-
European Journal of Medical Genetics Oct 2023Autosomal recessive keratitis-ichthyosis-deafness syndrome (KIDAR MIM #242150) is a very rare disorder caused by pathogenic loss-of-function variants in the AP1B1 gene....
Autosomal recessive keratitis-ichthyosis-deafness syndrome (KIDAR MIM #242150) is a very rare disorder caused by pathogenic loss-of-function variants in the AP1B1 gene. So far, nine patients have been reported in the literature and more clinical descriptions are essential to further delineate the phenotype of KIDAR. Here we report a new patient with KIDAR and compare the clinical findings with those from the other published cases with molecular confirmation. We describe a 14-year-old male born to non-consanguineous parents with unremarkable family history. The patient had fetal ascites, neonatal pancreatic insufficiency with consequent failure to thrive, feeding difficulties, recurrent infections and sepsis. The skin examination was remarkable for an ichthyosis with conspicuous palmoplantar keratoderma, sparse and brittle hair with alopecia on the vertex and slight bilateral ectropion. He had short stature, thin build, frontal bossing, small teeth and prominent abdomen. Additional features were congenital profound bilateral sensorineural deafness, photosensitivity and photophobia. Mild global developmental delay was noted. Persistent mild anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and low serum copper, ceruloplasmin and growth hormone were also present. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed cerebral atrophy and thin corpus callosum. Genetic testing revealed a homozygous deletion in the AP1B1 gene, possibly including the same exons as a previously reported deletion. Comparing the phenotypes of all reported individuals, they are highly concordant and major features are enteropathy with feeding difficulties, failure to thrive, ichthyosis, palmoplantar keratoderma, sensorineural deafness and sparse and brittle hair. Here we report other features present in more than one patient that could be part of the phenotypic spectrum and suggest copy number variation analysis to be performed alongside sequencing of the AP1B1 gene in case of suspicion.
PubMed: 37657632
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2023.104827 -
Medicine Sep 2023The last few decades have witnessed an appalling rise in several emerging and re-emerging viral and zoonotic outbreaks. Amongst those emerging zoonosis, one of the...
BACKGROUND
The last few decades have witnessed an appalling rise in several emerging and re-emerging viral and zoonotic outbreaks. Amongst those emerging zoonosis, one of the diseases which is gaining popularity these days and has been declared as public health emergency of international concern by the world health organization, is human monkeypox virus (HMPX). Proper understanding of the clinical spectrum of the disease is of paramount importance for early diagnosis and treatment. In this review, we aimed to study and quantify the neurological manifestations of HMPX virus infection.
METHODS
Any study, released prior to April 13, 2023, that reported neurological manifestations in patients infected by HMPX virus were reviewed systematically on PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis) statement.
RESULTS
Our systematic review included data from 22 eligible studies: 10 cohort studies, 3 cross sectional studies, one retrospective study, 5 case series, and 2 case reports. The most commonly reported neurological manifestations of HMPX were headache (48.84%), myalgia (27.50%), fatigue (17.73%), and photophobia (4.43%). Uncommonly, HMPX can also present with visual deficit (0.57%), seizure (0.34%), encephalitis (0.8%), dizziness (0.34%), encephalomyelitis (0.23%), coma (0.11%), and transverse myelitis (0.11%).
DISCUSSIONS
Monkeypox virus usually presents with self-limiting painful rash, lymphadenitis, and fever, complications like secondary skin infection, eye problems and pneumonia can be life threatening, carrying a case fatality rate of 1% to 10%. Neurological manifestations are not uncommon and can further add-on to morbidity and mortality.
Topics: Humans; Coinfection; Cross-Sectional Studies; Mpox (monkeypox); Monkeypox virus; Public Health; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37657009
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034664 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Dec 2023A large number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose atropine in preventing or slowing myopic progression. However, it is challenging to evaluate the ocular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A large number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose atropine in preventing or slowing myopic progression. However, it is challenging to evaluate the ocular safety from these studies. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of adverse events induced by atropine in children with myopia. We performed a systematic literature search in several databases for studies published until November 2022. The incidence of adverse events induced by atropine was pooled by a common-effect (fixed-effect) or random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to drug doses, types of adverse events, and ethnicity. A total of 31 articles were ultimately included in the study. The overall incidence of adverse events for atropine was 5.9%, and the incidence of severe adverse events was 0.0%. The most commonly reported adverse events were photophobia (9.1%) and blurred near vision (2.9%). Other adverse events including eye irritation/discomfort, allergic reactions, headache, stye/chalazion, glare, and dizziness occurred in less than 1% of the patients. The incidence of atropine-induced adverse events varied depending on the drug doses. A lower dose of atropine was associated with a lower incidence of adverse events. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events for low-dose atropine between Asian and White children. Our study suggests photophobia and blurred near vision are the most frequently reported adverse events induced by atropine. Low-dose atropine is safer than moderate- and high-dose atropine. Our study could provide a safe reference for ophthalmologists to prescribe atropine for myopic children.
Topics: Humans; Child; Atropine; Mydriatics; Photophobia; Incidence; Disease Progression; Myopia; Ophthalmic Solutions
PubMed: 37492894
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.2320 -
The International Journal of... Jun 2024The efficacy of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg daily for migraine remained controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg daily for migraine remained controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg daily on treatment in migraine patients. We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, Cochrane library databases and SCOPUS through 21 March 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg on treatment efficacy in migraine patients. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. Three RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with ubrogepant 100 mg in migraine patients, ubrogepant 50 mg obtained comparable pain freedom at 2 h (OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.64-1.15; = 0.310), sustained pain freedom 2-24 h (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.54-1.07; = 0.110), photophobia absence at 2 h (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.63-1.02; = 0.070), phonophobia absence at 2 h (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.82-1.40; = 0.620) and nausea absence at 2 h (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.79-1.32; = 0.880). In terms of safety, adverse events were found to be increased in ubrogepant 100 mg as compared to ubrogepant 50 mg (OR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.67-0.99; = 0.040), and there was no statistical difference of serious adverse events between two groups (OR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.40-1.91; = 0.720). Ubrogepant 50 mg and 100 mg may be equally effective to alleviate migraine, but ubrogepant 100 mg led to increase incidence of adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Pain; Pyridines; Pyrroles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35999672
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2022.2090351