calabrese and colleagues at Cleveland Clinic searched the health care system pharmacy records for patients with immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) or inborn errors of humoral immunity (IEI) who met the criteria to receive Evusheld. The researchers included patients on B-cell-depleting therapies or with humoral IEI who had received at least one dose of Evusheld and were later diagnosed with COVID-19, and they excluded those treated with B-cell-depleting therapies for cancer.
 

EVUSHELD was well tolerated

After extracting data on COVID-19 infection, vaccination status, and outcomes, they found that, between Jan. 18 and May 28, 2022, 412 patients with IMIDs or humoral IEI received Evusheld. No deaths occurred among these patients and, overall, they tolerated the medication well.

All 12 patients who experienced breakthrough COVID-19 infection were treated with B-cell-depleting therapies. Among the 12 patients:

• Six patients developed infection 13-84 (median 19) days after receiving 150 mg/150 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab.
• Six patients developed infection 19-72 (median of 38.5) days after either a single dose of 300 mg/300 mg or a second dose of 150 mg/150 mg.
• Eleven patients had mild illness and recovered at home; one patient was hospitalized and treated with high-flow oxygen. All cases had been vaccinated against COVID-19 (five received two vaccinations, six received three, and one received four).
• One possible serious adverse event involved a patient with COVID-19 and immune-mediated thrombocytopenia (ITP) who was hospitalized soon after receiving Evusheld with ITP flare that resolved with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Dr. Calabrese acknowledged limitations to the study, including few patients, lack of a comparator group, and the study period falling during the Omicron wave.

“Also, nine of the breakthrough cases received additional COVID-19 therapy (oral antiviral or monoclonal antibody), which falls within standard of care for this high-risk group but prevents ascribing effectiveness to individual components of the regimen,” she added.

“Evusheld is authorized for PrEP against COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe COVID due to suboptimal vaccine responses. This includes patients receiving B-cell-depleting drugs like rituximab, and patients with inborn errors of humoral immunity,” Dr. Calabrese explained.

“It is well known that this group of patients is at very high risk for severe COVID and death, even when fully vaccinated, and it has become clear that more strategies are needed to protect this vulnerable group, including use of Evusheld as well as aggressive treatment if infected,” she added.  
 

Evusheld not always easy to obtain

Although the medication has been available in the United States since January 2022, Dr. Calabrese said, patients may not receive it because of barriers including lack of both awareness and access.

Davey Smith, MD, professor of medicine and head of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California San Diego, in La Jolla, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the results, but added that the study was conducted in too few patients to draw any strong conclusions or affect patient care.

“This small study that showed that breakthrough infections occurred but were generally mild, provides a small glimpse of real-world use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab as PrEP for immunocompromised persons,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the study.

“In the setting of Omicron and vaccination, I would expect the same outcomes reported even without the treatment,” he added.

Dr. Smith recommends larger related randomized, controlled trials to provide clinicians with sufficient data to guide them in their patient care.

Graham Snyder, MD, associate professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted that the study “adds to a quickly growing literature on the real-world benefits of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to protect vulnerable individuals with weakened immune systems from the complications of COVID-19.

“This study provides a modest addition to our understanding of the role and benefit of Evusheld,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “By characterizing only patients who have received Evusheld without an untreated comparison group, we can’t draw any inference about the extent of benefit the agent provided to these patients.

“Substantial data already show that this agent is effective in preventing complications of COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised individuals,” added Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“ ‘Immunocompromised’ represents a very diverse set of clinical conditions,” he said. “The research agenda should therefore focus on a more refined description of the effect in specific populations and a continued understanding of the effect of Evusheld in the context of updated vaccination strategies and changing virus ecology.”

Dr. Calabrese and her colleagues wrote that larger, controlled trials are underway.

 

FDA: Evusheld may not neutralize certain SARS-CoV-2 variants

“The biggest unanswered question is how Evusheld will hold up against new variants,” Dr. Calabrese said.

In an Oct. 3, 2022, update, the Food and Drug Administration released a statement about the risk of developing COVID-19 from SARS-CoV-2 variants that are not neutralized by Evusheld. The statement mentions an updated fact sheet that describes reduced protection from Evusheld against the Omicron subvariant BA.4.6, which accounted for nearly 13% of all new COVID-19 cases in the United States in the week ending Oct. 1.

There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Snyder said he is an unpaid adviser to an AstraZeneca observational study that’s assessing the real-world effectiveness of Evusheld.

Tixagevimab copackaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is a safe and effective preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in patients undergoing B-cell-depleting therapies who have poor immune response to COVID-19 vaccination and are at high risk for serious COVID-19 illness, a small, single-site study suggests.

Evusheld, the only COVID-19 PrEP option available, has Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of immunocompromised patients who may not respond sufficiently to COVID-19 vaccination and patients who’ve had a severe adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination.

“We report the largest real-world experience of Evusheld in this population, and our findings are encouraging,” lead study author Cassandra Calabrese, DO, rheumatologist and infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“Of 412 patients who received Evusheld, 12 [2.9%] developed breakthrough COVID-19, with 11 having mild courses and 1 who required hospitalization but recovered,” she added.

“Our data suggest that Evusheld PrEP, in combination with aggressive outpatient treatment of COVID-19, is likely effective in lowering risk of severe COVID in this vulnerable group.

“Practitioners who care for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases should triage high-risk patients for Evusheld as well as rapid diagnosis and aggressive outpatient therapy if infected,” Dr. Calabrese advised.

For the study, Dr. Calabrese and colleagues at Cleveland Clinic searched the health care system pharmacy records for patients with immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) or inborn errors of humoral immunity (IEI) who met the criteria to receive Evusheld. The researchers included patients on B-cell-depleting therapies or with humoral IEI who had received at least one dose of Evusheld and were later diagnosed with COVID-19, and they excluded those treated with B-cell-depleting therapies for cancer.
 

EVUSHELD was well tolerated

After extracting data on COVID-19 infection, vaccination status, and outcomes, they found that, between Jan. 18 and May 28, 2022, 412 patients with IMIDs or humoral IEI received Evusheld. No deaths occurred among these patients and, overall, they tolerated the medication well.

All 12 patients who experienced breakthrough COVID-19 infection were treated with B-cell-depleting therapies. Among the 12 patients:

• Six patients developed infection 13-84 (median 19) days after receiving 150 mg/150 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab.
• Six patients developed infection 19-72 (median of 38.5) days after either a single dose of 300 mg/300 mg or a second dose of 150 mg/150 mg.
• Eleven patients had mild illness and recovered at home; one patient was hospitalized and treated with high-flow oxygen. All cases had been vaccinated against COVID-19 (five received two vaccinations, six received three, and one received four).
• One possible serious adverse event involved a patient with COVID-19 and immune-mediated thrombocytopenia (ITP) who was hospitalized soon after receiving Evusheld with ITP flare that resolved with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Dr. Calabrese acknowledged limitations to the study, including few patients, lack of a comparator group, and the study period falling during the Omicron wave.

“Also, nine of the breakthrough cases received additional COVID-19 therapy (oral antiviral or monoclonal antibody), which falls within standard of care for this high-risk group but prevents ascribing effectiveness to individual components of the regimen,” she added.

“Evusheld is authorized for PrEP against COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe COVID due to suboptimal vaccine responses. This includes patients receiving B-cell-depleting drugs like rituximab, and patients with inborn errors of humoral immunity,” Dr. Calabrese explained.

“It is well known that this group of patients is at very high risk for severe COVID and death, even when fully vaccinated, and it has become clear that more strategies are needed to protect this vulnerable group, including use of Evusheld as well as aggressive treatment if infected,” she added.  
 

Evusheld not always easy to obtain

Although the medication has been available in the United States since January 2022, Dr. Calabrese said, patients may not receive it because of barriers including lack of both awareness and access.

Davey Smith, MD, professor of medicine and head of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California San Diego, in La Jolla, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the results, but added that the study was conducted in too few patients to draw any strong conclusions or affect patient care.

“This small study that showed that breakthrough infections occurred but were generally mild, provides a small glimpse of real-world use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab as PrEP for immunocompromised persons,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the study.

“In the setting of Omicron and vaccination, I would expect the same outcomes reported even without the treatment,” he added.

Dr. Smith recommends larger related randomized, controlled trials to provide clinicians with sufficient data to guide them in their patient care.

Graham Snyder, MD, associate professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted that the study “adds to a quickly growing literature on the real-world benefits of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to protect vulnerable individuals with weakened immune systems from the complications of COVID-19.

“This study provides a modest addition to our understanding of the role and benefit of Evusheld,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “By characterizing only patients who have received Evusheld without an untreated comparison group, we can’t draw any inference about the extent of benefit the agent provided to these patients.

“Substantial data already show that this agent is effective in preventing complications of COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised individuals,” added Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“ ‘Immunocompromised’ represents a very diverse set of clinical conditions,” he said. “The research agenda should therefore focus on a more refined description of the effect in specific populations and a continued understanding of the effect of Evusheld in the context of updated vaccination strategies and changing virus ecology.”

Dr. Calabrese and her colleagues wrote that larger, controlled trials are underway.

 

FDA: Evusheld may not neutralize certain SARS-CoV-2 variants

“The biggest unanswered question is how Evusheld will hold up against new variants,” Dr. Calabrese said.

In an Oct. 3, 2022, update, the Food and Drug Administration released a statement about the risk of developing COVID-19 from SARS-CoV-2 variants that are not neutralized by Evusheld. The statement mentions an updated fact sheet that describes reduced protection from Evusheld against the Omicron subvariant BA.4.6, which accounted for nearly 13% of all new COVID-19 cases in the United States in the week ending Oct. 1.

There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Snyder said he is an unpaid adviser to an AstraZeneca observational study that’s assessing the real-world effectiveness of Evusheld.

Nick Burwick, MD, discusses important takeaways that he gathered from the AVAHO 2022 meeting in San Diego. In keeping with this year's theme of self-care in cancer care, the keynote speaker, 'Patient Lee' Tomlinson, made a big impact on Dr Burwick with a motivational message about practicing compassion for not only your patients, but also for yourself. This theme continued with Dr Fay Hlubocky's presentation on resources available for self-care.

Dr Burwick also appreciated the multidisciplinary aspects of this year's AVAHO meeting that showcased the range of VA Whole Health options, the implementation of the Schwartz Rounds, and a diverse group of cancer care providers.

Nick Burwick, MD, discusses important takeaways that he gathered from the AVAHO 2022 meeting in San Diego. In keeping with this year's theme of self-care in cancer care, the keynote speaker, 'Patient Lee' Tomlinson, made a big impact on Dr Burwick with a motivational message about practicing compassion for not only your patients, but also for yourself. This theme continued with Dr Fay Hlubocky's presentation on resources available for self-care.

Dr Burwick also appreciated the multidisciplinary aspects of this year's AVAHO meeting that showcased the range of VA Whole Health options, the implementation of the Schwartz Rounds, and a diverse group of cancer care providers.

Nick Burwick, MD, discusses important takeaways that he gathered from the AVAHO 2022 meeting in San Diego. In keeping with this year's theme of self-care in cancer care, the keynote speaker, 'Patient Lee' Tomlinson, made a big impact on Dr Burwick with a motivational message about practicing compassion for not only your patients, but also for yourself. This theme continued with Dr Fay Hlubocky's presentation on resources available for self-care.

Dr Burwick also appreciated the multidisciplinary aspects of this year's AVAHO meeting that showcased the range of VA Whole Health options, the implementation of the Schwartz Rounds, and a diverse group of cancer care providers.

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, summarizes the offerings at the AVAHO 2022 meeting, from the standard sharing of updates across disciplines and specialties to the more specific focus on the role of self-care in cancer care.

Importantly, Dr Heron underscores the connection between the concept of self-care and the implements required for its realization in the clinical setting, resulting in an assortment of tools that practitioners can draw on as they continue the conversation that drives the evolution of cancer care. 

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, summarizes the offerings at the AVAHO 2022 meeting, from the standard sharing of updates across disciplines and specialties to the more specific focus on the role of self-care in cancer care.

Importantly, Dr Heron underscores the connection between the concept of self-care and the implements required for its realization in the clinical setting, resulting in an assortment of tools that practitioners can draw on as they continue the conversation that drives the evolution of cancer care. 

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, summarizes the offerings at the AVAHO 2022 meeting, from the standard sharing of updates across disciplines and specialties to the more specific focus on the role of self-care in cancer care.

Importantly, Dr Heron underscores the connection between the concept of self-care and the implements required for its realization in the clinical setting, resulting in an assortment of tools that practitioners can draw on as they continue the conversation that drives the evolution of cancer care. 

Lauren Cliffel, MSW, describes how the AVAHO 2022 meeting and the main theme of "Self-care in Cancer Care" reestablished the feelings of joy and compassion that led her to choose a career as a cancer care provider in the first place. 

The inclusive character of even the larger sessions this year is noted, in which all interdisciplinary contributors to cancer care were addressed as central to the delivery of an informed and effective care of patients and, importantly, how this care is enhanced by a restored sense of purpose among all those engaged in the specialty of oncology.

Lauren Cliffel, MSW, describes how the AVAHO 2022 meeting and the main theme of "Self-care in Cancer Care" reestablished the feelings of joy and compassion that led her to choose a career as a cancer care provider in the first place. 

The inclusive character of even the larger sessions this year is noted, in which all interdisciplinary contributors to cancer care were addressed as central to the delivery of an informed and effective care of patients and, importantly, how this care is enhanced by a restored sense of purpose among all those engaged in the specialty of oncology.

Lauren Cliffel, MSW, describes how the AVAHO 2022 meeting and the main theme of "Self-care in Cancer Care" reestablished the feelings of joy and compassion that led her to choose a career as a cancer care provider in the first place. 

The inclusive character of even the larger sessions this year is noted, in which all interdisciplinary contributors to cancer care were addressed as central to the delivery of an informed and effective care of patients and, importantly, how this care is enhanced by a restored sense of purpose among all those engaged in the specialty of oncology.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

Herpes simplex keratitis (HSK) is a common yet potentially blinding condition caused by a primary or reactivated herpetic infection of the cornea.¹ The Herpetic Eye Disease Study established the standard of care in HSK management.² Treatments range from oral antivirals and artificial tears to topical antibiotics, amniotic membranes, and corneal transplantation.³ Patients with immune stromal keratitis (ISK) may experience low-grade chronic keratitis for years.⁴ ISK is classified by a cellular and neovascularization infiltration of the cornea.⁵ We present a case of a patient with recurrent ISK and review its presentation, diagnosis, and management.

Case Presentation

A 52-year-old man presented to the eye clinic with a watery and itchy right eye with mildly blurred vision. His ocular history was unremarkable. His medical history was notable for hepatitis C, hypertension, alcohol and drug dependence, homelessness, and a COVID-19–induced coma. His medications included trazodone, nifedipine, clonidine HCl, and buprenorphine/naloxone.

On clinical examination, the patient’s best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left. Corneal sensitivity was absent in the right eye and intact in the left. Anterior segment findings in the right eye included 360-degree superficial corneal neovascularization, deep neovascularization temporally, scattered patches of corneal haze, epithelial irregularity, and 2+ diffuse bulbar conjunctival injection (Figure 1). The anterior segment of the left eye and the posterior segments of both eyes were unremarkable. The differential diagnosis included HSK, syphilis, Cogan syndrome, varicella-zoster virus keratitis, Epstein-Barr virus keratitis, and Lyme disease. With consultation from a corneal specialist, the patient was given the presumptive diagnosis of ISK in the right eye based on unilateral corneal presentation and lack of corneal sensitivity. He was treated with 1-g oral valacyclovir HCl 3 times daily and 1 drop of prednisolone acetate 1% suspension 3 times daily in the right eye.

The patient followed up 2 weeks later. He reported good adherence to the ISK medication regimen. His symptoms had resolved, and his visual acuity returned to 20/20 in the right eye. Slit-lamp examination showed improvement in injection, and the superficial corneal neovascularization had cleared. A trace ghost vessel was seen temporally at a site of deep neovascularization (Figure 2). He was instructed to continue valacyclovir once daily and prednisolone drops once daily in the right eye and to follow up in 1 month.

At the 1-month follow-up, the patient’s signs and symptoms had reverted to his original presentation. The patient reported poor adherence to the medication regimen, having missed multiple doses of prednisolone drops as well as valacyclovir. The patient was counseled again on the ISK regimen, and the prednisolone drops and 1-g oral valacyclovir were refilled. A follow-up visit was scheduled for 2 weeks. Additional follow-up revealed a resolved corneal appearance and bimonthly follow-ups were scheduled thereafter.

Discussion

HSK is the most common infectious cause of unilateral blindness and vision impairment in the world.² This case highlights the diagnosis and management of a patient with ISK, a type of HSK characterized by decreased corneal sensitivity and unilateral stromal opacification or neovascularization.⁶

ISK is caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV), a double-stranded enveloped DNA virus that occurs worldwide with little variation, replicates in many types of cells, has rapid growth, and is cytolytic, causing necrosis of nearby cells. Transmission is via direct contact and there is a lifelong latency period in the trigeminal ganglia. Both primary and reactivation infections of HSK can affect a broad array of ocular structures, from the lids to the retina. Infectious epithelial keratitis, also known as dendritic keratitis, is the reactivation of the live virus and is the most common presentation of HSK. ISK is responsible for 20% to 48% of recurrent HSV disease and is the leading cause of vision loss. ISK is the result of an immune-mediated inflammatory response due to a retained viral antigen within the stromal tissue.⁷ Inflammation in the corneal stroma leads to corneal haze and eventually focal or diffuse scarring, reducing the visual potential.⁷ This presentation may occur days to years after the initial epithelial episode and may persist for years. Although this patient did not present with infectious epithelial keratitis, it is possible he had a previous episode not mentioned as a history was difficult to obtain, and it can be subtle or innocuous, like pink eye.

Symptoms of ISK include unilateral redness, photophobia, tearing, eye pain, and blurred vision, as described by this patient. On examination, initial manifestations of ISK include corneal haze, edema, scarring, and neovascularization.⁷ Again, this patient presented with edema and neovascularization. These signs may improve with prompt diagnosis and treatment. More frequent reactivated disease leads to a higher propensity of corneal scarring and irregular astigmatism, reducing the visual outcome.

The standard of care established by the Herpetic Eye Disease Study recommends that a patient with presumed ISK should be started on oral antiviral therapy and, in the absence of epithelial disease, topical steroids. Oral antivirals, such as acyclovir and valacyclovir, have good ocular penetration, a good safety profile, a low susceptibility of resistance, and are well tolerated with long-term treatment.^2,8 There were no known interactions between any of the patient’s medications and valacyclovir. Oral antivirals should be used in the initial presentation and for maintenance therapy to help reduce the chance of recurrent disease. Initial treatment for ISK is 1-g valacyclovir 3 times daily. When the eye becomes quiet, that dosage can be tapered to 1 g twice daily, to 1 g once daily, and eventually to a maintenance dose of 500 mg daily. Topical steroids block the inflammatory cascade, therefore reducing the corneal inflammation and potential scarring, further reducing the risk of visual impairment.⁹ Initial treatment is 1 drop 3 times daily, then can be tapered at the same schedule as the oral acyclovir to help simplify adherence for the patient. After 1 drop once daily, steroids may be discontinued while the oral antiviral maintenance dosage continues. Follow-ups should be performed on a monthly to bimonthly basis to evaluate intraocular pressure, ensuring there is no steroid response.

As seen in this patient, adherence with a treatment regimen and awareness of factors, such as a complex psychosocial history that may impact this adherence, are of utmost importance.⁷

Conclusions

ISK presents unilaterally with decreased or absent corneal sensitivity and nonspecific symptoms. It should be at the top of the list in the differential diagnosis in any patient with unilateral corneal edema, opacification, or neovascularization, and the patient should be started on oral antiviral therapy.

Herpes simplex keratitis (HSK) is a common yet potentially blinding condition caused by a primary or reactivated herpetic infection of the cornea.¹ The Herpetic Eye Disease Study established the standard of care in HSK management.² Treatments range from oral antivirals and artificial tears to topical antibiotics, amniotic membranes, and corneal transplantation.³ Patients with immune stromal keratitis (ISK) may experience low-grade chronic keratitis for years.⁴ ISK is classified by a cellular and neovascularization infiltration of the cornea.⁵ We present a case of a patient with recurrent ISK and review its presentation, diagnosis, and management.

Case Presentation

A 52-year-old man presented to the eye clinic with a watery and itchy right eye with mildly blurred vision. His ocular history was unremarkable. His medical history was notable for hepatitis C, hypertension, alcohol and drug dependence, homelessness, and a COVID-19–induced coma. His medications included trazodone, nifedipine, clonidine HCl, and buprenorphine/naloxone.

On clinical examination, the patient’s best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left. Corneal sensitivity was absent in the right eye and intact in the left. Anterior segment findings in the right eye included 360-degree superficial corneal neovascularization, deep neovascularization temporally, scattered patches of corneal haze, epithelial irregularity, and 2+ diffuse bulbar conjunctival injection (Figure 1). The anterior segment of the left eye and the posterior segments of both eyes were unremarkable. The differential diagnosis included HSK, syphilis, Cogan syndrome, varicella-zoster virus keratitis, Epstein-Barr virus keratitis, and Lyme disease. With consultation from a corneal specialist, the patient was given the presumptive diagnosis of ISK in the right eye based on unilateral corneal presentation and lack of corneal sensitivity. He was treated with 1-g oral valacyclovir HCl 3 times daily and 1 drop of prednisolone acetate 1% suspension 3 times daily in the right eye.

The patient followed up 2 weeks later. He reported good adherence to the ISK medication regimen. His symptoms had resolved, and his visual acuity returned to 20/20 in the right eye. Slit-lamp examination showed improvement in injection, and the superficial corneal neovascularization had cleared. A trace ghost vessel was seen temporally at a site of deep neovascularization (Figure 2). He was instructed to continue valacyclovir once daily and prednisolone drops once daily in the right eye and to follow up in 1 month.

At the 1-month follow-up, the patient’s signs and symptoms had reverted to his original presentation. The patient reported poor adherence to the medication regimen, having missed multiple doses of prednisolone drops as well as valacyclovir. The patient was counseled again on the ISK regimen, and the prednisolone drops and 1-g oral valacyclovir were refilled. A follow-up visit was scheduled for 2 weeks. Additional follow-up revealed a resolved corneal appearance and bimonthly follow-ups were scheduled thereafter.

Discussion

HSK is the most common infectious cause of unilateral blindness and vision impairment in the world.² This case highlights the diagnosis and management of a patient with ISK, a type of HSK characterized by decreased corneal sensitivity and unilateral stromal opacification or neovascularization.⁶

ISK is caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV), a double-stranded enveloped DNA virus that occurs worldwide with little variation, replicates in many types of cells, has rapid growth, and is cytolytic, causing necrosis of nearby cells. Transmission is via direct contact and there is a lifelong latency period in the trigeminal ganglia. Both primary and reactivation infections of HSK can affect a broad array of ocular structures, from the lids to the retina. Infectious epithelial keratitis, also known as dendritic keratitis, is the reactivation of the live virus and is the most common presentation of HSK. ISK is responsible for 20% to 48% of recurrent HSV disease and is the leading cause of vision loss. ISK is the result of an immune-mediated inflammatory response due to a retained viral antigen within the stromal tissue.⁷ Inflammation in the corneal stroma leads to corneal haze and eventually focal or diffuse scarring, reducing the visual potential.⁷ This presentation may occur days to years after the initial epithelial episode and may persist for years. Although this patient did not present with infectious epithelial keratitis, it is possible he had a previous episode not mentioned as a history was difficult to obtain, and it can be subtle or innocuous, like pink eye.

Symptoms of ISK include unilateral redness, photophobia, tearing, eye pain, and blurred vision, as described by this patient. On examination, initial manifestations of ISK include corneal haze, edema, scarring, and neovascularization.⁷ Again, this patient presented with edema and neovascularization. These signs may improve with prompt diagnosis and treatment. More frequent reactivated disease leads to a higher propensity of corneal scarring and irregular astigmatism, reducing the visual outcome.

The standard of care established by the Herpetic Eye Disease Study recommends that a patient with presumed ISK should be started on oral antiviral therapy and, in the absence of epithelial disease, topical steroids. Oral antivirals, such as acyclovir and valacyclovir, have good ocular penetration, a good safety profile, a low susceptibility of resistance, and are well tolerated with long-term treatment.^2,8 There were no known interactions between any of the patient’s medications and valacyclovir. Oral antivirals should be used in the initial presentation and for maintenance therapy to help reduce the chance of recurrent disease. Initial treatment for ISK is 1-g valacyclovir 3 times daily. When the eye becomes quiet, that dosage can be tapered to 1 g twice daily, to 1 g once daily, and eventually to a maintenance dose of 500 mg daily. Topical steroids block the inflammatory cascade, therefore reducing the corneal inflammation and potential scarring, further reducing the risk of visual impairment.⁹ Initial treatment is 1 drop 3 times daily, then can be tapered at the same schedule as the oral acyclovir to help simplify adherence for the patient. After 1 drop once daily, steroids may be discontinued while the oral antiviral maintenance dosage continues. Follow-ups should be performed on a monthly to bimonthly basis to evaluate intraocular pressure, ensuring there is no steroid response.

As seen in this patient, adherence with a treatment regimen and awareness of factors, such as a complex psychosocial history that may impact this adherence, are of utmost importance.⁷

Conclusions

ISK presents unilaterally with decreased or absent corneal sensitivity and nonspecific symptoms. It should be at the top of the list in the differential diagnosis in any patient with unilateral corneal edema, opacification, or neovascularization, and the patient should be started on oral antiviral therapy.

Herpes simplex keratitis (HSK) is a common yet potentially blinding condition caused by a primary or reactivated herpetic infection of the cornea.¹ The Herpetic Eye Disease Study established the standard of care in HSK management.² Treatments range from oral antivirals and artificial tears to topical antibiotics, amniotic membranes, and corneal transplantation.³ Patients with immune stromal keratitis (ISK) may experience low-grade chronic keratitis for years.⁴ ISK is classified by a cellular and neovascularization infiltration of the cornea.⁵ We present a case of a patient with recurrent ISK and review its presentation, diagnosis, and management.

Case Presentation

A 52-year-old man presented to the eye clinic with a watery and itchy right eye with mildly blurred vision. His ocular history was unremarkable. His medical history was notable for hepatitis C, hypertension, alcohol and drug dependence, homelessness, and a COVID-19–induced coma. His medications included trazodone, nifedipine, clonidine HCl, and buprenorphine/naloxone.

On clinical examination, the patient’s best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left. Corneal sensitivity was absent in the right eye and intact in the left. Anterior segment findings in the right eye included 360-degree superficial corneal neovascularization, deep neovascularization temporally, scattered patches of corneal haze, epithelial irregularity, and 2+ diffuse bulbar conjunctival injection (Figure 1). The anterior segment of the left eye and the posterior segments of both eyes were unremarkable. The differential diagnosis included HSK, syphilis, Cogan syndrome, varicella-zoster virus keratitis, Epstein-Barr virus keratitis, and Lyme disease. With consultation from a corneal specialist, the patient was given the presumptive diagnosis of ISK in the right eye based on unilateral corneal presentation and lack of corneal sensitivity. He was treated with 1-g oral valacyclovir HCl 3 times daily and 1 drop of prednisolone acetate 1% suspension 3 times daily in the right eye.

The patient followed up 2 weeks later. He reported good adherence to the ISK medication regimen. His symptoms had resolved, and his visual acuity returned to 20/20 in the right eye. Slit-lamp examination showed improvement in injection, and the superficial corneal neovascularization had cleared. A trace ghost vessel was seen temporally at a site of deep neovascularization (Figure 2). He was instructed to continue valacyclovir once daily and prednisolone drops once daily in the right eye and to follow up in 1 month.

At the 1-month follow-up, the patient’s signs and symptoms had reverted to his original presentation. The patient reported poor adherence to the medication regimen, having missed multiple doses of prednisolone drops as well as valacyclovir. The patient was counseled again on the ISK regimen, and the prednisolone drops and 1-g oral valacyclovir were refilled. A follow-up visit was scheduled for 2 weeks. Additional follow-up revealed a resolved corneal appearance and bimonthly follow-ups were scheduled thereafter.

Discussion

HSK is the most common infectious cause of unilateral blindness and vision impairment in the world.² This case highlights the diagnosis and management of a patient with ISK, a type of HSK characterized by decreased corneal sensitivity and unilateral stromal opacification or neovascularization.⁶

ISK is caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV), a double-stranded enveloped DNA virus that occurs worldwide with little variation, replicates in many types of cells, has rapid growth, and is cytolytic, causing necrosis of nearby cells. Transmission is via direct contact and there is a lifelong latency period in the trigeminal ganglia. Both primary and reactivation infections of HSK can affect a broad array of ocular structures, from the lids to the retina. Infectious epithelial keratitis, also known as dendritic keratitis, is the reactivation of the live virus and is the most common presentation of HSK. ISK is responsible for 20% to 48% of recurrent HSV disease and is the leading cause of vision loss. ISK is the result of an immune-mediated inflammatory response due to a retained viral antigen within the stromal tissue.⁷ Inflammation in the corneal stroma leads to corneal haze and eventually focal or diffuse scarring, reducing the visual potential.⁷ This presentation may occur days to years after the initial epithelial episode and may persist for years. Although this patient did not present with infectious epithelial keratitis, it is possible he had a previous episode not mentioned as a history was difficult to obtain, and it can be subtle or innocuous, like pink eye.

Symptoms of ISK include unilateral redness, photophobia, tearing, eye pain, and blurred vision, as described by this patient. On examination, initial manifestations of ISK include corneal haze, edema, scarring, and neovascularization.⁷ Again, this patient presented with edema and neovascularization. These signs may improve with prompt diagnosis and treatment. More frequent reactivated disease leads to a higher propensity of corneal scarring and irregular astigmatism, reducing the visual outcome.

The standard of care established by the Herpetic Eye Disease Study recommends that a patient with presumed ISK should be started on oral antiviral therapy and, in the absence of epithelial disease, topical steroids. Oral antivirals, such as acyclovir and valacyclovir, have good ocular penetration, a good safety profile, a low susceptibility of resistance, and are well tolerated with long-term treatment.^2,8 There were no known interactions between any of the patient’s medications and valacyclovir. Oral antivirals should be used in the initial presentation and for maintenance therapy to help reduce the chance of recurrent disease. Initial treatment for ISK is 1-g valacyclovir 3 times daily. When the eye becomes quiet, that dosage can be tapered to 1 g twice daily, to 1 g once daily, and eventually to a maintenance dose of 500 mg daily. Topical steroids block the inflammatory cascade, therefore reducing the corneal inflammation and potential scarring, further reducing the risk of visual impairment.⁹ Initial treatment is 1 drop 3 times daily, then can be tapered at the same schedule as the oral acyclovir to help simplify adherence for the patient. After 1 drop once daily, steroids may be discontinued while the oral antiviral maintenance dosage continues. Follow-ups should be performed on a monthly to bimonthly basis to evaluate intraocular pressure, ensuring there is no steroid response.

As seen in this patient, adherence with a treatment regimen and awareness of factors, such as a complex psychosocial history that may impact this adherence, are of utmost importance.⁷

Conclusions

ISK presents unilaterally with decreased or absent corneal sensitivity and nonspecific symptoms. It should be at the top of the list in the differential diagnosis in any patient with unilateral corneal edema, opacification, or neovascularization, and the patient should be started on oral antiviral therapy.