METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2020 to March 2021 in Ophthalmology Clinic Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (HCTM UKM). Subjects diagnosed with center-involved DME aged between 20 to 80 years who experienced delayed anti-VEGF injection were recruited. Level of depression, anxiety and stress were assessed using DASS-21 questionnaire. Statistical analysis using non-parametric tests were performed to determine the relationship between the DASS-21 score and duration of last injection, in those whose vision was affected by delayed injection and the relationship to the impact of COVID-19 pandemic. Statistical significance was denoted as p < 0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 86 respondents with median age of 69 years old participated in this study. Most respondents were Malays (n = 47,54.7%) males (n = 51, 59.3%), had education up to secondary level (n = 37, 43%), unemployed (n = 78, 90.7%), married (n = 72, 83.7%) and living with their family (n = 82, 95.3%). The number of intravitreal injections received was at least three times among the respondents (n = 81, 94.2%). More than half of the respondents (n = 46, 53.5%) had been postponed for more than 12 weeks and felt that their vision was affected after delayed intravitreal injection (n = 47, 54.7%). Most of the subjects did not experience depression, anxiety, or stress. However, there was a significant level of stress scores among those with delayed injection of 9 to 12 weeks (p = 0.004), and significant anxiety (p = 0.029) and stress (p = 0.014) scores found in subjects with vision affected due to delayed treatment.
CONCLUSION: The level of anxiety and stress can be significant in DME patients who experienced delay in intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment. Assessment of psychosocial impacts is important to identify early mental health issues potentially leading to the onset of psychiatry illness, thus early intervention is indispensable.
METHODS: The study involved conducting intradermal injections on four cadavers and participants using a 2 mm length, 34-gauge needle (N-Finders, Inc., South Korea). During the cadaveric study, the polynucleotide prefilled syringe was dyed green, and an anatomist performed dissections, removing only the skin layer. Ultrasonographic observations were carried out to ensure accurate intradermal injection placement.
RESULTS: In all four cadavers, the facial injections at the anterior cheek region were precisely administered intradermally at a 30-degree injection angle. However, the 90-degree injection was found just below the dermal layer upon skin layer removal.
DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that using a 2 mm needle length allows for easy and convenient intradermal injections.
METHODS: A multi-speciality expert panel consisting of nine Malaysian physicians from different healthcare settings who manage a diverse OA patient population was convened. Using a combination of the ADAPTE process and modified Delphi method, the panel reviewed current evidence on the management of knee OA and synthesised a set of nine recommendations on the management of knee OA, supported by an algorithm that summarises the consensus' core messages.
RESULTS: A multimodal intervention strategy is the mainstay of OA management and the choice of any single or multimodal intervention may vary over the course of the disease. Overall, a non-pharmacological core treatment set of patient education, weight loss and exercise is recommended for all patients. When pharmacotherapy is indicated, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis are recommended at the early stage of disease, and they can be paired with physical therapy as background treatment. Concurrent advanced pharmacotherapy that includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intraarticular injections and short-term weak opioids can be considered if patients do not respond sufficiently to background treatment. Patients with severe symptomatic knee OA should be considered for knee replacement surgery. Management should begin with specific treatments with the least systemic exposure or toxicity, and the choice of treatment should be determined as a shared decision between patients and their team of healthcare providers.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus presents nine recommendations that advocate an algorithmic approach in the management of patients living with knee OA. They are applicable to patients receiving treatment from primary to tertiary care providers in Malaysia as well as other countries.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The serum antigen concentration-time profile of the N. sumatrana venom and its major toxins injected intravenously fitted a two-compartment model of pharmacokinetics. The systemic clearance (91.3 ml/h), terminal phase half-life (13.6 h) and systemic bioavailability (41.9%) of N. sumatrana venom injected intramuscularly were similar to those of N. sputatrix venom determined in an earlier study. The venom neurotoxin and cardiotoxin reached their peak concentrations within 30 min following intramuscular injection, relatively faster than the phospholipase A2 and whole venom (Tmax=2 h and 1 h, respectively). Rapid absorption of the neurotoxin and cardiotoxin from the injection site into systemic circulation indicates fast onsets of action of these principal toxins that are responsible for the early systemic manifestation of envenoming. The more prominent role of the neurotoxin in N. sumatrana systemic envenoming is further supported by its significantly higher intramuscular bioavailability (Fi.m.=81.5%) compared to that of the phospholipase A2 (Fi.m.=68.6%) or cardiotoxin (Fi.m.=45.6%). The incomplete absorption of the phospholipase A2 and cardiotoxin may infer the toxins' affinities for tissues at the injection site and their pathological roles in local tissue damages through synergistic interactions.
CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results suggest that the venom neurotoxin is absorbed very rapidly and has the highest bioavailability following intramuscular injection, supporting its role as the principal toxin in systemic envenoming.
CASE PRESENTATION: An ophthalmic trainee performed an Ozurdex™ intravitreal injection into a 48-year-old Asian man's right eye under aseptic conditions. This patient was then followed up for further management. On day 7 post-procedure, a slit lamp examination revealed that the Ozurdex™ implant was injected into the intralenticular structure of his right eye and had fractured into two pieces. The posterior capsule of the right lens was breached, with one half of the Ozurdex™ implant stuck at the entry and the other stuck at the exit wound of the posterior capsule. This patient underwent right eye cataract extraction and repositioning of the fractured implant; he made an uneventful recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmologists should be aware of the potential risk of injecting an Ozurdex™ implant into an anatomical structure other than the vitreous cavity. Adequate training and careful administration of the Ozurdex™ implant are necessary to avoid such a complication, which fortunately is rare.