-
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2020Scorpion sting is a public health issue in several countries, particularly in America, the Middle East, India and Africa. The estimated annual global incidence of... (Review)
Review
Scorpion sting is a public health issue in several countries, particularly in America, the Middle East, India and Africa. The estimated annual global incidence of scorpion envenomings is about 1.5 million, resulting in 2600 deaths. Scorpions are Arthropoda characterized by a tail ending in a terminal bulbous (telson) containing paired venom glands and the stinger. There are 19 known families of scorpions and more than 2200 species, of which about 50 from the families of Buthidae, Hemiscorpiidae and Scorpionidae are harmful to humans. Scorpion venom is a complex structure composed of neurotoxic proteins, salts, acidic proteins and organic compounds, thereby having neurologic, cardiovascular, hematologic and renal side effects, in addition to local effects such as redness, pain, burning and swelling. When the sting is fatal, the mechanism of death is often related to cardiotoxicity with terminal pulmonary edema. However, the cholinergic excess or the neuromuscular excitation can provoke respiratory failure. Sometimes, death is due to an anaphylactic reaction to the envenoming. The purpose of this literature review is to evaluate the autopsy findings in scorpion sting-related deaths in order to better understand the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying them, thus helping pathologists in defining the correct diagnosis.
PubMed: 32899951
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare8030325 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most commonly occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The most common cause of visual loss in people with BRVO is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most commonly occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The most common cause of visual loss in people with BRVO is macular oedema (MO). Grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss. Limitations to this treatment exist, however, and newer modalities may have equal or improved efficacy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has recently been used successfully to treat MO resulting from a variety of causes.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and gather evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the potential harms of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for the treatment of macular oedema (MO) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was 12 June 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating BRVO. Eligible trials had to have at least six months' follow-up where anti-VEGF treatment was compared with another treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We excluded trials where combination treatments (anti-VEGF plus other treatments) were used; and trials that investigated the dose and duration of treatment without a comparison group (other treatment/no treatment/sham).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with an improvement from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Chart at six months and 12 months of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants who lost greater than or equal to 15 ETDRS letters (3 lines) and the mean visual acuity (VA) change at six and 12 months, as well as the change in central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography from baseline at six and 12 months. We also collected data on adverse events and quality of life (QoL).
MAIN RESULTS
We found eight RCTs of 1631 participants that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These studies took place in Europe, North America, Eastern Mediterranean region and East Asia. Included participants were adults aged 18 or over with VA of 20/40 or worse. Studies varied by duration of disease but permitted previously treated eyes as long as there was sufficient treatment-free interval. All anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) and steroids (triamcinolone and dexamethasone) were included. Overall, we judged the studies to be at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Four of the eight studies did not mask participants or outcome assessors, or both. One trial compared anti-VEGF to sham. At six months, eyes receiving anti-VEGF were significantly more likely to have a gain of 15 or more ETDRS letters (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.49; 283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months compared with control (mean difference (MD) 7.50 letters, 95% CI 5.29 to 9.71; 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGF also proved more effective at reducing CRT at six months (MD -57.50 microns, 95% CI -108.63 to -6.37; 281 participants; lower CRT is better; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. Mean change in QoL (measured using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire VFQ-25) was better in people treated with anti-VEGF compared with people treated with sham (MD 7.6 higher score, 95% CI 4.3 to 10.9; 281 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three RCTs compared anti-VEGF with macular laser (total participants = 473). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.05; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA in the anti-VEGF groups was better than the laser groups at six months (MD 9.63 letters, 95% CI 7.23 to 12.03; 3 studies, 473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a greater reduction in CRT in the anti-VEGF group compared with the laser group at six months (MD -147.47 microns, 95% CI -200.19 to -94.75; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse events. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. QoL outcomes were not reported. Four studies compared anti-VEGF with intravitreal steroid (875 participants). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more ETDRS letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.10; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.28; 1 study, 307 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months (MD 8.22 letters, 95% CI 5.69 to 10.76; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (MD 9.15 letters, 95% CI 6.32 to 11.97; 2 studies, 343 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean CRT also showed a greater reduction in the anti-VEGF arm at 12 months compared with intravitreal steroid (MD -26.92 microns, 95% CI -65.88 to 12.04; 2 studies, 343 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). People receiving anti-VEGF showed a greater improvement in QoL at 12 months compared to those receiving steroid (MD 3.10, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.98; 1 study, 307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested increased risk of cataract and raised IOP with steroids. There was only very low-certainty evidence on APTC events. No cases of endophthalmitis were observed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available RCT evidence suggests that treatment of MO secondary to BRVO with anti-VEGF improves visual and anatomical outcomes at six and 12 months.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bevacizumab; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Laser Coagulation; Laser Therapy; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Salvage Therapy; Steroids; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32633861
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009510.pub3 -
International Journal of Retina and... 2020Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness due to diabetic macular edema (DME) or complications of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Optical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness due to diabetic macular edema (DME) or complications of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a noninvasive imaging technique well established for DME but less used to assess neovascularization in PDR. Developments in OCT imaging and the introduction of OCT angiography (OCTA) have shown significant potential in PDR.
OBJECTIVES
To describe the tomographic features of PDR, namely of neovascularization, both of the optic disc (NVD) and elsewhere (NVE), intraretinal microvascular abnormalities (IRMA), retinal nonperfusion areas (NPA), status of the posterior vitreous, vitreoschisis and vitreous and subhyaloid/sub-ILM hemorrhages.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic database search on PubMed and EMBASE, last run on December 19th 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS
Publications assessing OCT and/or OCTA findings in PDR patients. All study designs were allowed except for case-reports, conference proceedings and letters.
STUDY APPRAISAL
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies was used for purposes of risk of bias assessment.
RESULTS
From the 1300 studies identified, 283 proceeded to full-text assessment and 60 were included in this comprehensive review. OCT was useful in detecting NVD and NVE, such as in characterizing disease activity and response to laser and/or anti-VEGF therapies. The absence of posterior vitreous detachment seemed determinant for neovascular growth, with the posterior hyaloid acting as a scaffold. OCTA allowed a more detailed characterization of the neovascular complexes, associated NPA and disease activity, allowing the quantification of neovessel area and flow index. However, changes in OCTA blood flow signal following local therapies did not necessarily correlate with structural regression. Widefield and ultra-widefield OCTA were highly sensitive in the detection of PDR, adding value to disease staging and monitoring. Compared to fluorescein angiography, OCTA was more sensitive in detecting microvascular changes indicating disease progression.
LIMITATIONS
Publication languages were restricted. Most included studies were observational and non-comparative. Risk of bias regarding case representativeness.
CONCLUSIONS
OCT-based retinal imaging technologies are advancing rapidly and the trend is to be noninvasive and wide-field. OCT has proven invaluable in diagnosing, staging and management of proliferative diabetic disease with daily application in clinical and surgical practices.
PubMed: 32612851
DOI: 10.1186/s40942-020-00230-3 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic... May 2020The clinical application of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) T and T mapping is currently limited as ranges for healthy and cardiac diseases are poorly defined.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The clinical application of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) T and T mapping is currently limited as ranges for healthy and cardiac diseases are poorly defined. In this meta-analysis we aimed to determine the weighted mean of T and T mapping values in patients with myocardial infarction (MI), heart transplantation, non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (NICM) and hypertension, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) of each population with healthy controls. Additionally, the variation of mapping outcomes between studies was investigated.
METHODS
The PRISMA guidelines were followed after literature searches on PubMed and Embase. Studies reporting CMR T or T values measured in patients were included. The SMD was calculated using a random effects model and a meta-regression analysis was performed for populations with sufficient published data.
RESULTS
One hundred fifty-four studies, including 13,804 patient and 4392 control measurements, were included. T values were higher in patients with MI, heart transplantation, sarcoidosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, amyloidosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and myocarditis (SMD of 2.17, 1.05, 0.87, 1.39, 1.62, 1.95, 1.90 and 1.33, respectively, P < 0.01) compared with controls. T values in iron overload patients (SMD = - 0.54, P = 0.30) and Anderson-Fabry disease patients (SMD = 0.52, P = 0.17) did both not differ from controls. T values were lower in patients with MI and iron overload (SMD of - 1.99 and - 2.39, respectively, P < 0.01) compared with controls. T values in HCM patients (SMD = - 0.61, P = 0.22), DCM patients (SMD = - 0.54, P = 0.06) and hypertension patients (SMD = - 1.46, P = 0.10) did not differ from controls. Multiple CMR acquisition and patient demographic factors were assessed as significant covariates, thereby influencing the mapping outcomes and causing variation between studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical utility of T and T mapping to distinguish affected myocardium in patients with cardiomyopathies or heart transplantation from healthy myocardium seemed to be confirmed based on this meta-analysis. Nevertheless, variation of mapping values between studies complicates comparison with external values and therefore require local healthy reference values to clinically interpret quantitative values. Furthermore, disease differentiation seems limited, since changes in T and T values of most cardiomyopathies are similar.
Topics: Cardiomyopathies; Diagnosis, Differential; Heart Failure; Heart Transplantation; Humans; Hypertension; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Myocardial Infarction; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32393281
DOI: 10.1186/s12968-020-00627-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne treatment; however, its efficacy and safety have not been clearly evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of BPO for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to February 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared topical BPO used alone (including different formulations and concentrations of BPO) or as part of combination treatment against placebo, no treatment, or other active topical medications for clinically diagnosed acne (used alone or in combination with other topical drugs not containing BPO) on the face or trunk.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were 'participant global self-assessment of acne improvement' and 'withdrawal due to adverse events in the whole course of a trial'. 'Percentage of participants experiencing any adverse event in the whole course of a trial' was a key secondary outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 120 trials (29,592 participants randomised in 116 trials; in four trials the number of randomised participants was unclear). Ninety-one studies included males and females. When reported, 72 trials included participants with mild to moderate acne, 26 included participants with severe acne, and the mean age of participants ranged from 18 to 30 years. Our included trials assessed BPO as monotherapy, as add-on treatment, or combined with other active treatments, as well as BPO of different concentrations and BPO delivered through different vehicles. Comparators included different concentrations or formulations of BPO, placebo, no treatment, or other active treatments given alone or combined. Treatment duration in 80 trials was longer than eight weeks and was only up to 12 weeks in 108 trials. Industry funded 50 trials; 63 trials did not report funding. We commonly found high or unclear risk of performance, detection, or attrition bias. Trial setting was under-reported but included hospitals, medical centres/departments, clinics, general practices, and student health centres. We reported on outcomes assessed at the end of treatment, and we classified treatment periods as short-term (two to four weeks), medium-term (five to eight weeks), or long-term (longer than eight weeks). For 'participant-reported acne improvement', BPO may be more effective than placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 2234 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). Based on low-certainty evidence, there may be little to no difference between BPO and adapalene (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 5 RCTs; 1472 participants; treatment for 11 to 12 weeks) or between BPO and clindamycin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 RCT; 240 participants; treatment for 10 weeks) (outcome not reported for BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid). For 'withdrawal due to adverse effects', risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.93; 24 RCTs; 13,744 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence); the most common causes of withdrawal were erythema, pruritus, and skin burning. Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the following comparisons: BPO versus adapalene (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.64; 11 RCTs; 3295 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks; causes of withdrawal not clear), BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.11; 8 RCTs; 3330 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; causes of withdrawal included local hypersensitivity, pruritus, erythema, face oedema, rash, and skin burning), erythromycin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.26; 1 RCT; 60 participants; treatment for 8 weeks; withdrawal due to dermatitis), and salicylic acid (no participants had adverse event-related withdrawal; 1 RCT; 59 participants; treatment for 12 weeks). There may be little to no difference between these groups in terms of withdrawal; however, we are unsure of the results because the evidence is of very low certainty. For 'proportion of participants experiencing any adverse event', very low-certainty evidence leaves us uncertain about whether BPO increased adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; 21 RCTs; 11,028 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks), with adapalene (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.00; 7 RCTs; 2120 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks), with erythromycin (no participants reported any adverse events; 1 RCT; 89 participants; treatment for 10 weeks), or with salicylic acid (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 93.67; 1 RCT; 41 participants; treatment for 6 weeks). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of adverse events may be increased for BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 6 RCTs; 3018 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks); however, the 95% CI indicates that BPO might make little to no difference. Most reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and local dryness, irritation, dermatitis, erythema, application site pain, and pruritus were the most common.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that BPO as monotherapy or add-on treatment may be more effective than placebo or no treatment for improving acne, and there may be little to no difference between BPO and either adapalene or clindamycin. Our key efficacy evidence is based on participant self-assessment; trials of BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid did not report this outcome. For adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding BPO compared with adapalene, erythromycin, or salicylic acid. However, risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment. Withdrawal may be linked to tolerability rather than to safety. Risk of mild to moderate adverse events may be higher with BPO compared with clindamycin. Further trials should assess the comparative effects of different preparations or concentrations of BPO and combination BPO versus monotherapy. These trials should fully assess and report adverse effects and patient-reported outcomes measured on a standardised scale.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adolescent; Adult; Benzoyl Peroxide; Cicatrix; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32175593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011154.pub2 -
Current Medical Imaging Reviews 2019To systematically review evidence regarding the association of multiparametric biomarkers with clinical outcomes and their capacity to explain relevant subcompartments...
PURPOSE
To systematically review evidence regarding the association of multiparametric biomarkers with clinical outcomes and their capacity to explain relevant subcompartments of gliomas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Scopus database was searched for original journal papers from January 1st, 2007 to February 20th, 2017 according to PRISMA. Four hundred forty-nine abstracts of papers were reviewed and scored independently by two out of six authors. Based on those papers we analyzed associations between biomarkers, subcompartments within the tumor lesion, and clinical outcomes. From all the articles analyzed, the twenty-seven papers with the highest scores were highlighted to represent the evidence about MR imaging biomarkers associated with clinical outcomes. Similarly, eighteen studies defining subcompartments within the tumor region were also highlighted to represent the evidence of MR imaging biomarkers. Their reports were critically appraised according to the QUADAS-2 criteria.
RESULTS
It has been demonstrated that multi-parametric biomarkers are prepared for surrogating diagnosis, grading, segmentation, overall survival, progression-free survival, recurrence, molecular profiling and response to treatment in gliomas. Quantifications and radiomics features obtained from morphological exams (T1, T2, FLAIR, T1c), PWI (including DSC and DCE), diffusion (DWI, DTI) and chemical shift imaging (CSI) are the preferred MR biomarkers associated to clinical outcomes. Subcompartments relative to the peritumoral region, invasion, infiltration, proliferation, mass effect and pseudo flush, relapse compartments, gross tumor volumes, and highrisk regions have been defined to characterize the heterogeneity. For the majority of pairwise cooccurrences, we found no evidence to assert that observed co-occurrences were significantly different from their expected co-occurrences (Binomial test with False Discovery Rate correction, α=0.05). The co-occurrence among terms in the studied papers was found to be driven by their individual prevalence and trends in the literature.
CONCLUSION
Combinations of MR imaging biomarkers from morphological, PWI, DWI and CSI exams have demonstrated their capability to predict clinical outcomes in different management moments of gliomas. Whereas morphologic-derived compartments have been mostly studied during the last ten years, new multi-parametric MRI approaches have also been proposed to discover specific subcompartments of the tumors. MR biomarkers from those subcompartments show the local behavior within the heterogeneous tumor and may quantify the prognosis and response to treatment of gliomas.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Biomarkers, Tumor; Brain Edema; Brain Neoplasms; Cross-Sectional Studies; Glioma; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Patient Outcome Assessment; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 32008521
DOI: 10.2174/1573405615666190109100503 -
Medical Ultrasonography Nov 2019To define and score finger soft tissue oedema in psoriatic dactylitis by ultrasound.
AIM
To define and score finger soft tissue oedema in psoriatic dactylitis by ultrasound.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review (SLR) on ultrasound-detected finger soft tissue oedema was performed. Subsequently, based on the SLR, a Delphi survey was developed and circulated among a group of 13 expert sonographers, in order to obtain agreement on detection, definition and scoring of finger oedema by B-mode and power Doppler ultrasound. Agreement was considered achieved when each statement was approved by >75% of participants.
RESULTS
At the first Delphi round, 91 % agreement was obtained for the scanning technique to adopt, including the most appropriate area to evaluate. At the second round, 76% agreement was achieved on the definition of soft tissue finger oedema. At the third round, 76% agreement was obtained for B-mode and power Doppler scores. The volar aspect of the finger and comparisons with the contralateral side were agreed to be the most appropriate in terms of scanning technique. Agreed ultrasound definition of finger soft tissue oedema was "abnormal hypoechoic/anechoic areas, diffused or localized within the subcutaneous tissue between the epidermidis and the tendon-related anatomic structures (i.e. flexor tendon sheath, peritenonium, tendon pulleys), with local thickening, with or without local abnormal Doppler signal, visualised in two perpendicular planes and not evident on the contralateral side". Semiquantitative (0-3) scores for both B-mode and power Doppler were agreed to be the most appropriate to be used.
CONCLUSION
Our work produced, for the first time, technical indications, definition and scoring for the ultrasound assessment of soft tissue oedema in psoriatic dactylitis.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Edema; Fingers; Humans; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 31765449
DOI: 10.11152/mu-2258 -
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research 2019To estimate the pooled prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in Iran and to investigate their correlations with the Human Development Index (HDI),... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To estimate the pooled prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in Iran and to investigate their correlations with the Human Development Index (HDI), healthcare access (i.e., density of specialists and sub-specialists), and methodological issues.
METHODS
Electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and local databases were searched for cohort and cross-sectional studies published prior to January 2018. Prevalence and incidence rates of DR were extracted from January 2000 to December 2017 and random effects models were used to estimate pooled effect sizes. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was applied for quality assessment of eligible studies.
RESULTS
A total of 55,445 participants across 33 studies were included. The pooled prevalence (95% CI) of DR in diabetic clinics (22 studies), eye clinics (4 studies), and general population (7 studies) was 31.8% (24.5 to 39.2), 57.8% (50.2 to 65.3), and 29.6% (22.6 to 36.5), respectively. It was 7.4% (3.9 to 10.8) for proliferative DR and 7.1% (4.9 to 9.4) for clinically significant macular edema. The heterogeneity of individual estimates of prevalence was highly significant. HDI ( < 0.001), density of specialists ( = 0.004), subspecialists ( < 0.001), and sampling site ( = 0.041) were associated with heterogeneity after the adjustment for type of DR, duration of diabetes, study year, and proportion of diabetics with controlled HbA1C.
CONCLUSION
Human development and healthcare access were correlated with the prevalence of DR. Data were scarce on the prevalence of DR in less developed provinces. Participant recruitment in eye clinics might overestimate the prevalence of DR.
PubMed: 31660112
DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v14i3.4790 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Neurocysticercosis is the most common parasitic infection of the brain. Epilepsy is the most common clinical presentation, though it may also present with headache,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neurocysticercosis is the most common parasitic infection of the brain. Epilepsy is the most common clinical presentation, though it may also present with headache, symptoms of raised intracranial pressure, hydrocephalus and ocular symptoms depending upon the localisation of the parasitic cysts. Anthelmintic drugs, anti-oedema drugs, such as steroids, and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) form the mainstay of treatment.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2015, Issue 10.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures in people with neurocysticercosis.For the question of primary prevention, we examined whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in patients who have neurocysticercosis but have not had a seizure.For the question of secondary prevention, we examined whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in patients who have had at least one seizure due to neurocysticercosis.As part of primary prevention studies, we also aimed to examine which AED has been found to be beneficial in people with neurocysticercosis in terms of duration, dose and side-effect profile.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 8 July 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to July 05, 2019) and LILACS (1982- ). CRS Web includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also checked the references lists of identified studies, and contacted experts in the field and colleagues to search for additional studies and for information about ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials.Single-blind, double-blind or unblinded studies were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened all citations for eligibility (MS screened the initially identified 180 citations, MF and BDM screened the 48 citations identified for the purpose of this update).Two review authors independently extracted data and evaluated each study for risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not find any trials that investigated the role of AEDs in preventing seizures among people with neurocysticercosis, presenting with symptoms other than seizures.We did not find any trials that evaluated evaluating individual AEDs in people with neurocysticercosis.We found one trial, comparing two AEDs in people with solitary neurocysticercosis with seizures. However, we excluded this study from the review as it was of poor quality.We found four trials that compared the efficacy of short term versus longer term AED treatment for people with solitary neurocysticercosis (identified on computed tomography (CT) scan) presenting with seizures. In total, 466 people were enrolled. These studies compared various AED treatment durations, six, 12 and 24 months. The risk of seizure recurrence with six months treatment compared with 12 to 24 months treatment was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 1.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.47; three studies, 360 participants; low-certainty evidence)). The risk of seizure recurrence with six to 12 months compared with 24 months treatment was not statistically significant (OR 1.36 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.57; three studies, 385 participants; low-certainty evidence)).Two studies co-related seizure recurrence with CT findings and suggested that persistent and calcified lesions had a higher recurrence risk and suggest longer duration of treatment with AEDs. One study reported no side effects, while the rest did not comment on side effects of drugs. None of the studies addressed the quality of life of the participants.These studies had certain methodological deficiencies such as a small sample size and a possibility of bias due to lack of blinding, which affect the results of this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite neurocysticercosis being the most common cause of epilepsy worldwide, there is currently no evidence available regarding the use of AEDs as seizure prophylaxis among people presenting with symptoms other than seizures. For those presenting with seizures, there is no reliable evidence regarding the duration of treatment required. There is therefore a need for large scale randomised controlled trials to address these questions.
PubMed: 31608991
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009027.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of neurosensory retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium. It is caused by retinal tears, which let... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of neurosensory retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium. It is caused by retinal tears, which let fluid pass from the vitreous cavity to the subretinal space. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckling surgery and pneumatic retinopexy are three accepted management strategies whose efficacy remains controversial. Pneumatic retinopexy is considered in a separate Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of PPV versus scleral buckling for the treatment of simple RRD (primary RRD of any extension with up to two clock hours large break(s) regardless of their anterior/posterior localisation) in people with (phakia) or without (aphakia) a natural lens in the eye, or with an artificial lens (pseudophakia). A secondary objective was to assess any data on economic and quality-of-life measures.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 5 December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPV versus scleral buckling surgery with at least three months of follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently extracted the data and study characteristics from the studies identified as eligible after initial screening. We considered the following outcomes: primary retinal reattachment, postoperative visual acuity, final anatomical success, recurrence of retinal detachment, number of interventions needed to achieve final anatomical success, quality of life and adverse effects. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included 10 RCTs (1307 eyes of 1307 participants) from Europe, India, Iran, Japan and Mexico, which compared PPV and scleral buckling for RRD repair. Two of these 10 studies compared PPV combined with scleral buckling with scleral buckling alone (54 participants). All studies were high or unclear risk of bias on at least one domain. Five studies were funded by non-commercial sources, while the other five studies did not report source of funding.There was little or no difference in the proportion of participants who achieved retinal reattachment at least 3 months after the operation in the PPV group compared to those in the scleral buckling group (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.98 to 1.16; 9 RCTs, 1261 participants, low-certainty evidence). Approximately 67 in every 100 people treated with scleral buckling had retinal reattachment by 3 to 12 months. Treatment with PPV may result in 4 more people with retinal reattachment in every 100 people treated (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 fewer to 11 more).There was no evidence of any important difference in postoperative visual acuity between participants in the PPV group compared to those in the scleral buckling group (mean difference (MD) 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.10, 6 RCTs, 1138 participants, low-certainty evidence).There was little or no difference in final anatomical success between participants in the PPV group and scleral buckling group (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.04, 9 RCTs, 1235 participants, low-certainty evidence). There were 94 out of 100 people treated with control (scleral buckling) that achieved final anatomical success compared to 96 out of 100 in the PPV group.Retinal redetachment was reported in fewer participants in the PPV group compared to the scleral buckling group (RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.96, 9 RCTs, 1320 participants, low-certainty evidence). Approximately 28 in every 100 people treated with scleral buckling had retinal detachment by 3 to 36 months. Treatment with PPV may result in seven fewer people with retinal detachment in every 100 people treated (95% CI 1 to 11 fewer).Participants treated with PPV on average needed fewer interventions to achieve final anatomical success but the difference was small and data were skewed (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06, 2 RCTs, 682 participants, very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence on quality of life suggested that more people in the PPV group were "satisfied with vision" compared with the scleral buckling group (RR 6.22, 95% CI 0.88 to 44.09, 1 RCT, 32 participants).All included studies reported adverse effects, however, it was not always clear whether they were reported as number of participants or number of adverse effects. Cataract development or progression was more prevalent in the PPV group (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.01), choroidal detachment was more prevalent in the scleral buckling group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.65) and new/iatrogenic breaks were observed only in the PPV group (RR 8.21, 95% CI 1.91 to 35.21). Estimates of the relative frequency of other adverse effects, including postoperative proliferative vitreoretinopathy, postoperative increase in intraocular pressure, development of cystoid macular oedema, macular pucker and strabismus were imprecise. Evidence for adverse effects was low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- or very low-certainty evidence indicates that there may be little or no difference between PPV and scleral buckling in terms of primary success rate, visual acuity gain and final anatomical success in treating primary RRD. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be less retinal redetachment in the PPV group. Some adverse events appeared to be more common in the PPV group, such as cataract progression and new iatrogenic breaks, whereas others were more commonly seen in the scleral buckling group such as choroidal detachment.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Retinal Detachment; Retinal Perforations; Scleral Buckling; Treatment Outcome; Visual Acuity; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 30848830
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009562.pub2