OBJECTIVES: To estimate prevalence and secular trends in children's hearing loss.
DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1996 to August 2017.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included epidemiologic studies in English reporting hearing loss prevalence.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The modified Leboeuf-Yde and Lauritsen tool was used to assess methodological quality. Meta-analyses combined study-specific estimates using random-effects models.
PARTICIPANTS: Children 0 to 18 years of age.
RESULTS: Among 88 eligible studies, 43.2% included audiometric measurement of speech frequencies. In meta-analyses, pooled prevalence estimates of slight or worse bilateral speech frequency losses >15 decibels hearing level (dB HL) were 13.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-17.0). Using progressively more stringent cutpoints, pooled prevalence estimates were 8.1% (95% CI, 1.3-19.8) with >20 dB HL, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.4-3.0) with >25 dB HL, 1.8% (95% CI, 0.4-4.1) with >30 dB HL, and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.1-2.6) with >40 dB HL. Also, 8.9% (95% CI, 6.4-12.3) had likely sensorineural losses >15 dB HL in 1 or both ears, and 1.2% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1) had self-reported hearing loss. From 1990 to 2010, the prevalence of losses >15 dB HL in 1 or both ears rose substantially (all P for trend
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective interventional study was conducted. Evaluation took place during the first visit (week 0) and second visit (week 12). Symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, cough and snoring were assessed, and an overall total symptoms score was obtained. A rigid nasoendoscopic examination using a four-grading system of adenoid size from 1 to 4 was performed. Patients were treated with MF intranasal spray for 12 weeks. Patients' aged 7-11-years old used 1 spray in each nostril once daily, while patients aged 12-17 used two sprays in each nostril once daily. Reassessment was carried out during the second visit (week 12).
RESULTS: A total of 74 patients was recruited. There were significant improvements from week 0 to week 12 in the symptoms' score for nose obstruction, rhinorrhoea, cough, snoring including the total nasal symptoms' score (p<0.001). AH significantly reduced in size from week 0 (2.89±.87) to week 12 (1.88±.83) (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: MF intranasal spray is effective in improving the symptoms attributed to AH as well as reducing the adenoid size. MF intranasal spray is advocated as a treatment option before adenoidectomy is considered.
METHOD: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet.
RESULTS: Based on the diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID-19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations, and on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts, and basic scientists along with EAACI and the "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)" initiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies.
CONCLUSIONS: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic.
DESIGN: Double-masked, 100-week, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized trials.
METHODS: Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to brolucizumab 3mg/6mg or aflibercept 2mg in KESTREL (N=566) or 1:1 to brolucizumab 6mg or aflibercept 2mg in KITE (N=360). Brolucizumab groups received 5 loading doses every 6 weeks (q6w) followed by q12w dosing, with optional adjustment to q8w if disease activity was identified at pre-defined assessment visits; aflibercept groups received 5xq4w followed by fixed q8w dosing. The primary endpoint was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change from baseline at Week 52; secondary endpoints included the proportion of subjects maintained on q12w dosing, change in DRSS score and anatomical and safety outcomes.
RESULTS: At Week 52, brolucizumab 6mg was noninferior (NI margin 4 letters) to aflibercept in mean change in BCVA from baseline (KESTREL: +9.2 letters versus +10.5 letters; KITE: +10.6 letters versus +9.4 letters; p<0.001), more subjects achieved central subfield thickness (CSFT) <280µm and fewer had persisting subretinal and/or intraretinal fluid versus aflibercept, with >50% of brolucizumab 6mg subjects maintained on q12w dosing after loading. In KITE, brolucizumab 6mg showed superior improvements in change of CSFT from baseline over Week 40-Week 52 versus aflibercept (p=0.001). The incidence of ocular serious adverse events was 3.7% (brolucizumab 3mg), 1.1% (brolucizumab 6mg), 2.1% (aflibercept) in KESTREL; 2.2% (brolucizumab 6mg), 1.7% (aflibercept) in KITE.
CONCLUSION: Brolucizumab 6mg showed robust visual gains and anatomical improvements with an overall favorable benefit/risk profile in patients with DME.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and geographic variability that exists in a sensitization pattern to common and specific allergens, including house dust mite and fungi, and to correlate such patterns to airway immune-inflammatory status and clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis.
METHODS: Patients with bronchiectasis were recruited in Asia (Singapore and Malaysia) and the United Kingdom (Scotland) (n = 238), forming the Cohort of Asian and Matched European Bronchiectasis, which matched recruited patients on age, sex, and bronchiectasis severity. Specific IgE response against a range of common allergens was determined, combined with airway immune-inflammatory status and correlated to clinical outcomes. Clinically relevant patient clusters, based on sensitization pattern and airway immune profiles ("immunoallertypes"), were determined.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A high frequency of sensitization to multiple allergens was detected in bronchiectasis, exceeding that in a comparator cohort with allergic rhinitis (n = 149). Sensitization was associated with poor clinical outcomes, including decreased pulmonary function and more severe disease. "Sensitized bronchiectasis" was classified into two immunoallertypes: one fungal driven and proinflammatory, the other house dust mite driven and chemokine dominant, with the former demonstrating poorer clinical outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Allergic sensitization occurs at high frequency in patients with bronchiectasis recruited from different global centers. Improving endophenotyping of sensitized bronchiectasis, a clinically significant state, and a "treatable trait" permits therapeutic intervention in appropriate patients, and may allow improved stratification in future bronchiectasis research and clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EDCR) entails creating an opening from the lacrimal sac directly into the nasal cavity to counteract nasolacrimal duct obstruction. We reviewed the literature to determine the effectiveness and the safety of primary EDCR to treat pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
METHOD: A literature search was conducted by using a number of medical literature data bases for the period from 1995 to 2016. The following search words were used either individually or in combination: epiphora, nasolacrimal duct obstruction, endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, laser-assisted endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, children, congenital, acquired, presaccal obstruction, and postsaccal obstruction. In addition, a few articles were identified based on the experience and information provided by the senior authors (B.A., S.H., D.Y.W.). The search was conducted over a 1-month period (January 2017). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed when possible.
RESULTS: Only 10 original clinical research articles were selected based on our objectives and selection criteria. All the studies were at level of evidence III: nonrandomized and noncomparative prospective or retrospective case series. Altogether, 313 patients with ages that ranged from 4 months to 18 years were enrolled. A total of 352 EDCRs were performed that were either single sided (n = 313) or bilateral (n = 39). The most common causes of the obstruction were classified as congenital, followed by idiopathic, and then acquired. A meta-analysis was not performed because of the heterogeneity of the patient groups and variability of the methods used to measure outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Analysis of the results indicated that EDCR was an effective, safe therapeutic approach to treating nasolacrimal duct obstruction in pediatric patients. It should be considered as an alternative procedure to external dacryocystorhinostomy after a failed conservative treatment.
METHODS: We used data spanning 2010-2018 from children aged 2-12 years within the Chicago Area Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network-an electronic health record network. Four clinical systems comprised the derivation sample and a fifth the validation sample. Body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose were categorized as ideal, intermediate, and poor using clinical measurements, laboratory readings, and International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes and summed for an overall CVH score. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to create CVH score trajectories which were assessed for classification accuracy in the validation sample.
RESULTS: Using data from 122,363 children (47% female, 47% non-Hispanic White) three trajectories were identified: 59.5% maintained high levels of clinical CVH, 23.4% had high levels of CVH that declined, and 17.1% had intermediate levels of CVH that further declined with age. A similar classification emerged when the trajectories were fitted in the validation sample.
CONCLUSIONS: Stratification of CVH was present by age 2, implicating the need for early life and preconception prevention strategies.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.
RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.