-
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023Cannabis use among pregnant women has increased over time. Therefore, there is a great public health need to understand the consequences of cannabis exposure. While... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cannabis use among pregnant women has increased over time. Therefore, there is a great public health need to understand the consequences of cannabis exposure. While several meta-analyses and reviews have summarized the evidence of cannabis exposure on adverse obstetric outcomes (e.g., low birth weight and preterm birth) and long-term offspring development, there has not been a focus on cannabis exposure and risk for structural birth defects.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the association between cannabis exposure and structural birth defects.
RESULTS
We identified 20 articles to include in our review and focused on interpreting findings from the 12 that adjusted for potential confounders. We report findings by seven organ systems. Within the 12 articles, four reported on cardiac malformations, three reported on central nervous system malformations, one reported on eye malformations, three reported on gastrointestinal malformations, one reported on genitourinary malformations, one reported on musculoskeletal malformations, and two reported on orofacial malformations.
DISCUSSION
Findings on associations between cannabis exposure and birth defects reported in more than two articles were mixed (i.e., findings for cardiac, gastrointestinal, central nervous system malformations). Findings for associations between cannabis exposure and birth defects reported in two articles (i.e., orofacial malformations) or in a single article (eye, genitourinary, and musculoskeletal) suggested that cannabis exposure was not associated with these types of malformations, but strong conclusions cannot be drawn from such sparce research. We review the limitations and gaps in the existing literature and call for more research to rigorously evaluate associations between cannabis exposure and structural birth defects.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
identifier CRD42022308130.
PubMed: 37303758
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1149401 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2023Takayasu's arteritis (TA) is a type of vasculitis in which inflammation develops in large vessels, especially in the aorta and its branches. Our study aims to determine... (Review)
Review
Takayasu's arteritis (TA) is a type of vasculitis in which inflammation develops in large vessels, especially in the aorta and its branches. Our study aims to determine the prevalence and type of ocular manifestations in TA. A systematic literature search was conducted in December 2022 using three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). The following data were extracted from each article: the name of the first author; the patient's age, sex, and origin (continent); circumstances connected with the diagnosis of TA; symptoms given by the patients; reported ocular manifestations; and administered treatment. The final analysis was based on data collected from 122 cases. Retinal ischemia, followed by optic neuropathy, cataract, and retinal artery occlusion, were the most prevalent eye conditions associated with the disease. Systemic steroid therapy, vascular procedures, and methotrexate were mainly used to treat pulseless disease. Patients mostly complained of gradual vision acuity loss, sudden vision acuity loss, ocular pain, and amaurosis fugax. The diagnosis of Takayasu's arteritis should be considered in patients presenting symptoms of visual decline/loss, ocular pain, or signs of retinal ischemia, optic neuropathy, or early cataract formation. A proper diagnosis is crucial to ensure the patient receives treatment without significant delay.
PubMed: 37297942
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12113745 -
Systematic Reviews Jun 2023Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections play a key role in treating a range of macular diseases. The effectiveness of these therapies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections play a key role in treating a range of macular diseases. The effectiveness of these therapies is dependent on patients' adherence (the extent to which a patient takes their medicines as per agreed recommendations from the healthcare provider) and persistence (continuation of the treatment for the prescribed duration) to their prescribed treatment regimens. The aim of this systematic review was to demonstrate the need for further investigation into the prevalence of, and factors contributing to, patient-led non-adherence and non-persistence, thus facilitating improved clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted in Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Studies in English conducted before February 2023 that reported the level of, and/or barriers to, non-adherence or non-persistence to intravitreal anti-VEGF ocular disease therapy were included. Duplicate papers, literature reviews, expert opinion articles, case studies, and case series were excluded following screening by two independent authors.
RESULTS
Data from a total of 409,215 patients across 52 studies were analysed. Treatment regimens included pro re nata, monthly and treat-and-extend protocols; study durations ranged from 4 months to 8 years. Of the 52 studies, 22 included a breakdown of reasons for patient non-adherence/non-persistence. Patient-led non-adherence varied between 17.5 and 35.0% depending on the definition used. Overall pooled prevalence of patient-led treatment non-persistence was 30.0% (P = 0.000). Reasons for non-adherence/non-persistence included dissatisfaction with treatment results (29.9%), financial burden (19%), older age/comorbidities (15.5%), difficulty booking appointments (8.5%), travel distance/social isolation (7.9%), lack of time (5.8%), satisfaction with the perceived improvement in their condition (4.4%), fear of injection (4.0%), loss of motivation (4.0%), apathy towards eyesight (2.5%), dissatisfaction with facilities 2.3%, and discomfort/pain (0.3%). Three studies found non-adherence rates between 51.6 and 68.8% during the COVID-19 pandemic, in part due to fear of exposure to COVID-19 and difficulties travelling during lockdown.
DISCUSSION
Results suggest high levels of patient-led non-adherence/non-persistence to anti-VEGF therapy, mostly due to dissatisfaction with treatment results, a combination of comorbidities, loss of motivation and the burden of travel. This study provides key information on prevalence and factors contributing to non-adherence/non-persistence in anti-VEGF treatment for macular diseases, aiding identification of at-risk individuals to improve real-world visual outcomes. Improvements in the literature can be achieved by establishing uniform definitions and standard timescales for what constitutes non-adherence/non-persistence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020216205.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Medication Adherence; Eye Diseases
PubMed: 37269003
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02261-x -
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology...The purpose of this study was to pool the prevalence rate of monkeypox-associated eye manifestations and/or complications during the current and previous outbreaks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to pool the prevalence rate of monkeypox-associated eye manifestations and/or complications during the current and previous outbreaks.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
On August 7, 2022, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. We included all studies that reported the involvement of the eye (either as a manifestation or a complication) among patients with monkeypox. The primary outcome included pooling the effect size (ES) of reported manifestations and complications, and the secondary outcome included the conduct of a subgroup analysis based on the timing of the monkeypox outbreak (before vs. during 2022).
RESULTS
Eleven studies reporting 3179 monkeypox-confirmed cases were included. Eye manifestations included conjunctivitis, corneal, conjunctival, and eyelid lesions, photophobia, and eye pain. Compared with previous monkeypox outbreaks, the current outbreak revealed much lower rates of ocular involvement in terms of conjunctivitis (ES=1%; 95% CI: 0%-1% vs. ES=17%; 95% CI: 11%-22%), corneal and conjunctival lesions (ES=1%; 95% CI: 0%-2% vs. ES=13%; 95% CI: 4%-22%), and eyelid lesions (ES=1%; 95% CI: 0%-4% vs. ES=13%; 95% CI: 5%-28%). Monkeypox-associated eye complications were reported only in the previous outbreaks which included keratitis (ES=4%; 95% CI: 3%-6%), corneal ulceration (ES=4%; 95% CI: 2%-5%), unilateral (ES=3%; 95% CI: 1%-4%) and bilateral blindness (ES=0%; 95% CI: 0%-2%), and impaired vision (ES=4%; 95% CI: 1%-8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Ophthalmic manifestations and complications are common among monkeypox-confirmed cases. Although these data are mainly related to previous outbreaks, health care workers should familiarize themselves with these signs to provide better care for monkeypox patients.
Topics: Humans; Mpox (monkeypox); Conjunctiva; Disease Outbreaks; Conjunctivitis; Keratitis
PubMed: 37249903
DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000608 -
World Neurosurgery: X Jul 2023Carotid-cavernous fistulas (CCFs) represent a group of rare, abnormal arteriovenous communications between the carotid arterial system and the cavernous sinuses (CS).... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Carotid-cavernous fistulas (CCFs) represent a group of rare, abnormal arteriovenous communications between the carotid arterial system and the cavernous sinuses (CS). CCFs often produce ophthalmologic symptoms related to increased CS pressures and retrograde venous drainage of the eye. Although endovascular occlusion remains the preferred treatment for symptomatic or high-risk CCFs, most of the data for these lesions is limited to small, single-center series. As such, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating endovascular occlusions of CCFs to determine any differences in clinical outcomes based on presentation, fistula type, and treatment paradigm.
METHOD
A retrospective review of all studies discussing the endovascular treatment of CCFs published through March 2023 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases. A total of 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Data from the selected articles were extracted and analyzed using Stata software version 14.
RESULTS
1494 patients were included. 55.08% were female and the mean age of the cohort was 48.10 years. A total number of 1516 fistulas underwent endovascular treatment, 48.05% of which were direct and 51.95% of which were indirect. 87.17% of CCFs were secondary to a known trauma while 10.18% were spontaneous. The most common presenting symptoms were 89% exophthalmos (95% CI: 78.0-100.0; I = 75.7%), 84% chemosis (95% CI: 79.0-88.0; I = 91.6%), 79% proptosis (95% CI: 72.0-86.0; I = 91.8%), 75.0% bruits (95% CI: 67.0-82.0; I = 90.7%), 56% diplopia (95% CI: 42.0-71.0; I = 92.3%), 49% cranial nerve palsy (95% CI: 32.0-66.0; I = 95.1%), 39% visual decline (95% CI: 32.0-45.0; I = 71.4%), 32% tinnitus (95% CI: 6.0-58.0; I = 96.7%), 29% elevated intraocular pain (95% CI: 22.0-36.0; I = 0.0%), 31% orbital or pre-orbital pain (95% CI: 14.0-48.0; I = 89.9%) and 24% headache (95% CI: 13.0-34.0; I = 74.98%). Coils, balloons, and stents were the three most used embolization methods respectively. Immediate complete occlusion of the fistula was seen in 68% of cases and complete remission was seen in 82%. Recurrence of CCF occurred in only 35% of the patients. Cranial nerve paralysis after treatment was observed in 7% of the cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Exophthalmos, Chemosis, proptosis, bruits, cranial nerve palsy, diplopia, orbital and periorbital pain, tinnitus, elevated intraocular pressure, visual decline and headache are the most common clinical manifestations of CCFs. The majority of endovascular treatments involved coiling, balloons and onyx and a high percentage of CCF patients experienced complete remission with the improvement of their clinical symptoms.
PubMed: 37223772
DOI: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2023.100189 -
The Ocular Surface Apr 2023Many factors in the domains of mental, physical, and social health have been associated with various ocular surface diseases, with most of the focus centered on aspects... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Many factors in the domains of mental, physical, and social health have been associated with various ocular surface diseases, with most of the focus centered on aspects of dry eye disease (DED). Regarding mental health factors, several cross-sectional studies have noted associations between depression and anxiety, and medications used to treat these disorders, and DED symptoms. Sleep disorders (both involving quality and quantity of sleep) have also been associated with DED symptoms. Under the domain of physical health, several factors have been linked to meibomian gland abnormalities, including obesity and face mask wear. Cross-sectional studies have also linked chronic pain conditions, specifically migraine, chronic pain syndrome and fibromyalgia, to DED, principally focusing on DED symptoms. A systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed available data and concluded that various chronic pain conditions increased the risk of DED (variably defined), with odds ratios ranging from 1.60 to 2.16. However, heterogeneity was noted, highlighting the need for additional studies examining the impact of chronic pain on DED signs and subtype (evaporative versus aqueous deficient). With respect to societal factors, tobacco use has been most closely linked to tear instability, cocaine to decreased corneal sensitivity, and alcohol to tear film disturbances and DED symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Chronic Pain; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dry Eye Syndromes; Life Style; Tears; Meibomian Glands
PubMed: 37054911
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a potentially blinding, secondary glaucoma. It is caused by the formation of abnormal new blood vessels, which prevent normal drainage of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a potentially blinding, secondary glaucoma. It is caused by the formation of abnormal new blood vessels, which prevent normal drainage of aqueous from the anterior segment of the eye. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications are specific inhibitors of the primary mediators of neovascularization. Studies have reported the effectiveness of anti-VEGF medications for the control of intraocular pressure (IOP) in NVG.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of intraocular anti-VEGF medications, alone or with one or more types of conventional therapy, compared with no anti-VEGF medications for the treatment of NVG.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register); MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; and LILACS to 19 October 2021; metaRegister of Controlled Trials to 19 October 2021; and two additional trial registers to 19 October 2021. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people treated with anti-VEGF medications for NVG.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the search results for trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence. We resolved discrepancies through discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (356 eyes of 353 participants). Each trial was conducted in a different country: two in China, and one each in Brazil, Egypt, and Japan. All five RCTs included both men and women; the mean age of participants was 55 years or older. Two RCTs compared intravitreal bevacizumab combined with Ahmed valve implantation and panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) with Ahmed valve implantation and PRP alone. One RCT randomized participants to receive an injection of either intravitreal aflibercept or placebo at the first visit, followed by non-randomized treatment according to clinical findings after one week. The remaining two RCTs randomized participants to PRP with and without ranibizumab, one of which had insufficient details for further analysis. We assessed the RCTs to have an unclear risk of bias for most domains due to insufficient information to permit judgment. Four RCTs examined achieving control of IOP, three of which reported our time points of interest. Only one RCT reported our critical time point at one month; it found that the anti-VEGF group had a 1.3-fold higher chance of achieving control of IOP at one month (RR 1.32, 95% 1.10 to 1.59; 93 participants) than the non-anti-VEGF group (low certainty of evidence). For other time points, one RCT found a three-fold greater achievement in control of IOP in the anti-VEGF group when compared with the non-anti-VEGF group at one year (RR 3.00; 95% CI:1.35 to 6.68; 40 participants). However, another RCT found an inconclusive result at the time period ranging from 1.5 years to three years (RR 1.08; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.75; 40 participants). All five RCTs examined mean IOP, but at different time points. Very-low-certainty evidence showed that anti-VEGFs were effective in reducing mean IOP by 6.37 mmHg (95% CI: -10.09 to -2.65; 3 RCTs; 173 participants) at four to six weeks when compared with no anti-VEGFs. Anti-VEGFs may reduce mean IOP at three months (MD -4.25; 95% CI -12.05 to 3.54; 2 studies; 75 participants), six months (MD -5.93; 95% CI -18.13 to 6.26; 2 studies; 75 participants), one year (MD -5.36; 95% CI -18.50 to 7.77; 2 studies; 75 participants), and more than one year (MD -7.05; 95% CI -16.61 to 2.51; 2 studies; 75 participants) when compared with no anti-VEGFs, but such effects remain uncertain. Two RCTs reported the proportion of participants who achieved an improvement in visual acuity with specified time points. Participants receiving anti-VEGFs had a 2.6 times (95% CI 1.60 to 4.08; 1 study; 93 participants) higher chance of improving visual acuity when compared with those not receiving anti-VEGFs at one month (very low certainty of evidence). Likewise, another RCT found a similar result at 18 months (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.33 to 12.05; 1 study; 40 participants). Two RCTs reported the outcome, complete regression of new iris vessels, at our time points of interest. Low-certainty evidence showed that anti-VEGFs had a nearly three times higher chance of complete regression of new iris vessels when compared with no anti-VEGFs (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.18; 1 study; 93 participants). A similar finding was observed at more than one year in another RCT (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.45 to 7.05; 1 study; 40 participants). Regarding adverse events, there was no evidence that the risks of hypotony and tractional retinal detachment were different between the two groups (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.12 to 3.57 and RR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.01 to 7.72, respectively; 1 study; 40 participants). No RCTs reported incidents of endophthalmitis, vitreous hemorrhage, no light perception, and serious adverse events. Evidence for the adverse events of anti-VEGFs was low due to limitations in the study design due to insufficient information to permit judgments and imprecision of results due to the small sample size. No trial reported the proportion of participants with relief of pain and resolution of redness at any time point.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGFs as an adjunct to conventional treatment could help reduce IOP in NVG in the short term (four to six weeks), but there is no evidence that this is likely in the longer term. Currently available evidence regarding the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs in achieving control of IOP, visual acuity, and complete regression of new iris vessels in NVG is insufficient. More research is needed to investigate the effect of these medications compared with, or in addition to, conventional surgical or medical treatment in achieving these outcomes in NVG.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Bevacizumab; Glaucoma, Neovascular; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 37010901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007920.pub4 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2023Previous research highlights burning eye syndrome (BES) and burning mouth syndrome (BMS) as chronic complications of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Previous research highlights burning eye syndrome (BES) and burning mouth syndrome (BMS) as chronic complications of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to establish the prevalence of COVID-19-related BES and COVID-19-related BMS and describe their phenomenology.
METHODOLOGY
A literature search in the PubMed database was performed, and seven papers (five on BES and two on BMS) were eligible to be included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of COVID-19-related BES was 9.9% (95% CI 3.4-25.4%). The frequency of COVID-19-related BMS is only reported in isolated cases and ranges from 4% in mild-to-moderate cases to 15% in severe, hospitalized cases, with female patients being mostly affected. COVID-19 severity is a potential risk factor for both BES and BMS. Neither syndrome occurs in isolation. COVID-19-related BES usually appears within the first week post-infection, persisting up to 9 weeks later. COVID-19-related BMS occurs during and after initial infection, and may also persist as a chronic disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Both BES and BMS are neuropathic COVID-19 infection complications, still under-studied and under-investigated, despite the fact that both are prevalent. Both COVID-19-related BES and COVID-19-related BMS could potentially be initial long COVID syndrome manifestations, and further research should be carried out in this field.
PubMed: 36917411
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-023-00492-3 -
Medicine Feb 2023The pregabalin is approved for the management of persistent pain. The aim of this study is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the use of pregabalin in eye...
BACKGROUND
The pregabalin is approved for the management of persistent pain. The aim of this study is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the use of pregabalin in eye pain management.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched until January 2022 for randomized controlled trials. Randomized, double-blinded trials comparing pregabalin with placebo in eye pain management were included. The primary outcome was visual analog scale or numerical rating scale at acute (24 hours) and chronic (≥7 days after surgery) timepoints. The secondary outcomes were analgesic medication requirements and pregabalin-related complications (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and headache). We also compared the effect of pregabalin on dry-eye syndrome.
MAIN RESULTS
Six relevant articles were identified that studied the use of pregabalin as pain relief for photorefractive keratectomy (n = 2), laser epithelial keratomileusis (n = 1), laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (n = 1), eyelid surgery (n = 1), and dacryocystorhinostomy (n = 1). Pregabalin was associated with a significant reduction in pain scores (95% confidence interval = -0.41 [-0.76--0.06]) 24 hours after surgical procedures. The data were insufficient to draw conclusions regarding dry eye symptoms. Because of the high heterogeneity of outcomes regarding adverse effects, there is no conclusion regarding the safety of pregabalin in eye pain.
CONCLUSIONS
Pregabalin reduced acute eye pain but had no significant effect on long-term analgesia after ophthalmological surgery in adults. It had no effect on dry-eye symptoms after ocular surgery. Further studies on the safety of pregabalin in eye pain management are required to draw solid conclusions.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pregabalin; Eye Pain; Analgesics; Analgesia; Acute Pain; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 36820573
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032875 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in...
The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in patients receiving surgery under general anesthesia. The Embase, Medline, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2022 for randomized controlled trials The primary outcome was the risk of post-induction hypotension between the two agents, while the secondary outcomes included anesthetic depth, induction efficacy, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), hemodynamic profiles, time to eye opening, extubation time as well as the incidence of injection pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). Meta-analysis of eight studies published from 2020 to 2022 involving 738 patients revealed a significantly lower risk of post-induction hypotension with the use of remimazolam compared to that with propofol [risk ratio (RR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 0.75, < 0.0001, I = 12%, five studies, 564 patients]. After anesthetic induction, the anesthetic depth measured by bispectral index (BIS) was lighter in the remimazolam group than that in the propofol group (MD = 9.26, 95% confidence interval: 3.06 to 15.47, = 0.003, I = 94%, five studies, 490 patients). The time to loss of consciousness was also longer in the former compared to the latter (MD = 15.49 s, 95%CI: 6.53 to 24.46, = 0.0007, I = 61%, three studies, 331 patients). However, the use of remimazolam correlated with a lower risk of injection pain (RR = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.16, < 0.0001, I = 0%, three studies, 407 patients) despite comparable efficacy of anesthetic induction (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.06, = 0.57, I = 76%, two studies, 319 patients). Our results demonstrated no difference in time to eye opening, extubation time, and risk of PONV between the two groups. Remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of post-induction hypotension after anesthetic induction compared with propofol with similar recovery characteristics. Further studies are required to support our findings. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Identifier: CRD42022320658.
PubMed: 36814492
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1101728