We thank Dr. Kaufman for his interest in our paper. Dr. Kaufman thinks our results are overstated and the reported relationship is trivial. We disagree and would like to respond to his comments.

I read “Diabetic macular edema: pathophysiology and novel therapeutic targets” published July 2015 by Das et al. This article is interesting because it outlines the role that inflammation plays in the pathogenesis of diabetic macular edema (DME) and discusses the novel therapies in this disease area. Das et al refer to the efficacy and safety of the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant (ILUVIEN), which is licensed for the treatment of DME in a number of European countries and the United States. However, the authors do not present the data relating to ILUVIEN specifically (with a release rate of 0.2 μg FAc per day1), nor do they outline the differences between licensed indications in Europe and the United States.

Nannini et al examined the relationship between African ancestry, as estimated from 5000 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms using a Bayesian factor analysis, and intraocular pressure in a population of 3541 Hispanics from Los Angeles.1 They expressed the hope that an understanding of the relationship between genetic ancestry and intraocular pressure in Latinos may help to elucidate racial differences and identify public health strategies to prevent and forestall the development of glaucoma.

We thank Dr Hall for his critical appraisal and interest in our article. His comment about the use of the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant in Europe based on results in chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) for 3 years and in the United States based on results in DME for 2 years is well taken.

We read with interest the meta-analysis of population-based, cross-sectional studies from the European Eye Epidemiology (E3) Consortium by Williams et al on the impact of educational level on myopia prevalence.1