EC Ophthalmology

The World Health Organization states that Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability, affecting about 300 million people worldwide, and is expected to be the leading burden of disease by 2030. Pharmacological therapy for depression is only effective for 74% of patients. The ineffectiveness of therapy, in addition to the overprescribing of antidepressants, has pushed research to explore the gut-brain-microbiota axis and evaluate it as a therapeutic option when addressing mental health. We have conducted a review of the PubMed databases focusing on the past decade, with consideration to the physiological make-up of depression, serotonin, gut-brain axis, and the pros and cons associated with them. We also considered the influence of the COVID-19 and its long-term effects associated with depression and gut microbiome. Studies have established how unhealthy microbiota results in lower serotonin levels, which are seen in patients with MDD. Similarly, research has uncovered various bacteria, hormonal influences, target pathways, and lifestyle changes, which have been shown to improve the health of the gut, increase serotonin levels, and provide an overall positive influence on the patient’s wellbeing. Gaining further understanding of the gut’s microbiome and effects of treatment, such as bacteriophage therapy, will help clarify the role of the gut in MDD and allow researchers to optimize the gut’s overall health with the goal of providing a more comprehensive, effective treatment for patients affected by MDD. As research continues and understanding of how the gut communicates with the brain comes to fruition, treatment of MDD will stand a higher chance of yielding healthy guts and happy people.

Keywords: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); Eye; Corneal Abrasions; Gut’s Microbiome

1. Buttaravoki P. “Corneal Abrasion”. Minor Emergencies 16 (2007): 74-77.
2. Docherty G., et al. “Prospective Analysis of Emergency Ophthalmic Referrals in a Canadian Tertiary Teaching Hospital”. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 53 (2018): 497-502.
3. Fisher L and Dorsch J. “Red Eye”. Conn's Current Therapy (2023): 524-529.
4. Fowler GC. “Corneal Abrasions and Removal of Corneal or Conjunctival Foreign Bodies”. Pfenninger and Fowler's Procedures for Prim Care 200 (2020): 1338-1344.
5. Goyal S and Hamrah P. “Understanding Neuropathic Corneal Pain- Gaps and Current Therapeutic Approaches”. Seminars in Ophthalmology1-2 (2016): 59-70.
6. Grentezelos MA., et al. “Efficacy of 2 Types of Silicone Hydrogel Bandage Contact Lenses after Photorefractive Keratectomy”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 35 (2008): 2103-2108.
7. Guluma K and Lee JE. “Ophthalmology”. Rosen's Emergency Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice 61 (2018): 790-819.
8. Kaiser PK. “A comparison of pressure patching versus no patching for corneal abrasions due to trauma or foreign body removal: Corneal Abrasion Patching Study Group”. Ophthalmology 12 (1995): 1936-1942.
9. Le Sage N., et al. “Efficacy of Eye Patching for Traumatic Corneal Abrasions: A Controlled Clinical Trial”. Annals of Emergency Medicine 38 (2001): 129-134.
10. Ljubimov AV and Saghizadeh M. “Progress in Corneal Wound Healing”. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 49 (2016): 17-45.
11. Swaminathan A., et al. “The Safety of Topical Anesthetics in the Treatment of Corneal Abrasions: A Review”. The Journal of Emergency Medicine 49 (2015): 810-815.
12. Triharpini NN., et al. “Comparison Between Bandage Contact Lenses and Pressure Patching on the Erosion Area and Pain Scale in Patients with Corneal Erosion”. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology2 (2015): 97-100.
13. Wilson SA and Last A. “Management of corneal abrasions”. American Family Physician 70 (2004): 123-128.