CASE REPORT: A case of unusual severe HDFN due to anti-D alloimmunisation in undiagnosed RhD negative primigravida Malay woman is reported here. This case illustrates the possibility of an anamnestic response from previous unknown sensitisation event or the development of anti-D in mid trimester. The newborn expired due to hydrops fetalis and severe anaemia. Antenatally, the mother was identified as RhD positive and thus there was no antenatal antibody screening, antepartum anti-D prophylaxis or close fetal monitoring for HDFN.
DISCUSSION: The thorough antenatal ABO and RhD blood grouping with antibody screening is mandatory as part of prevention and early detection of HDFN especially due to anti-D alloimmunisation. Improper management of RhD negative women might lead to severe HDFN including in primigravida.
METHODS: EMA detection was performed by flow cytometry in monocytes and monoblasts. EMA expression was compared with other known markers of monocytic-macrophage lineage (CD11c, CD14 and intracellular CD68). Samples of purified monocytes were obtained from 20 healthy volunteers. Twenty-two cases of monocytic AML (M4 and M5) were studied and controls were selected from 20 cases of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and 18 cases of non-monocytic AML (M0, M1, M2, M3, and M7).
RESULTS: EMA was shown to be expressed strongly on the surface of all purified monocytes. EMA expression was observed on blast cells in 18/22 (81.8%) cases of AML M4 and M5, but not in that of non-monocytic AML or ALL. In this study EMA monoclonal antibody has demonstrated a strong association (P<0.001) with all the other known markers of monocytic-macrophage lineage in acute leukaemia subtypes. EMA had also shown 100% specificity and 81.8% sensitivity in the diagnosis of AML M4 and M5.
CONCLUSIONS: The monoclonal antibody EMA (clone E29) is a useful marker in the classification of acute myeloid leukaemia and can be used as a supplementary analysis for the diagnosis of acute leukemia with monocytic involvement.
METHOD: Prospective case series.
RESULTS: Doxycycline is widely used in treating corneal melts, ocular surface diseases, meibomian gland disease, recurrent epithelial cell erosion, rosacea, and keratitis sicca. This prospective case series highlights the successful treatment of five patients with leaking blebs and conjunctiva erosion from glaucoma filtration surgery with the use of oral doxycycline. There was no adverse event reported in our cases.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that oral doxycycline may be a feasible non-surgical treatment modality due to its ability to inhibit collagenolysis, restore the Meibomian gland function, thereby stopping breakdown and promote conjunctival tissue healing.
Methods: A total of eighteen (18) malocclusion patients were identified. Malocclusion patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on the bracket selection (conventional, self-ligating, and ceramic bracket) with 6 patients for each group. sEMG of muscles were done using a two-channel electromyography device, where pregelled and self-adhesive electrodes (bilateral) were applied. Chewing and clenching of masseter and temporalis muscle activity were recorded for 20 s pre and 6 months of orthodontic treatment using sEMG (frequency 60 Hz). The data were analysed by using repeated measures ANOVA in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24.0.
Results: Chewing and clenching for masseter muscle showed no significant difference (P > 0.05) in sEMG activity of three types of the brackets. However, for temporalis muscle, there was a significant difference found in sEMG activity during chewing (P < 0.05) and clenching (P < 0.05) between these three brackets.
Conclusion: The activity of temporalis muscle showed significant changes in chewing and clenching, where the conventional group demonstrated better muscle activity pre and at six months of fixed appliances.
AIMS: This study intended to assess the association of peripheral neuropathy with statins therapy amongst Type 2 diabetic patients.
METHODS: At Penang General Hospital, 757 cases were categorized into two groups (564 with statins therapy and 193 without statins therapy). The diagnosis of PN was investigated retrospectively for a period of 10 years (2006-2016). Confounding risk factors as age, diabetes period, hypertension, glycemic control, other co-morbidity, and prescriptions were matched.
RESULTS: About 129 (22.9%) cases from 564 statins users had PN. Only 30 (15.5%) subjects had PN from 193 statins non-users. Chi-square test showed a significant variance among statins treatment cohort and statin-free cohort in the occurrence of PN (P-value: 0.001). Spearman's investigation presented a positive correlation (r: 0.078, p-value: 0.031) among statins use and PN prevalence. Binary logistic regression was statistically significant for statins therapy as a predictor of peripheral neuropathy incidence (r2: 0.006, p-value: 0.027) amid diabetic patients. The relative risk of peripheral neuropathy connected with statins therapy is (RR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.02-2.11). The excess relative risk is 47.1%. While the absolute risk (AR) is 7.3% and the number needed to harm (NNH) is 14.
CONCLUSIONS: The study indicated a positive association between peripheral neuropathy and statins utilization. Peripheral neuropathy was higher amongst statins users than the statins-free group.
Methods: An electronic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (from their inception to December 2020). A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019126271).
Results: We retrieved a total of 285 articles, of which 11 satisfied our inclusion criteria. There were 452 participants with age ranged from 15 to 58 years old. Intralymphatic immunotherapy was given in three doses with intervals of four weeks between doses in 10 trials. One trial gave three and six doses with an interval of two weeks. Both primary and secondary outcomes showed no difference between ILIT and placebo for all trials. There was no difference in the combined symptoms and medication score (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.28), symptoms score (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.38), medication score (SMD -6.56, 95% CI -21.48 to 8.37), rescue medication (RR 12.32, 95% CI 0.72-211.79) and the overall improvement score (MD -0.07, 95% CI -2.28 to 2.14) between ILIT and placebo. No major adverse events noted.
Conclusions: Intralymphatic immunotherapy possibly has a role in the treatment of AR patients. This review found it is safe but not effective, which could be contributed by the high variation amongst the trials. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardized administration of ILIT and outcome measures.
METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.
RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%).
CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross sectional prospective study done in 18 public hospitals in Malaysia from 7/4/2019 to 2/7/2019. Data was collected prospectively with universal sampling. All adult Muslim patients with previous diagnosis of diabetes, who were admitted for hypoglycemia, DKA or HHS were included if they had fasted and had intentions to fast.
RESULTS: 295 admissions for diabetes emergencies were analyzed. The pre-Ramadan period recorded the highest number of admissions (119) followed by during (106) and post-Ramadan (70). Admissions for hyperglycemic emergencies accounted for 2/3 of total admissions. 37% of admissions for hypoglycemia occurred during pre-Ramadan period compared to 32.1% during Ramadan. Contributing factors included use of sulphonylurea (59.6%), presence of nephropathy (54.5%) and past history of hypoglycemia (45.5%). Admissions for DKA were more common than HHS (119 versus 77) and highest during Ramadan period (36.1%). Most of the admissions for hyperglycemic emergencies were among those with Type 2 diabetes (75.9% for DKA and 97.4% for HHS). Only 31.5% of patients admitted for diabetes emergencies recalled having received Ramadan advice in the past.
DISCUSSION: Admissions for diabetes emergencies were highest during pre-Ramadan period followed by Ramadan and post-Ramadan period. This suggests that fasting during Ramadan does not increase admissions for diabetes emergencies.