Methods: Pseudopregnancy (pc) was induced in cyclic Sprague-Dawley rats by sterile mating. Subcutaneous injection of nicotine tartrate (7.5 mg/kg/day) was scheduled from day 1 through day 5, day 5 through day 9 or day 1 through day 9 of pc. In another group of pseudopregnant rats, concomitant treatment of nicotine tartrate concurrently with progesterone (2 mg/day) was scheduled from day 1 through day 9 pc. Control groups received subcutaneous injections of vehicle only. Endometrial decidualization was induced on day 5 pc. On day 10 pc, animals were sacrificed.The degree of decidual growth and circulating levels of estrogen and progesterone were measured.
Results: The decidual growth in all the first three nicotine-treated groups of animals was significantly reduced, particularly in the animals treated with nicotine from day 1 through day 9 pc. Plasma estrogen levels were significantly elevated in animals treated with nicotine from day 1 through day 9 pc. Conversely, levels of plasma progesterone were found to be significantly attenuated in the same group of nicotine-treated animals compared to controls. Exogenous replacement of progesterone, however, caused a higher degree of endometrial decidualization compared to the nicotine-treated group but it was slightly less than when compared to control.
Conclusions: In conclusion, nicotine-induced progesterone deficiency with a corresponding elevation of estrogen may possibly attenuate the degree of endometrial decidualization in pseudopregnant rats.
METHODS: This 5-year, prospective, multicenter, observational, study enrolled 30,138 patients across all approved ranibizumab indications from outpatient ophthalmology clinics. 297 consenting patients (≥18 years) with mCNV who were treatment-naïve or prior-treated with ranibizumab or other ocular treatments were enrolled, and treated with ranibizumab according to the local product label. The main outcomes are visual acuity (VA; Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters or equivalent), adverse events during the study, and treatment exposure over 1 year. Results are presented by prior treatment status of the study eye and injection frequency.
RESULTS: Of the 297 mCNV patients recruited in the study, 108 were treatment-naïve and 175 were prior ranibizumab-treated. At baseline, the mean age of patients was 57.6 years, and 59.0 years and 80.6% and 65.7% were female in the treatment-naïve and prior ranibizumab-treated groups, respectively. Most were Caucasian (treatment-naïve, 88.9%; prior ranibizumab-treated, 86.9%). The mean (±standard deviation [SD]) VA letter changes to 1 year were +9.7 (±17.99) from 49.5 (±20.51) and +1.5 (±13.15) from 58.5 (±19.79) and these were achieved with a mean (SD) of 3.0 (±1.58) and 2.6 (±2.33) injections in the treatment-naïve and prior ranibizumab-treated groups, respectively. Presented by injection frequencies 1-2, 3-4 and ≥5 injections in Year 1, the mean (SD) VA changes were +15.0 (±14.70), +7.7 (±19.91) and -0.7 (±16.05) in treatment-naïve patients and +1.5 (±14.57), +3.1 (±11.53) and -3.6 (±11.97) in prior ranibizumab-treated patients, respectively. The safety profile was comparable with previous ranibizumab studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab treatment for mCNV showed robust VA gains in treatment-naïve patients and VA maintenance in prior ranibizumab-treated patients in a clinical practice setting, consisting mainly of Caucasians. No new safety signals were observed during the study.
METHODS:: Eighty-six patients scheduled for trigger finger release between July 2016 and December 2017 were randomized into a control group (1% lignocaine and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate with arm tourniquet; given 10 min prior to procedure) and an intervention group (1% lignocaine, 1:100,000 of adrenaline and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate; given 30 min prior to procedure), with a total of 4 ml of solution injected around the A1 pulley. The onset of anesthesia and pain score upon injection of the first 1 ml were recorded. After the procedure, the surgeon rated for the hemostasis score (1-10: 1 as no bleeding and 10 being profuse bleeding). Duration of surgery and return of sensation were recorded.
RESULTS:: Hemostasis score was grouped into visibility score as 1-3: good, 4-6: moderate, and 7-10: poor. The intervention group (with adrenaline) had a 74% of good surgical field visibility compared to 44% from the controlled group (without adrenaline; p < 0.05). Duration of anesthesia was longer in the intervention group (with adrenaline), with a 2.77-h difference.
CONCLUSION:: WALANT provides excellent surgical field visibility and is safe and on par with conventional methods but without the usage of a tourniquet and its associated discomfort.
SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Penang General Hospital, Georgetown Penang, Malaysia.
DESIGN: Prospective comparative case series.
METHOD: Patients with immature cataract were randomized to the topical mydriatic group (topical group) or intracameral mydriatic group (intracameral group). Patients with small pupils and complicated cataracts were excluded. Pupil diameter changes were measured throughout the surgery. Additional pupil dilation maneuvers and complications were recorded.
RESULTS: The study comprised 112 patients. There was no difference in mean pupil dilation between the intracameral group (4.86 mm ± 0.74 [SD]) and the topical group (4.88 ± 0.91 mm) (P = .86). However, the mean pupil size before capsulorhexis in the topical group (7.23 ± 1.08 mm) was significantly larger than in the intracameral group (6.40 ± 0.80 mm) (P = .01). The pupils in the intracameral group continued to dilate during surgery (0.44 ± 0.62 mm), while those in the topical group constricted (-0.41 ± 1.04 mm) (P
METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Clinical Trials from inception until December 2014, to identify randomized controlled trials of intravenous iron and ESA, in patients undergoing haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease. Dosing of IV iron in concordance with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines was considered optimal iron therapy.
RESULTS: Of the 28 randomized controlled trials identified, seven met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results of random-effects meta-analysis show a statistically significant weighted mean (95% CI) difference of -1733 [-3073, -392] units/week in ESA dose for optimal iron versus suboptimal iron. The weighted average change in ESA dose was a reduction of 23% (range -7% to -55%) attributable to appropriate dosing of intravenous iron. A comparison of intravenous iron versus oral iron/no iron (five trials) showed a greater reduction in ESA dose, although this did not reach statistical significance (weighted mean difference, 95% CI: -2,433 [-5183, 318] units/week). The weighted average change in ESA dose across the five trials was a reduction of 31% (range -8% to -55%).
CONCLUSION: Significant reductions in ESA dosing may be achieved with optimal intravenous iron usage in the haemodialysis population, and suboptimal iron use may require higher ESA dosing to manage anaemia.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques of laser photocoagulation therapy in SCD-related proliferative retinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 4 July 2022. We also searched the following resources (26 June 2022): Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platforms (ICTRP); and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing laser photocoagulation to no treatment in children and adults with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials; we extracted and analysed data, contacting trial authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (414 eyes of 339 children and adults) comparing the efficacy and safety of laser photocoagulation to no therapy in people with PSR. There were 160 males and 179 females ranging in age from 13 to 67 years. The trials used different laser photocoagulation techniques; one single-centre trial employed sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation using an argon laser; a two-centre trial employed feeder vessel coagulation using argon laser in one centre and xenon arc in the second centre; while a third trial employed focal scatter laser photocoagulation using argon laser. The mean follow-up periods were 21 to 32 months in one trial, 42 to 47 months in a second, and 48 months in the third. Two trials had a high risk of allocation bias due to the randomisation method for participants with bilateral disease; the third trial had an unclear risk of selection bias. One trial was at risk of reporting bias. Given the unit of analysis is the eye rather than the individual, we chose to report the data narratively. Using sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation, one trial (174 eyes) reported no difference between groups for complete regression of PSR: 30.2% in the laser group and 22.4% in the control group. The same trial also reported no difference between groups in the development of new PSR: 34.3% of lasered eyes and 41.3% of control eyes (very low-certainty evidence). The two-centre trial using feeder vessel coagulation, only presented data at follow-up for one centre (mean period of nine years) and reported the development of new sea fan in 48.0% in the treated and 45.0% in the control group; no statistical significance (P = 0.64). A third trial reported regression in 55% of the laser group versus 28.6% of controls and progression of PSR in 10.5% of treated versus 25.7% of control eyes. We graded the evidence for these two primary outcomes as very low-certainty evidence. The sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation trial reported visual loss in 3.0% of treated eyes (mean follow-up 47 months) versus 12.0% of controlled eyes (mean follow-up 42 months) (P = 0.019). The feeder vessel coagulation trial reported visual loss in 1.14% of the laser group and 7.5% of the control group (mean follow-up 26 months at one site and 32 months in another) (P = 0.07). The focal scatter laser photocoagulation trial (mean follow-up of four years) reported that 72/73 eyes had the same visual acuity, while visual loss was seen in only one eye from the control group. We graded the certainty of the evidence as very low. The sectoral scatter laser trial detected vitreous haemorrhage in 12.0% of the laser group and 25.3% of control with a mean follow-up of 42 (control) to 47 months (treated) (P ≤ 0.5). The two-centre feeder vessel coagulation trial observed vitreous haemorrhage in 3.4% treated eyes (mean follow-up 26 months) versus 27.5% control eyes (mean follow-up 32 months); one centre (mean follow-up nine years) reported vitreous haemorrhage in 1/25 eyes (4.0%) in the treatment group and 9/20 eyes (45.0%) in the control group (P = 0.002). The scatter laser photocoagulation trial reported that vitreous haemorrhage was not seen in the treated group compared to 6/35 (17.1%) eyes in the control group and appeared only in the grades B and (PSR) stage III) (P < 0.05). We graded evidence for this outcome as low-certainty. Regarding adverse effects, only one occurrence of retinal tear was reported. All three trials reported on retinal detachment, with no significance across the treatment and control groups (low-certainty evidence). One trial reported on choroidal neovascularization, with treatment with xenon arc found to be associated with a significantly higher risk, but visual loss related to this complication is uncommon with long-term follow-up of three years or more. The included trials did not report on other adverse effects or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusions are based on the data from three trials (two of which were conducted over 30 years ago). Given the limited evidence available, which we assessed to be of low- or very low-certainty, we are uncertain whether laser therapy for sickle cell retinopathy improves the outcomes measured in this review. This treatment does not appear to have an effect on clinical outcomes such as regression of PSR and development of new incidences. No evidence is available assessing efficacy in relation to patient-important outcomes (such as quality of life or the loss of a driving licence). Further research is needed to examine the safety of laser treatment compared to other interventions such as intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) . Patient-important outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness should be addressed.
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: Survey results from 1613 randomly selected PWID from 5 regions in Ukraine who were currently, previously or never on OAT were analyzed for their preference of pharmacological therapies for treating OUDs. For those preferring XR-NTX, independent correlates of their willingness to initiate XR-NTX were examined.
RESULTS: Among the 1613 PWID, 449 (27.8%) were interested in initiating XR-NTX. Independent correlates associated with interest in XR-NTX included: being from Mykolaiv (AOR=3.7, 95% CI=2.3-6.1) or Dnipro (AOR=1.8, 95% CI=1.1-2.9); never having been on OAT (AOR=3.4, 95% CI=2.1-5.4); shorter-term injectors (AOR=0.9, 95% CI 0.9-0.98); and inversely for both positive (AOR=0.8, CI=0.8-0.9), and negative attitudes toward OAT (AOR=1.3, CI=1.2-1.4), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In the context of Eastern Europe and Central Asia where HIV is concentrated in PWID and where HIV prevention with OAT is under-scaled, new options for treating OUDs are urgently needed.
FINDINGS: here suggest that XR-NTX could become an option for addiction treatment and HIV prevention especially for PWID who have shorter duration of injection and who harbor negative attitudes to OAT. Decision aids that inform patient preferences with accurate information about the various treatment options are likely to guide patients toward better, patient-centered treatments and improve treatment entry and retention.