The Quebec pharmaceutical Valeant has acquired Bausch + Lomb, the global leader in eye health, for $8.7 billion.

 

Half of the payment will go directly to the investor group led by Warburg Pincus, which bought B + L in 2007 for $4.5 billion, while the other half will be used to repay B + L’s outstanding debt. To finance the acquisition, Valeant will issue $2 billion in new equity and borrow the rest.

 

Valeant will integrate its ophthalmology businesses into the new division, which will retain the name Bausch + Lomb. The pharmaceutical company expects to achieve $800 million in cost savings by 2014. B + L distributes such products as Vision Care, ONEday, PureVision, along with the Besivance, Lotemax, and Ocuvite treatments.

 

There have been rumours for months that Bausch + Lomb was being sold, but when it came time to discuss potential buyers, names like Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, and Sanofi, even Merck & Co and Pfizer, were frontrunners, as ClipInfo.ca reported on January 8, 2013. More recently, in February, Warburg Pincus was considering the initial public offering route to unload B + L, saying it was disappointed in the bids it had received.

 

Source: http://ir.valeant.com/investor-relations/news-releases/news-release-details/2013/Valeant-Pharmaceuticals-International-Inc-To-Acquire-Bausch–Lomb-For-87-Billion/default.aspx

Wearing an eye patch six hours a day instead of two hours is much more effective after a 10-week period. Now to convince the children…

 

Researchers from the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator (PEDI) group tested this strategy in 167 children whose amblyopia failed to improve after 12 weeks of two hours daily eye patching. After comparing a group that continued to wear the patch two hours a day with another group that wore the patch six hours a day, the researchers found significant differences. The visual acuity in 75% of children in the second group improved two lines or more on a standard test (with glasses).

 

The study shows that more eye patch time improves visual acuity. “Instead of starting with two hours and increasing, you could say if we want to achieve the optimum outcome in the shortest possible time, let’s start with a higher dose in the first place,” said Dr. Alistair Fielder, from City University, London.

Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/802876

 

Did primates develop three-colour vision because they began to live in the day or did they begin to live in the day due to the appearance of this trait? A small animal with bulging eyes – the tarsier – may hold the answer to this question.

 

American scientists analyzed the genes that encode photopigments in the eye of the tarsier, a small primate that branched off early on from monkeys, apes, and humans. They showed that the last common ancestor of living tarsiers had three-colour vision similar to that of monkeys and apes. However, they had enlarged eyes, suggesting they were active at night.

 

According to the researchers, this shows that tarsiers first adapted to dim light levels, such as twilight or the full moon. These light conditions were dark enough to favour large eyes but still bright enough to support trichromatic colour vision. This compromise would have helped the primates switch to daytime living, which allowed them to better see their prey, their predators, and other primates and to expand their territory.

 

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327132537.htm

 

A British study shows that compared to the modern human brain, the brain structure of Neanderthals focussed much larger areas on vision and movement. This difference could have contributed to their extinction.

 

Neanderthals’ brains were similar in size to those of modern humans, but their eyes were larger. Having larger brain areas related to vision and movement meant that there was less room left over to deal with the social interactions required for life in large groups.

 

“Smaller social groups might have made Neanderthals less able to cope with the difficulties of their harsh Eurasian environments because they would have had fewer friends to help them out in times of need,” explains lead author Eiluned Pearce from the University of Oxford. “Overall, differences in brain organisation and social cognition may go a long way towards explaining why Neanderthals went extinct whereas modern humans survived.”

 

The same researchers had previously shown that humans living in higher latitudes had more areas of the brain dedicated to vision in order to cope with low light levels. They offer the hypothesis that Neanderthals would have developed larger eyes because they evolved in Europe, while their contemporary humans originated from Africa.

 

Source:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130319093639.htm