-
Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy Oct 2010Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is a cerebrovascular disorder associated with multifocal arterial constriction and dilation. RCVS is associated with... (Review)
Review
Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is a cerebrovascular disorder associated with multifocal arterial constriction and dilation. RCVS is associated with nonaneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, pregnancy and exposure to certain drugs. The primary clinical manifestation is recurrent sudden-onset and severe (‘thunderclap’) headaches over 1–3 weeks, often accompanied by nausea, vomiting, photophobia, confusion and blurred vision. The primary diagnostic dilemma is distinguishing RCVS from primary CNS arteritis. Diagnosis requires demonstration of the characteristic ‘string of beads’ on cerebral angiography with resolution within 1–3 months, although many patients will initially have normal vascular imaging. Many treatments have been reported to ameliorate the headaches of RCVS, but it is unclear whether they prevent hemorrhagic or ischemic complications.
Topics: Arteritis; Cerebral Angiography; Cerebral Arterial Diseases; Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Headache Disorders, Primary; Humans; Pregnancy; Syndrome; Time Factors; Vasoconstriction; Vasospasm, Intracranial
PubMed: 20936928
DOI: 10.1586/erc.10.124 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2012Blepharitis, an inflammatory condition associated with itchiness, redness, flaking, and crusting of the eyelids, is a common eye condition that affects both children and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Blepharitis, an inflammatory condition associated with itchiness, redness, flaking, and crusting of the eyelids, is a common eye condition that affects both children and adults. It is common in all ethnic groups and across all ages. Although infrequent, blepharitis can lead to permanent alterations to the eyelid margin or vision loss from superficial keratopathy (abnormality of the cornea), corneal neovascularization, and ulceration. Most importantly, blepharitis frequently causes significant ocular symptoms such as burning sensation, irritation, tearing, and red eyes as well as visual problems such as photophobia and blurred vision. The exact etiopathogenesis is unknown, but suspected to be multifactorial, including chronic low-grade infections of the ocular surface with bacteria, infestations with certain parasites such as demodex, and inflammatory skin conditions such as atopy and seborrhea. Blepharitis can be categorized in several different ways. First, categorization is based on the length of disease process: acute or chronic blepharitis. Second, categorization is based on the anatomical location of disease: anterior, or front of the eye (e.g. staphylococcal and seborrheic blepharitis), and posterior, or back of the eye (e.g. meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)). This review focuses on chronic blepharitis and stratifies anterior and posterior blepharitis.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of chronic blepharitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We searched the reference lists of included studies for any additional studies not identified by the electronic searches. There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 9 February 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (CCTs) in which participants were adults aged 16 years or older and clinically diagnosed with chronic blepharitis. We also included trials where participants with chronic blepharitis were a subset of the participants included in the study and data were reported separately for these participants. Interventions within the scope of this review included medical treatment and lid hygiene measures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed search results, reviewed full-text copies for eligibility, examined risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were meta-analyzed for studies comparing similar interventions and reporting comparable outcomes with the same timing. Otherwise, results for included studies were summarized in the text.
MAIN RESULTS
There were 34 studies (2169 participants with blepharitis) included in this review: 20 studies (14 RCTs and 6 CCTs) included 1661 participants with anterior or mixed blepharitis and 14 studies (12 RCTs and 2 CCTs) included 508 participants with posterior blepharitis (MGD). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included studies, with respect to follow-up periods and types of interventions, comparisons, and condition of participants, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. Topical antibiotics were shown to provide some symptomatic relief and were effective in eradicating bacteria from the eyelid margin for anterior blepharitis. Lid hygiene may provide symptomatic relief for anterior and posterior blepharitis. The effectiveness of other treatments for blepharitis, such as topical steroids and oral antibiotics, were inconclusive.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite identifying 34 trials related to treatments for blepharitis, there is no strong evidence for any of the treatments in terms of curing chronic blepharitis. Commercial products are marketed to consumers and prescribed to patients without substantial evidence of effectiveness. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatments. Any RCT designed for this purpose should separate participants by type of condition (e.g. staphylococcal blepharitis or MGD) in order to minimize imbalances between groups (type I errors) and to achieve statistical power for analyses (prevent type II errors). Medical interventions and commercial products should be compared with conventional lid hygiene measures, such as warm compresses and eyelid margin washing, to determine effectiveness, as well as head-to-head to show comparative effectiveness between treatments. Outcomes of interest should be patient-centered and measured using validated questionnaires or scales. It is important that participants be followed long-term, at least one year, to assess chronic outcomes properly.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Blepharitis; Chronic Disease; Humans; Hygiene; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids
PubMed: 22592706
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005556.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2010Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol (acetaminophen), alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine in adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 4 October 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered paracetamol to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies (2769 participants, 4062 attacks) compared paracetamol 1000 mg, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes paracetamol was superior to placebo, with NNTs of 12, 5.2 and 5.0 for 2-hour pain-free and 1- and 2-hour headache relief, respectively, when medication was taken for moderate to severe pain. Nausea, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced more with paracetamol than with placebo at 2 hours (NNTs of 7 to 11); more individuals were free of any functional disability at 2 hours with paracetamol (NNT 10); and fewer participants needed rescue medication over 6 hours (NNT 6).Paracetamol 1000 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg was not significantly different from oral sumatriptan 100 mg for 2-hour headache relief; there were no 2-hour pain-free data. There was no significant difference between the paracetamol plus metoclopramide combination and sumatriptan for relief of "light/noise sensitivity" at 2 hours, but slightly more individuals needed rescue medication over 24 hours with the combination therapy (NNT 17).Adverse event rates were similar between paracetamol and placebo, and between paracetamol plus metoclopramide and sumatriptan. No serious adverse events occurred with paracetamol alone, but more "major" adverse events occurred with sumatriptan than with the combination therapy (NNH 32).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Paracetamol 1000 mg alone is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, and the addition of 10 mg metoclopramide gives short-term efficacy equivalent to oral sumatriptan 100 mg. Adverse events with paracetamol did not differ from placebo; "major" adverse events were slightly more common with sumatriptan than with paracetamol plus metoclopramide.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hyperacusis; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Photophobia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sumatriptan
PubMed: 21069700
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008040.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2024Early-onset myopia increases the risk of irreversible high myopia. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose atropine for myopia control... (Review)
Review
Early-onset myopia increases the risk of irreversible high myopia. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose atropine for myopia control in children with premyopia through meta-analysis using random-effects models. Effect sizes were calculated using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were conducted until 20 December 2023, without language restrictions. Four studies involving 644 children with premyopia aged 4-12 years were identified, with atropine concentrations ranging from 0.01% to 0.05%. The analysis focused on myopia incidence and atropine-related adverse events. Lower myopia incidence (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97 D/y; = 0.03) and reduction in rapid myopia shift (≥0.5 D/1y) (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96 D/y; < 0.01) were observed in the 12-24-month period. Spherical equivalent and axial length exhibited attenuated progression in the atropine group. No major adverse events were detected in either group, whereas the incidence of photophobia and allergic conjunctivitis did not vary in the 12-24-month period. Our meta-analysis supports atropine's efficacy and safety for delaying myopia incidence and controlling progression in children with premyopia. However, further investigation is warranted due to limited studies.
PubMed: 38592670
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051506 -
Medical Hypothesis, Discovery &... 2022The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the most challenging health problem in the last 2 years. Post-COVID-19 multisystem inflammatory syndrome of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the most challenging health problem in the last 2 years. Post-COVID-19 multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children (MIS-C) is a severe post-COVID-19 complication in pediatric patients. Ocular manifestations may be the first presentation of MIS-C, wherein prompt treatment may improve outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the acute and sub-acute ocular manifestations in pediatric patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.
METHODS
We included all online primary studies, with no language restriction and published between January 1, 2019 and November 18, 2020, reporting any acute or sub-acute ocular manifestations in children with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. PubMed/MEDLINE was searched using the following MeSH and Emtree terms: "eye," "ophthalmologic," "ocular," "vision," "conjunctivitis," "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2," "SARS-CoV-2," "corona," "2019-nCoV," "COVID19," and "COVID." The eligibility and quality of the selected records were assessed by two independent reviewers as per the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review.
RESULTS
A total of 1,192 records were identified electronically. Seven papers were extracted from the reference lists of the eligible records. Thirty-six papers met the inclusion criteria and were categorized into two subgroups according to acute or sub-acute presentation of ocular manifestations. Among 463 pediatric patients with COVID-19, 72 (15.5%) had acute ocular manifestations. There was one patient with central retinal vein occlusion and another with photophobia and diplopia associated with meningoencephalitis. Among 895 pediatric patients with post-COVID-19 MIS-C, 469 (52.4%) had ocular manifestations, which only included non-purulent conjunctivitis.
CONCLUSIONS
Ocular manifestations have been reported in less than one-fifth of pediatric patients with acute COVID-19. Furthermore, conjunctivitis was the only ocular manifestation reported in half of the patients with MIS-C, and it may be missed easily due to its non-purulent nature. During the COVID-19 pandemic, pediatricians and health workers must remain vigilant for early detection of signs of this potentially fatal post-COVID-19 inflammatory syndrome.
PubMed: 37641695
DOI: 10.51329/mehdiophthal1440 -
JPRAS Open Jun 2019Migraine is a global phenomenon, affecting more than 10% of the world's population. It is characterized by unilateral headache that may be accompanied by vomiting,... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Migraine is a global phenomenon, affecting more than 10% of the world's population. It is characterized by unilateral headache that may be accompanied by vomiting, nausea, photophobia and phonophobia. Some patients with chronic migraine respond to extra-cranial botulinum toxin type A injection, although the benefits observed are temporary. The rationale for surgical trigger site deactivation is to achieve lasting symptomatic improvement or permanent relief from migraine.
METHODS
We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of clinical studies evaluating surgical intervention for migraine by searching Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to June 2017. Studies were independently screened by two authors. Data were extracted on study characteristics, migraine outcomes, adverse events and recurrence. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The review protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017068577).
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 789 articles; of them, 18 studies (4 RCTs and 14 case series) were eligible for analysis. Surgical interventions were heterogeneous and variably involved peripheral nerve decompression by myectomy or foraminotomy, nerve excision, artery resection and/or nasal surgery. All studies reported significant reductions in migraine intensity, frequency, duration and composite headache scores following surgery. Study heterogeneity precluded formal meta-analysis. Where reported, adverse event rates varied markedly between studies. The quality of included studies was consistently low or very low.
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of any specific surgical intervention for chronic migraine, especially with regard to permanent relief; however, all included studies report improvements in key outcomes following migraine surgery. A definitive, well-powered RCT with objective surgical and patient-reported outcome measures and robust adverse event reporting is required.
PubMed: 32158867
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2019.01.002 -
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 -
Cureus Mar 2023This systematic scoping review aims to answer questions related to the main characteristics of primary headache, the need for neuroimaging, and the presence of red flags... (Review)
Review
This systematic scoping review aims to answer questions related to the main characteristics of primary headache, the need for neuroimaging, and the presence of red flags in these patients. A review of prospective studies including the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, and SCIELO databases, as well as the grey literature, was conducted. The methodological quality of the selected investigations was also assessed. Six investigations met the selection criteria. The mean age of people with primary headache was less than 43 years, with ages ranging from 39 to 46 years. Most of the studies reported the presence of nausea/vomiting, between 12% and 60% of the patients studied. To a lesser extent, there was also the presence of intense and moderate pain, loss of consciousness, stiff neck, presence of aura, and photophobia. The most frequent diagnoses were unspecified headache, migraine, and tension headache. The studies did not recommend neuroimaging and no red flags were reported. Primary headache occurred more frequently in women, in those under 46 years of age with a history of migraine and similar episodes. Moreover, the presence of red flags and the need for neuroimaging in patients with primary headaches were not evidenced.
PubMed: 37065368
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.36131 -
Headache Feb 2021To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials.
METHOD
A systematic literature review, following a prespecified (but unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to understand endpoints and outcomes used in acute migraine clinical trials. Predefined terms were searched in PubMed to locate clinical trials assessing acute migraine treatments. Final database search was conducted on October 28, 2019. Identified publications were reviewed against established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine eligibility. Data related to general trial design characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcomes and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted from eligible publications. Descriptive summaries of design features, sample characteristics, and the endpoints and outcomes employed across publications were constructed. Outcomes are presented within four broad categories: (a) pain-related outcomes (pain relief, pain freedom, etc.), (b) associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, etc.), (c) disability/impairment/impact, (d) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, general health and migraine/headache-specific). Endpoint types were categorized within three broad categories: (a) change from baseline, (b) fixed timepoint, and (c) responder definitions (e.g., 50% reduction). This review focuses on a subset of recent (1998 or later) randomized and blinded publications evaluating drugs or medical devices.
RESULTS
Of 1567 publications found through the initial search and reference section reviews, 705 met criteria and were included for data extraction. Inter-rater agreement kappas for the descriptive variables extracted had an average kappa estimate of 0.86. The more recent, randomized and blinded pharmaceutical and medical device article subset includes 451 publications (451/705, 63.9%). The outcomes and endpoints varied substantially across trials, ranging from pain relief or freedom, freedom from or relief of migraine-associated symptoms, use of acute or rescue medication, and various other PROMs, including measures of satisfaction and quality of life. Within the recent randomized and blinded article subset, most articles examined ≥1 pain-related outcome (430/451, 95.3%). Of the publications that examined pain, outcomes most often used were pain relief (310/430, 72.1%), pain freedom (279/430, 64.9%), and headache recurrence (202/43,051, 47.0%) or rescue medication use (278/430, 64.9%). Associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were more frequently measured (299/451, 66.3%) compared to most bothersome associated symptom (16/451, 3.5%), as it is a new addition to regulatory guidance. Over one-third of eligible publications examined disability/impairment (186/451, 41.2%) or ≥1 PROM (159/451, 35.3%). The definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of "responders" to treatment based on wide variety of "responder definitions") also differed substantially across publications.
CONCLUSION
Acute migraine clinical trials exhibit a large amount of variability in outcomes and endpoints used, in addition to the variability in how outcomes and endpoints were used from trial-to-trial. There were some common elements across trials that align with guidance from the International Headache Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies (e.g., assessing pain and associated symptoms, 2-hour post-treatment). Other aspects of acute migraine clinical trial design did not follow guidance. For example, multi-item PROMs intended to measure constructs (e.g., scales) are rarely used, the use of pain-related outcomes is inconsistent, some associated symptom assessments are idiosyncratic, and the timing of the assessment of primary endpoints is variable. The development of a core set of outcomes and endpoints for acute migraine clinical trials that are patient-centered and statistically robust could improve the conduct of individual trials, facilitate cross-trial comparisons, and better support informed treatment decisions by healthcare professionals and patients.
Topics: Acute Disease; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 33611818
DOI: 10.1111/head.14067 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2023Congenital aniridia is a rare, panocular disorder with a main phenotypic characteristic of a partial or complete absence of the iris existing alongside other ocular...
Congenital aniridia is a rare, panocular disorder with a main phenotypic characteristic of a partial or complete absence of the iris existing alongside other ocular morbidities such as cataract, keratopathy, optic nerve and foveal hypoplasia, and nystagmus. The iris abnormality, however, often leads to symptoms such as photophobia, glare, and decreased visual acuity, as well as cosmetic dissatisfaction. Current management options for the iris deficit include colored iris contact lenses, corneal tattooing, and tinted contact lenses. Symptoms arising from small iris defects can be resolved with surgical management using micro-tying suture techniques such as McCannel or Siepser. Currently, larger iris defects can be treated with artificial iris implants. New prosthetic options range from colored intraocular lenses to flexible custom-made silicone iris implants. With a range of therapeutic options available and given the challenges of multiple comorbidities in aniridia, we evaluate the literature relating to the use of artificial iris implants in congenital aniridia, with a focus on the different surgical implantation techniques, the clinical outcomes achieved, complications occurred, and risk of bias of the studies included.
Topics: Humans; Visual Acuity; Aniridia; Iris; Lenses, Intraocular; Prosthesis Implantation; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 36379301
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2022.11.001