1
|
Bin Sawad A, Jackimiec J, Bechter M, Trucillo A, Lindsley K, Bhagat A, Uyei J, Diaz GA. Epidemiology, methods of diagnosis, and clinical management of patients with arginase 1 deficiency (ARG1-D): A systematic review. Mol Genet Metab 2022; 137:153-163. [PMID: 36049366 DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2022.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2022] [Revised: 08/18/2022] [Accepted: 08/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Arginase 1 Deficiency (ARG1-D) is a rare, progressive, metabolic disorder that is characterized by devastating manifestations driven by elevated plasma arginine levels. It typically presents in early childhood with spasticity (predominately affecting the lower limbs), mobility impairment, seizures, developmental delay, and intellectual disability. This systematic review aims to identify and describe the published evidence outlining the epidemiology, diagnosis methods, measures of disease progression, clinical management, and outcomes for ARG1-D patients. METHODS A comprehensive literature search across multiple databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, and a review of clinical studies in ClinicalTrials.gov (with results reported) was carried out per PRISMA guidelines on 20 April 2020 with no date restriction. Pre-defined eligibility criteria were used to identify studies with data specific to patients with ARG1-D. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data from included studies. Quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-comparative studies. RESULTS Overall, 55 records reporting 40 completed studies and 3 ongoing studies were included. Ten studies reported the prevalence of ARG1-D in the general population, with a median of 1 in 1,000,000. Frequently reported diagnostic methods included genetic testing, plasma arginine levels, and red blood cell arginase activity. However, routine newborn screening is not universally available, and lack of disease awareness may prevent early diagnosis or lead to misdiagnosis, as the disease has overlapping symptomology with other diseases, such as cerebral palsy. Common manifestations reported at time of diagnosis and assessed for disease progression included spasticity (predominately affecting the lower limbs), mobility impairment, developmental delay, intellectual disability, and seizures. Severe dietary protein restriction, essential amino acid supplementation, and nitrogen scavenger administration were the most commonly reported treatments among patients with ARG1-D. Only a few studies reported meaningful clinical outcomes of these interventions on intellectual disability, motor function and adaptive behavior assessment, hospitalization, or death. The overall quality of included studies was assessed as good according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. CONCLUSIONS Although ARG1-D is a rare disease, published evidence demonstrates a high burden of disease for patients. The current standard of care is ineffective at preventing disease progression. There remains a clear need for new treatment options as well as improved access to diagnostics and disease awareness to detect and initiate treatment before the onset of clinical manifestations to potentially enable more normal development, improve symptomatology, or prevent disease progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - George A Diaz
- Division of Medical Genetics and Genomics in the Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lindsley K, Fusco N, Li T, Scholten R, Hooft L. Clinical trial registration was associated with lower risk of bias compared with non-registered trials among trials included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 145:164-173. [PMID: 35081449 PMCID: PMC9875740 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2021] [Revised: 01/08/2022] [Accepted: 01/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the association between clinical trial registration and risk of bias in clinical trials that have been included in systematic reviews. As a secondary objective, we evaluated the risk of bias among trials registered prospectively vs. retrospectively. METHOD Clinical trials published in 2005 or after included in a sample of 100 Cochrane systematic reviews published from 2014-2019. RESULTS Of 1,177 clinical trials identified, we verified 368 (31%) had been registered, of which 135 (36.7%) were registered prospectively (i.e., before or up to 1 month after enrollment of the first participant). Across the bias domains (one bias assessment for each domain per trial), the percentage of trials at low risk ranged from 29% to 58%; unclear risk ranged from to 26% to 61% and high risk ranged from 2% to 38%. Trials that had been registered had less high or unclear risk of bias in five domains: random sequence generation (univariate risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.58-0.81), allocation concealment (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57-0.72), performance bias (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72), detection bias (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.78), and reporting bias (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.73). An association between clinical trial registration and high or unclear risk of attrition bias could not be demonstrated nor refuted (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.17). It also was observed in terms of overall risk of bias, that registered trials had less high or unclear overall risk of bias than trials that had not been registered (univariate RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19-0.46). Prospective clinical trial registration was associated with low risks of selection bias due to inadequate allocation concealment, performance bias, and detection bias compared with retrospective clinical trial registration. CONCLUSION In a large sample of clinical trials included in recently published systematic reviews of interventions, clinical trial registration was associated with low risk of bias for five of the six domains examined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina Lindsley
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands,Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands,Corresponding author. (K. Lindsley)
| | | | - Tianjing Li
- Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
| | - Rob Scholten
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands,Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands,Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lê JT, Qureshi R, Rouse B, Twose C, Rosman L, Lindsley K, Hawkins BS, Li T. Development and content of a database of systematic reviews for eyes and vision. Eye (Lond) 2022; 36:883-885. [PMID: 33824507 PMCID: PMC8956616 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-021-01514-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2020] [Revised: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 03/12/2021] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jimmy T. Lê
- grid.21107.350000 0001 2171 9311Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA
| | - Riaz Qureshi
- grid.21107.350000 0001 2171 9311Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA
| | - Benjamin Rouse
- grid.21107.350000 0001 2171 9311Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA
| | - Claire Twose
- grid.21107.350000 0001 2171 9311Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA
| | - Lori Rosman
- grid.21107.350000 0001 2171 9311Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- grid.7692.a0000000090126352University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Barbara S. Hawkins
- grid.21107.350000 0001 2171 9311Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD USA
| | - Tianjing Li
- grid.430503.10000 0001 0703 675XDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bin Sawad A, Pothukuchy A, Badeaux M, Hodson V, Bubb G, Lindsley K, Uyei J, Diaz GA. Natural history of arginase 1 deficiency and the unmet needs of patients: A systematic review of case reports. JIMD Rep 2022; 63:330-340. [PMID: 35822089 PMCID: PMC9259395 DOI: 10.1002/jmd2.12283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2021] [Revised: 03/10/2022] [Accepted: 03/15/2022] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Arginase 1 deficiency (ARG1‐D) is a rare, progressive and debilitating urea cycle disorder characterized by clinical manifestations including spasticity, seizures, developmental delay, and intellectual disability. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the natural history of ARG1‐D and the unmet needs of patients. Methods A comprehensive search of published case reports was undertaken to identify patients with ARG1‐D regardless of interventions, comparisons, or outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other evidence‐based medicine literature databases were searched on 20 April 2020. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020212142.) Results One hundred and fifty seven ARG1‐D patients were included from 111 publications (good overall quality based on JBI's Checklist); 84 (53.5%) were males. Motor deficits (including spasticity), intellectual disability, and seizures were reported in >50% of the cases. Mean age (SD) at diagnosis was 6.4 years and the laboratory findings most commonly reported to support diagnosis included elevated plasma arginine (81.5%), mutation in ARG1 gene through genetic testing (60%), and absence/reduction of red blood cell arginase activity (51%). Reported management approaches mainly included dietary protein restriction (68%), nitrogen scavengers (45%), and essential amino acid supplements (21%). Author‐reported clinical improvement was documented for 26% of patients, 15% deteriorated, and 19% had limited or no change; notably, no indication of clinical outcome was reported for 40% cases. Conclusion This review illustrates a significant burden of disease and highlights a considerable unmet need for clinically effective treatment options for patients with ARG1‐D.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Kristina Lindsley
- Health Economics and Outcomes Research ‐ Evidence Synthesis IQVIA, Inc. San Francisco California USA
| | - Jennifer Uyei
- Health Economics and Outcomes Research ‐ Evidence Synthesis IQVIA, Inc. San Francisco California USA
| | - George A. Diaz
- Division of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York New York USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Teeuw HM, Amoakoh HB, Ellis CA, Lindsley K, Browne JL. Diagnostic accuracy of urine dipstick tests for proteinuria in pregnant women suspected of preeclampsia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pregnancy Hypertens 2022; 27:123-130. [PMID: 35051804 DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2021.12.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Revised: 12/02/2021] [Accepted: 12/29/2021] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Dipstick tests are frequently used as bedside proteinuria tests to evaluate women suspected of preeclampsia and may inform diagnosis in low resource settings lacking laboratory facilities. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) estimate the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipsticks in diagnosing proteinuria, (2) compare performance of different dipstick types and (3) estimate their related costs. METHODS MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to August 1, 2020 for primary studies with cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy data on dipstick test(s) compared to a laboratory reference standard (24-hour protein ≥ 300 mg or protein-creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/mmol) in pregnant women ≥ 20 weeks of gestation suspected of preeclampsia. Risk of bias and applicability was assessed with QUADAS-2. Data were analysed using a bivariate model with hierarchical addition of covariates for subgroups. RESULTS Nineteen studies were included. Protein-only dipsticks at 1 + threshold had a pooled sensitivity of 0.68 [95%CI: 0.57-0.77] and specificity of 0.85 [95% CI: 0.73-0.93] (n = 3700 urine samples, 18 studies). Higher specificity was found with automatedly (0.93 [95% CI: 0.82-0.98]) compared to visually (0.81 [95% CI: 0.65-0.91]) read dipsticks, whereas sensitivity was similar and costs were higher. The use of albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) dipsticks was only reported in two studies and did not improve accuracy. Heterogeneity in study design and prevalence of preeclampsia amongst studies complicated interpretation of pooled estimates. CONCLUSION Urine dipsticks performed poorly at excluding preeclampsia in hypertensive pregnant women. Further development of accurate and low-cost bedside proteinuria tests is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah M Teeuw
- Julius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Postbus 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hannah Brown Amoakoh
- Julius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Postbus 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University of Ghana, P.O. Box LG 581 Legon, Accra, Ghana.
| | - Christine Anabelle Ellis
- Department of Epidemiology, Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University of Ghana, P.O. Box LG 581 Legon, Accra, Ghana
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Postbus 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Joyce L Browne
- Julius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Postbus 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Lindsley K, Fusco N, Teeuw H, Mooij E, Scholten R, Hooft L. Poor compliance of clinical trial registration among trials included in systematic reviews: a cohort study. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 132:79-87. [PMID: 33333165 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.12.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2020] [Revised: 11/30/2020] [Accepted: 12/09/2020] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The objective of the study was to examine whether clinical trials that have been included in systematic reviews have been registered in clinical trial registers and, when they have, whether results of the trials were included in the clinical trial register. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING This study used a sample of 100 systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network between 2014 and 2019. RESULTS We identified 2,000 trials (369,778 participants) from a sample of 100 systematic reviews. The median year of trial publication was 2007. Of 1,177 trials published in 2005 or later, a clinical trial registration record was identified for 368 (31%). Of these registered trials, 135 (37%) were registered prospectively and results were posted for 114 (31%); most registered trials evaluated pharmaceutical interventions (62%). Of trials published in the last 10 years, the proportion of registered trials increased to 38% (261 of 682). CONCLUSION Although some improvement in clinical trial registration has been observed in recent years, the proportion of registered clinical trials included in recently published systematic reviews remains less than desirable. Prospective clinical trial registration provides an essential role in assessing the risk of bias and judging the quality of evidence in systematic reviews of intervention safety and effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina Lindsley
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Life Sciences, IBM Watson Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Nicole Fusco
- Life Sciences, IBM Watson Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Hannah Teeuw
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Eva Mooij
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Rob Scholten
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Han G, Mayer M, Canner J, Lindsley K, Datar R, Le J, Bar-Cohen A, Bowie J, Dickersin K. Development, implementation and evaluation of an online course on evidence-based healthcare for consumers. BMC Health Serv Res 2020; 20:928. [PMID: 33032599 PMCID: PMC7542874 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05759-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2020] [Accepted: 09/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) principles are essential knowledge for patient and consumer ("consumer") engagement as research and research implementation stakeholders. The aim of this study was to assess whether participation in a free, self-paced online course affects confidence in explaining EBHC topics. The course comprises six modules and evaluations which together take about 6 h to complete. METHODS Consumers United for Evidence-based Healthcare (CUE) designed, tested and implemented a free, online course for consumers, Understanding Evidence-based Healthcare: A Foundation for Action ("Understanding EBHC"). The course is offered through the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Participants rated their confidence in explaining EBHC topics on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), using an online evaluation provided before accessing the course ("Before") and after ("After") completing all six course modules. We analyzed data from those who registered for the course from May 31, 2007 to December 31, 2018 (n = 15,606), and among those persons, the 11,522 who completed the "Before" evaluation and 4899 who completed the "After" evaluation. Our primary outcome was the overall mean of within-person change ("overall mean change") in self-reported confidence levels on EBHC-related topics between "Before" and "After" evaluations among course completers. Our secondary outcomes were the mean within-person change for each of the 11 topics (mean change by topic). RESULTS From May 31, 2007 to December 31, 2018, 15,606 individuals registered for the course: 11,522 completed the "Before" evaluation, and 4899 of these completed the "After" evaluation (i.e., completed the course). The overall mean change in self-reported confidence levels (ranging from 1 to 5) from the "Before" to "After" evaluation was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.24-1.30). The mean change by topic ranged from 1.00 (95% CI, 0.96-1.03) to 1.90 (95% CI, 1.87-1.94). CONCLUSION Those who seek to involve consumer stakeholders can offer Understanding EBHC as a step toward meaningful consumer engagement. Future research should focus on long-term impact assessment of online course such as ours to understand whether confidence is retained post-course and applied appropriately.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Genie Han
- Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, 707, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, E6012, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
| | - Musa Mayer
- Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance, New York, USA
| | | | | | - Reva Datar
- School of Public Health, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, USA
| | - Jimmy Le
- Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, 707, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | | | - Janice Bowie
- Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, 707, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Kay Dickersin
- Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, 707, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Golozar A, Chen Y, Lindsley K, Rouse B, Musch DC, Lum F, Hawkins BS, Li T. Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019; 136:514-523. [PMID: 29800249 DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0786] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Importance Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP). Objective To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings. Results From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Asieh Golozar
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Yujiang Chen
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Benjamin Rouse
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - David C Musch
- Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Flora Lum
- American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California
| | - Barbara S Hawkins
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.,Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Tianjing Li
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Keratoconus is a degenerative condition of the cornea that profoundly affects vision and vision-specific quality of life. The axial cornea thins and protrudes, resulting in irregularity and, eventually, scarring of the cornea. There are multiple options available for treating keratoconus. Intrastromal corneal ring segments are small, crescent-shaped plastic rings that are placed in the deep, peripheral corneal stroma in order to flatten the cornea. They are made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). The procedure does not involve corneal tissue nor does it invade the central optical zone. Intrastromal corneal ring segments are approved for use when contact lenses or spectacles are no longer adequate. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intrastromal corneal ring segments as a treatment for keratoconus. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not implement any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA Two review authors independently assessed records from the electronic searches to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Disagreements were resolved by discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We planned for two authors to independently review full-text reports, using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We found no RCTs comparing intrastromal corneal ring segments with spectacles or contact lenses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In the absence of eligible RCTs to review, no conclusions can be drawn.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Zadnik
- The Ohio State UniversityCollege of Optometry338 West Tenth AvenueColumbusOhioUSAOH 43210
| | | | - Kristina Lindsley
- IBM Watson HealthLife Sciences, Oncology, & GenomicsBaltimoreMarylandUSA
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD accounts for most cases of AMD-related severe vision loss. Intravitreous injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents aims to block the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye to prevent vision loss and, in some instances, to improve vision. OBJECTIVES • To investigate ocular and systemic effects of, and quality of life associated with, intravitreous injection of three anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) versus no anti-VEGF treatment for patients with neovascular AMD• To compare the relative effects of one of these anti-VEGF agents versus another when administered in comparable dosages and regimens SEARCH METHODS: To identify eligible studies for this review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (searched January 31, 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 31, 2018); Embase Ovid (1947 to January 31, 2018); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to January 31, 2018); the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch - searched January 31, 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov - searched November 28, 2018); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en - searched January 31, 2018). We did not impose any date or language restrictions in electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab versus each other or versus a control treatment (e.g. sham treatment, photodynamic therapy), in which participants were followed for at least one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We compared outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included 16 RCTs that had enrolled a total of 6347 participants with neovascular AMD (the number of participants per trial ranged from 23 to 1208) and identified one potentially relevant ongoing trial. Six trials compared anti-VEGF treatment (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab) versus control, and 10 trials compared bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Pharmaceutical companies conducted or sponsored four trials but funded none of the studies that evaluated bevacizumab. Researchers conducted these trials at various centers across five continents (North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia). The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate to high, and most trials had an overall low risk of bias. All but one trial had been registered prospectively.When compared with those who received control treatment, more participants who received intravitreous injection of any of the three anti-VEGF agents had gained 15 letters or more of visual acuity (risk ratio [RR] 4.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32 to 7.55; moderate-certainty evidence), had lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.55; high-certainty evidence), and showed mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference 6.7 letters, 95% CI 4.4 to 9.0 in one pegaptanib trial; mean difference 17.8 letters, 95% CI 16.0 to 19.7 in three ranibizumab trials; moderate-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up. Participants treated with anti-VEGF agents showed improvement in morphologic outcomes (e.g. size of CNV, central retinal thickness) compared with participants not treated with anti-VEGF agents (moderate-certainty evidence). No trial directly compared pegaptanib versus another anti-VEGF agent and followed participants for one year; however, when compared with control treatments, ranibizumab and bevacizumab each yielded larger improvements in visual acuity outcomes than pegaptanib.Visual acuity outcomes after bevacizumab and ranibizumab were similar when the same RCTs compared the same regimens with respect to gain of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and loss of fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence); results showed similar mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference [MD] -0.5 letters, 95% CI -1.5 to 0.5; high-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up, despite the substantially lower cost of bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab. Reduction in central retinal thickness was less among bevacizumab-treated participants than among ranibizumab-treated participants after one year (MD -11.6 μm, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.7; high-certainty evidence); however, this difference is within the range of measurement error, and we did not interpret it to be clinically meaningful.Ocular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) after intravitreal injection were the most frequently reported serious ocular adverse events. Researchers reported endophthalmitis in less than 1% of anti-VEGF-treated participants and in no cases among control groups. The occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was comparable across anti-VEGF-treated groups and control groups; however, the numbers of events and trial participants may have been insufficient to show a meaningful difference between groups (evidence of low- to moderate-certainty). Investigators rarely measured and reported data on visual function, quality of life, or economic outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Results of this review show the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) in terms of maintaining visual acuity; studies show that ranibizumab and bevacizumab improved visual acuity in some eyes that received these agents and were equally effective. Available information on the adverse effects of each medication does not suggest a higher incidence of potentially vision-threatening complications with intravitreous injection of anti-VEGF agents compared with control interventions; however, clinical trial sample sizes were not sufficient to estimate differences in rare safety outcomes. Future Cochrane Reviews should incorporate research evaluating variable dosing regimens of anti-VEGF agents, effects of long-term use, use of combination therapies (e.g. anti-VEGF treatment plus photodynamic therapy), and other methods of delivering these agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon D Solomon
- Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineWilmer Eye Institute600 North Wolfe StreetMaumenee 740BaltimoreMarylandUSA21287
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | | | - Magdalena G Krzystolik
- Mass Eye and Ear InfirmaryDepartment of Ophthalmology, Retina Service1 Randall Square, Suite 203ProvidenceRhode IslandUSA02904
| | - Barbara S Hawkins
- Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineWilmer Eye Institute600 North Wolfe StreetMaumenee 740BaltimoreMarylandUSA21287
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Triolo TM, Fouts A, Pyle L, Yu L, Gottlieb PA, Steck AK, Greenbaum CJ, Atkinson M, Baidal D, Battaglia M, Becker D, Bingley P, Bosi E, Buckner J, Clements M, Colman P, DiMeglio L, Gitelman S, Goland R, Gottlieb P, Herold K, Knip M, Krischer J, Lernmark A, Moore W, Moran A, Muir A, Palmer J, Peakman M, Philipson L, Raskin P, Redondo M, Rodriguez H, Russell W, Spain L, Schatz D, Sosenko J, Wentworth J, Wherrett D, Wilson D, Winter W, Ziegler A, Anderson M, Antinozzi P, Benoist C, Blum J, Bourcier K, Chase P, Clare-Salzler M, Clynes R, Eisenbarth G, Fathman C, Grave G, Hering B, Insel R, Kaufman F, Kay T, Leschek E, Mahon J, Marks J, Nanto-Salonen K, Nepom G, Orban T, Parkman R, Pescovitz M, Peyman J, Pugliese A, Roep B, Roncarolo M, Savage P, Simell O, Sherwin R, Siegelman M, Skyler J, Steck A, Thomas J, Trucco M, Wagner J, Krischer JP, Leschek E, Rafkin L, Bourcier K, Cowie C, Foulkes M, Insel R, Krause-Steinrauf H, Lachin JM, Malozowski S, Peyman J, Ridge J, Savage P, Skyler JS, Zafonte SJ, Rafkin L, Sosenko JM, Kenyon NS, Santiago I, Krischer JP, Bundy B, Abbondondolo M, Dixit S, Pasha M, King K, Adcock H, Atterberry L, Fox K, Englert N, Mauras J, Permuy K, Sikes T, Adams T, Berhe B, Guendling L, McLennan L, Paganessi C, Murphy M, Draznin M, Kamboj S, Sheppard V, Lewis L, Coates W, Amado D, Moore G, Babar J, Bedard D, Brenson-Hughes J, Cernich M, Clements R, Duprau S, Goodman L, Hester L, Huerta-Saenz A, Asif I, Karmazin T, Letjen S, Raman D, Morin W, Bestermann E, Morawski J, White A, Brockmyer R, Bays S, Campbell A, Boonstra M, Stapleton N, Stone A, Donoho H, Everett H, Hensley M, Johnson C, Marshall N, Skirvin P, Taylor R, Williams L, Burroughs C, Ray C, Wolverton D, Nickels C, Dothard P, Speiser M, Pellizzari L, Bokor K, Izuora S, Abdelnour P, Cummings S, Cuthbertson D, Paynor M, Leahy M, Riedl S, Shockley R, Saad T, Briones S, Casella C, Herz K, Walsh J, Greening F, Deemer M, Hay S, Hunt N, Sikotra L, Simons D, Karounos R, Oremus L, Dye L, Myers D, Ballard W, Miers R, Eberhard C, Sparks K, Thraikill K, Edwards J, Fowlkes S, Kemp A, Morales L, Holland L, Johnson P, Paul A, Ghatak K, Fiske S, Phelen H, Leyland T, Henderson D, Brenner E, Oppenheimer I, Mamkin C, Moniz C, Clarson M, Lovell A, Peters V, Ford J, Ruelas D, Borut D, Burt M, Jordan S, Castilla P, Flores M, Ruiz L, Hanson J, Green-Blair R, Sheridan K, Garmeson J, Wintergerst G, Pierce A, Omoruyi M, Foster S, Kingery A, Lunsford I, Cervantes T, Parker P, Price J, Urben I, Guillette H, Doughty H, Haydock V, Parker P, Bergman S, Duncum C, Rodda A, Perelman R, Calendo C, Barrera E, Arce-Nunez Y, Geyer S, Martinez M, De la Portilla I, Cardenas L, Garrido M, Villar R, Lorini E, Calandra G, D’Annuzio K, Perri N, Minuto C, Hays B, Rebora R, Callegari O, Ali J, Kramer B, Auble S, Cabrera P, Donohoue R, Fiallo-Scharer M, Hessner P, Wolfgram A, Henderson C, Kansra N, Bettin R, McCuller A, Miller S, Accacha J, Corrigan E, Fiore R, Levine T, Mahoney C, Polychronakos V, Henry M, Gagne H, Starkman M, Fox D, Chin F, Melchionne L, Silverman I, Marshall L, Cerracchio J, Cruz A, Viswanathan J, Heyman K, Wilson S, Chalew S, Valley S, Layburn A, Lala P, Clesi M, Genet G, Uwaifo A, Charron T, Allerton W, Hsiao B, Cefalu L, Melendez-Ramirez R, Richards C, Alleyn E, Gustafson M, Lizanna J, Wahlen S, Aleiwe M, Hansen H, Wahlen C, Karges C, Levy A, Bonaccorso R, Rapaport Y, Tomer D, Chia M, Goldis L, Iazzetti M, Klein C, Levister L, Waldman E, Keaton N, Wallach M, Regelmann Z, Antal M, Aranda C, Reynholds A, Vinik P, Barlow M, Bourcier M, Nevoret J, Couper S, Kinderman A, Beresford N, Thalagne H, Roper J, Gibbons J, Hill S, Balleaut C, Brennan J, Ellis-Gage L, Fear T, Gray L, Law P, Jones C, McNerney L, Pointer N, Price K, Few D, Tomlinson N, Leech D, Wake C, Owens M, Burns J, Leinbach A, Wotherspoon A, Murray K, Short G, Curry S, Kelsey J, Lawson J, Porter S, Stevens E, Thomson S, Winship L, Liu S, Wynn E, Wiltshire J, Krebs P, Cresswell H, Faherty C, Ross L, Denvir J, Drew T, Randell P, Mansell S, Lloyd J, Bell S, Butler Y, Hooton H, Navarra A, Roper G, Babington L, Crate H, Cripps A, Ledlie C, Moulds R, Malloy J, Norton B, Petrova O, Silkstone C, Smith K, Ghai M, Murray V, Viswanathan M, Henegan O, Kawadry J, Olson L, Maddox K, Patterson T, Ahmad B, Flores D, Domek S, Domek K, Copeland M, George J, Less T, Davis M, Short A, Martin J, Dwarakanathan P, O’Donnell B, Boerner L, Larson M, Phillips M, Rendell K, Larson C, Smith K, Zebrowski L, Kuechenmeister M, Miller J, Thevarayapillai M, Daniels H, Speer N, Forghani R, Quintana C, Reh A, Bhangoo P, Desrosiers L, Ireland T, Misla C, Milliot E, Torres S, Wells J, Villar M, Yu D, Berry D, Cook J, Soder A, Powell M, Ng M, Morrison Z, Moore M, Haslam M, Lawson B, Bradley J, Courtney C, Richardson C, Watson E, Keely D, DeCurtis M, Vaccarcello-Cruz Z, Torres K, Muller S, Sandberg H, Hsiang B, Joy D, McCormick A, Powell H, Jones J, Bell S, Hargadon S, Hudson M, Kummer S, Nguyen T, Sauder E, Sutton K, Gensel R, Aguirre-Castaneda V, Benavides, Lopez D, Hemp S, Allen J, Stear E, Davis T, O’Donnell R, Jones A, Roberts J, Dart N, Paramalingam L, Levitt Katz N, Chaudhary K, Murphy S, Willi B, Schwartzman C, Kapadia D, Roberts A, Larson D, McClellan G, Shaibai L, Kelley G, Villa C, Kelley R, Diamond M, Kabbani T, Dajani F, Hoekstra M, Sadler K, Magorno J, Holst V, Chauhan N, Wilson P, Bononi M, Sperl A, Millward M, Eaton L, Dean J, Olshan H, Stavros T, Renna C, Milliard, Brodksy L, Bacon J, Quintos L, Topor S, Bialo B, Bancroft A, Soto W, Lagarde H, Tamura R, Lockemer T, Vanderploeg M, Ibrahim M, Huie V, Sanchez R, Edelen R, Marchiando J, Palmer T, Repas M, Wasson P, Wood K, Auker J, Culbertson T, Kieffer D, Voorhees T, Borgwardt L, DeRaad K, Eckert E, Isaacson H, Kuhn A, Carroll M, Xu P, Schubert G, Francis S, Hagan T, Le M, Penn E, Wickham C, Leyva K, Rivera J, Padilla I, Rodriguez N, Young K, Jospe J, Czyzyk B, Johnson U, Nadgir N, Marlen G, Prakasam C, Rieger N, Glaser E, Heiser B, Harris C, Alies P, Foster H, Slater K, Wheeler D, Donaldson M, Murray D, Hale R, Tragus D, Word J, Lynch L, Pankratz W, Badias F, Rogers R, Newfield S, Holland M, Hashiguchi M, Gottschalk A, Philis-Tsimikas R, Rosal S, Franklin S, Guardado N, Bohannon M, Baker A, Garcia T, Aguinaldo J, Phan V, Barraza D, Cohen J, Pinsker U, Khan J, Wiley L, Jovanovic P, Misra M, Bassi M, Wright D, Cohen K, Huang M, Skiles S, Maxcy C, Pihoker K, Cochrane J, Fosse S, Kearns M, Klingsheim N, Beam C, Wright L, Viles H, Smith S, Heller M, Cunningham A, Daniels L, Zeiden J, Field R, Walker K, Griffin L, Boulware D, Bartholow C, Erickson J, Howard B, Krabbenhoft C, Sandman A, Vanveldhuizen J, Wurlger A, Zimmerman K, Hanisch L, Davis-Keppen A, Bounmananh L, Cotterill J, Kirby M, Harris A, Schmidt C, Kishiyama C, Flores J, Milton W, Martin C, Whysham A, Yerka T, Bream S, Freels J, Hassing J, Webster R, Green P, Carter J, Galloway D, Hoelzer S, Roberts S, Said P, Sullivan H, Freeman D, Allen E, Reiter E, Feinberg C, Johnson L, Newhook D, Hagerty N, White L, Levandoski J, Kyllo M, Johnson C, Gough J, Benoit P, Iyer F, Diamond H, Hosono S, Jackman L, Barette P, Jones I, Sills S, Bzdick J, Bulger R, Ginem J, Weinstock I, Douek R, Andrews G, Modgill G, Gyorffy L, Robin N, Vaidya S, Crouch K, O’Brien C, Thompson N, Granger M, Thorne J, Blumer J, Kalic L, Klepek J, Paulett B, Rosolowski J, Horner M, Watkins J, Casey K, Carpenter C, Michelle Kieffer MH, Burns J, Horton C, Pritchard D, Soetaert A, Wynne C, Chin O, Molina C, Patel R, Senguttuvan M, Wheeler O, Lane P, Furet C, Steuhm D, Jelley S, Goudeau L, Chalmers D, Greer C, Panagiotopoulos D, Metzger D, Nguyen M, Horowitz M, Linton C, Christiansen E, Glades C, Morimoto M, Macarewich R, Norman K, Patin C, Vargas A, Barbanica A, Yu P, Vaidyanathan W, Nallamshetty L, Osborne R, Mehra S, Kaster S, Neace J, Horner G, Reeves C, Cordrey L, Marrs T, Miller S, Dowshen D, Oduah V, Doyle S, Walker D, Catte H, Dean M, Drury-Brown B, Hackman M, Lee S, Malkani K, Cullen K, Johnson P, Parrimon Y, Hampton M, McCarrell C, Curtis E, Paul, Zambrano Y, Paulus K, Pilger J, Ramiro J, Luvon Ritzie AQ, Sharma A, Shor A, Song X, Terry A, Weinberger J, Wootten M, Lachin JM, Foulkes M, Harding P, Krause-Steinrauf H, McDonough S, McGee PF, Owens Hess K, Phoebus D, Quinlan S, Raiden E, Batts E, Buddy C, Kirpatrick K, Ramey M, Shultz A, Webb C, Romesco M, Fradkin J, Leschek E, Spain L, Savage P, Aas S, Blumberg E, Beck G, Brillon D, Gubitosi-Klug R, Laffel L, Vigersky R, Wallace D, Braun J, Lernmark A, Lo B, Mitchell H, Naji A, Nerup J, Orchard T, Steffes M, Tsiatis A, Veatch R, Zinman B, Loechelt B, Baden L, Green M, Weinberg A, Marcovina S, Palmer JP, Weinberg A, Yu L, Babu S, Winter W, Eisenbarth GS, Bingley P, Clynes R, DiMeglio L, Eisenbarth G, Hays B, Leschek E, Marks J, Matheson D, Rafkin L, Rodriguez H, Spain L, Wilson D, Redondo M, Gomez D, McDonald A, Pena S, Pietropaolo M, Shippy K, Batts E, Brown T, Buckner J, Dove A, Hammond M, Hefty D, Klein J, Kuhns K, Letlau M, Lord S, McCulloch-Olson M, Miller L, Nepom G, Odegard J, Ramey M, Sachter E, St. Marie M, Stickney K, VanBuecken D, Vellek B, Webber C, Allen L, Bollyk J, Hilderman N, Ismail H, Lamola S, Sanda S, Vendettuoli H, Tridgell D, Monzavi R, Bock M, Fisher L, Halvorson M, Jeandron D, Kim M, Wood J, Geffner M, Kaufman F, Parkman R, Salazar C, Goland R, Clynes R, Cook S, Freeby M, Pat Gallagher M, Gandica R, Greenberg E, Kurland A, Pollak S, Wolk A, Chan M, Koplimae L, Levine E, Smith K, Trast J, DiMeglio L, Blum J, Evans-Molina C, Hufferd R, Jagielo B, Kruse C, Patrick V, Rigby M, Spall M, Swinney K, Terrell J, Christner L, Ford L, Lynch S, Menendez M, Merrill P, Pescovitz M, Rodriguez H, Alleyn C, Baidal D, Fay S, Gaglia J, Resnick B, Szubowicz S, Weir G, Benjamin R, Conboy D, deManbey A, Jackson R, Jalahej H, Orban T, Ricker A, Wolfsdorf J, Zhang HH, Wilson D, Aye T, Baker B, Barahona K, Buckingham B, Esrey K, Esrey T, Fathman G, Snyder R, Aneja B, Chatav M, Espinoza O, Frank E, Liu J, Perry J, Pyle R, Rigby A, Riley K, Soto A, Gitelman S, Adi S, Anderson M, Berhel A, Breen K, Fraser K, Gerard-Gonzalez A, Jossan P, Lustig R, Moassesfar S, Mugg A, Ng D, Prahalod P, Rangel-Lugo M, Sanda S, Tarkoff J, Torok C, Wesch R, Aslan I, Buchanan J, Cordier J, Hamilton C, Hawkins L, Ho T, Jain A, Ko K, Lee T, Phelps S, Rosenthal S, Sahakitrungruang T, Stehl L, Taylor L, Wertz M, Wong J, Philipson L, Briars R, Devine N, Littlejohn E, Grant T, Gottlieb P, Klingensmith G, Steck A, Alkanani A, Bautista K, Bedoy R, Blau A, Burke B, Cory L, Dang M, Fitzgerald-Miller L, Fouts A, Gage V, Garg S, Gesauldo P, Gutin R, Hayes C, Hoffman M, Ketchum K, Logsden-Sackett N, Maahs D, Messer L, Meyers L, Michels A, Peacock S, Rewers M, Rodriguez P, Sepulbeda F, Sippl R, Steck A, Taki I, Tran BK, Tran T, Wadwa RP, Zeitler P, Barker J, Barry S, Birks L, Bomsburger L, Bookert T, Briggs L, Burdick P, Cabrera R, Chase P, Cobry E, Conley A, Cook G, Daniels J, DiDomenico D, Eckert J, Ehler A, Eisenbarth G, Fain P, Fiallo-Scharer R, Frank N, Goettle H, Haarhues M, Harris S, Horton L, Hutton J, Jeffrrey J, Jenison R, Jones K, Kastelic W, King MA, Lehr D, Lungaro J, Mason K, Maurer H, Nguyen L, Proto A, Realsen J, Schmitt K, Schwartz M, Skovgaard S, Smith J, Vanderwel B, Voelmle M, Wagner R, Wallace A, Walravens P, Weiner L, Westerhoff B, Westfall E, Widmer K, Wright H, Schatz D, Abraham A, Atkinson M, Cintron M, Clare-Salzler M, Ferguson J, Haller M, Hosford J, Mancini D, Rohrs H, Silverstein J, Thomas J, Winter W, Cole G, Cook R, Coy R, Hicks E, Lewis N, Marks J, Pugliese A, Blaschke C, Matheson D, Pugliese A, Sanders-Branca N, Ray Arce LA, Cisneros M, Sabbag S, Moran A, Gibson C, Fife B, Hering B, Kwong C, Leschyshyn J, Nathan B, Pappenfus B, Street A, Boes MA, Peterson Eck S, Finney L, Albright Fischer T, Martin A, Jacqueline Muzamhindo C, Rhodes M, Smith J, Wagner J, Wood B, Becker D, Delallo K, Diaz A, Elnyczky B, Libman I, Pasek B, Riley K, Trucco M, Copemen B, Gwynn D, Toledo F, Rodriguez H, Bollepalli S, Diamond F, Eyth E, Henson D, Lenz A, Shulman D, Raskin P, Adhikari S, Dickson B, Dunnigan E, Lingvay I, Pruneda L, Ramos-Roman M, Raskin P, Rhee C, Richard J, Siegelman M, Sturges D, Sumpter K, White P, Alford M, Arthur J, Aviles-Santa ML, Cordova E, Davis R, Fernandez S, Fordan S, Hardin T, Jacobs A, Kaloyanova P, Lukacova-Zib I, Mirfakhraee S, Mohan A, Noto H, Smith O, Torres N, Wherrett D, Balmer D, Eisel L, Kovalakovska R, Mehan M, Sultan F, Ahenkorah B, Cevallos J, Razack N, Jo Ricci M, Rhode A, Srikandarajah M, Steger R, Russell WE, Black M, Brendle F, Brown A, Moore D, Pittel E, Robertson A, Shannon A, Thomas JW, Herold K, Feldman L, Sherwin R, Tamborlane W, Weinzimer S, Toppari J, Kallio T, Kärkkäinen M, Mäntymäki E, Niininen T, Nurmi B, Rajala P, Romo M, Suomenrinne S, Näntö-Salonen K, Simell O, Simell T, Bosi E, Battaglia M, Bianconi E, Bonfanti R, Grogan P, Laurenzi A, Martinenghi S, Meschi F, Pastore M, Falqui L, Teresa Muscato M, Viscardi M, Bingley P, Castleden H, Farthing N, Loud S, Matthews C, McGhee J, Morgan A, Pollitt J, Elliot-Jones R, Wheaton C, Knip M, Siljander H, Suomalainen H, Colman P, Healy F, Mesfin S, Redl L, Wentworth J, Willis J, Farley M, Harrison L, Perry C, Williams F, Mayo A, Paxton J, Thompson V, Volin L, Fenton C, Carr L, Lemon E, Swank M, Luidens M, Salgam M, Sharma V, Schade D, King C, Carano R, Heiden J, Means N, Holman L, Thomas I, Madrigal D, Muth T, Martin C, Plunkett C, Ramm C, Auchus R, Lane W, Avots E, Buford M, Hale C, Hoyle J, Lane B, Muir A, Shuler S, Raviele N, Ivie E, Jenkins M, Lindsley K, Hansen I, Fadoju D, Felner E, Bode B, Hosey R, Sax J, Jefferies C, Mannering S, Prentis R, She J, Stachura M, Hopkins D, Williams J, Steed L, Asatapova E, Nunez S, Knight S, Dixon P, Ching J, Donner T, Longnecker S, Abel K, Arcara K, Blackman S, Clark L, Cooke D, Plotnick L, Levin P, Bromberger L, Klein K, Sadurska K, Allen C, Michaud D, Snodgrass H, Burghen G, Chatha S, Clark C, Silverberg J, Wittmer C, Gardner J, LeBoeuf C, Bell P, McGlore O, Tennet H, Alba N, Carroll M, Baert L, Beaton H, Cordell E, Haynes A, Reed C, Lichter K, McCarthy P, McCarthy S, Monchamp T, Roach J, Manies S, Gunville F, Marosok L, Nelson T, Ackerman K, Rudolph J, Stewart M, McCormick K, May S, Falls T, Barrett T, Dale K, Makusha L, McTernana C, Penny-Thomas K, Sullivan K, Narendran P, Robbie J, Smith D, Christensen R, Koehler B, Royal C, Arthur T, Houser H, Renaldi J, Watsen S, Wu P, Lyons L, House B, Yu J, Holt H, Nation M, Vickers C, Watling R, Heptulla R, Trast J, Agarwal C, Newell D, Katikaneni R, Gardner C, Del A, Rio A, Logan H, Collier C, Rishton G, Whalley A, Ali S, Ramtoola T, Quattrin L, Mastrandea A, House M, Ecker C, Huang C, Gougeon J, Ho D, Pacuad D, Dunger J, May C, O’Brien C, Acerini B, Salgin A, Thankamony R, Williams J, Buse G, Fuller M, Duclos J, Tricome H, Brown D, Pittard D, Bowlby A, Blue T, Headley S, Bendre K, Lewis K, Sutphin C, Soloranzo J, Puskaric H, Madison M, Rincon M, Carlucci R, Shridharani B, Rusk E, Tessman D, Huffman H, Abrams B, Biederman M, Jones V, Leathers W, Brickman P, Petrie D, Zimmerman J, Howard L, Miller R, Alemzadeh D, Mihailescu R, Melgozza-Walker N, Abdulla C, Boucher-Berry D, Ize-Ludlow R, Levy C, Swenson, Brousell N, Crimmins D, Edler T, Weis C, Schultz D, Rogers D, Latham C, Mawhorter C, Switzer W, Spencer P, Konstantnopoulus S, Broder J, Klein L, Knight L, Szadek G, Welnick B, Thompson R, Hoffman A, Revell J, Cherko K, Carter E, Gilson J, Haines G, Arthur B, Bowen W, Zipf P, Graves R, Lozano D, Seiple K, Spicer A, Chang J, Fregosi J, Harbinson C, Paulson S, Stalters P, Wright D, Zlock A, Freeth J, Victory H, Maheshwari A, Maheshwari T, Holmstrom J, Bueno R, Arguello J, Ahern L, Noreika V, Watson S, Hourse P, Breyer C, Kissel Y, Nicholson M, Pfeifer S, Almazan J, Bajaj M, Quinn K, Funk J, McCance E, Moreno R, Veintimilla A, Wells J, Cook S, Trunnel J, Henske S, Desai K, Frizelis F, Khan R, Sjoberg K, Allen P, Manning G, Hendry B, Taylor S, Jones W, Strader M, Bencomo T, Bailey L, Bedolla C, Roldan C, Moudiotis B, Vaidya C, Anning S, Bunce S, Estcourt E, Folland E, Gordon C, Harrill J, Ireland J, Piper L, Scaife K, Sutton S, Wilkins M, Costelloe J, Palmer L, Casas C, Miller M, Burgard C, Erickson J, Hallanger-Johnson P, Clark W, Taylor A, Lafferty S, Gillett C, Nolan M, Pathak L, Sondrol T, Hjelle S, Hafner J, Kotrba R, Hendrickson A, Cemeroglu T, Symington M, Daniel Y, Appiagyei-Dankah D, Postellon M, Racine L, Kleis K, Barnes S, Godwin H, McCullough K, Shaheen G, Buck L, Noel M, Warren S, Weber S, Parker I, Gillespie B, Nelson C, Frost J, Amrhein E, Moreland A, Hayes J, Peggram J, Aisenberg M, Riordan J, Zasa E, Cummings K, Scott T, Pinto A, Mokashi K, McAssey E, Helden P, Hammond L, Dinning S, Rahman S, Ray C, Dimicri S, Guppy H, Nielsen C, Vogel C, Ariza L, Morales Y, Chang R, Gabbay L, Ambrocio L, Manley R, Nemery W, Charlton P, Smith L, Kerr B, Steindel-Kopp M, Alamaguer D, Liljenquist G, Browning T, Coughenour M, Sulk E, Tsalikan M, Tansey J, Cabbage N. Identical and Nonidentical Twins: Risk and Factors Involved in Development of Islet Autoimmunity and Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2019; 42:192-199. [PMID: 30061316 PMCID: PMC6341285 DOI: 10.2337/dc18-0288] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2018] [Accepted: 06/28/2018] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE There are variable reports of risk of concordance for progression to islet autoantibodies and type 1 diabetes in identical twins after one twin is diagnosed. We examined development of positive autoantibodies and type 1 diabetes and the effects of genetic factors and common environment on autoantibody positivity in identical twins, nonidentical twins, and full siblings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Subjects from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study (N = 48,026) were screened from 2004 to 2015 for islet autoantibodies (GAD antibody [GADA], insulinoma-associated antigen 2 [IA-2A], and autoantibodies against insulin [IAA]). Of these subjects, 17,226 (157 identical twins, 283 nonidentical twins, and 16,786 full siblings) were followed for autoantibody positivity or type 1 diabetes for a median of 2.1 years. RESULTS At screening, identical twins were more likely to have positive GADA, IA-2A, and IAA than nonidentical twins or full siblings (all P < 0.0001). Younger age, male sex, and genetic factors were significant factors for expression of IA-2A, IAA, one or more positive autoantibodies, and two or more positive autoantibodies (all P ≤ 0.03). Initially autoantibody-positive identical twins had a 69% risk of diabetes by 3 years compared with 1.5% for initially autoantibody-negative identical twins. In nonidentical twins, type 1 diabetes risk by 3 years was 72% for initially multiple autoantibody-positive, 13% for single autoantibody-positive, and 0% for initially autoantibody-negative nonidentical twins. Full siblings had a 3-year type 1 diabetes risk of 47% for multiple autoantibody-positive, 12% for single autoantibody-positive, and 0.5% for initially autoantibody-negative subjects. CONCLUSIONS Risk of type 1 diabetes at 3 years is high for initially multiple and single autoantibody-positive identical twins and multiple autoantibody-positive nonidentical twins. Genetic predisposition, age, and male sex are significant risk factors for development of positive autoantibodies in twins.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taylor M. Triolo
- Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Alexandra Fouts
- Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Laura Pyle
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
| | - Liping Yu
- Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Peter A. Gottlieb
- Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Andrea K. Steck
- Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traumatic hyphema is the entry of blood into the anterior chamber (the space between the cornea and iris) subsequent to a blow or a projectile striking the eye. Hyphema uncommonly causes permanent loss of vision. Associated trauma (e.g. corneal staining, traumatic cataract, angle recession glaucoma, optic atrophy, etc.) may seriously affect vision. Such complications can lead to permanent impairment of vision. People with sickle cell trait/disease may be particularly susceptible to increases of elevated intraocular pressure. If rebleeding occurs, the rates and severity of complications increase. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of various medical interventions in the management of traumatic hyphema. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase.com; PubMed (1948 to June 2018); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 28 June 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all reports identified by the electronic and manual searches. In this review, we included randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared various medical (non-surgical) interventions versus other medical intervention or control groups for the treatment of traumatic hyphema following closed-globe trauma. We applied no restrictions regarding age, gender, severity of the closed-globe trauma, or level of visual acuity at the time of enrollment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted the data for the primary outcomes, visual acuity and time to resolution of primary hemorrhage, and secondary outcomes including: secondary hemorrhage and time to rebleed; risk of corneal blood staining, glaucoma or elevated intraocular pressure, optic atrophy, or peripheral anterior synechiae; adverse events; and duration of hospitalization. We entered and analyzed data using Review Manager 5. We performed meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD). MAIN RESULTS We included 20 randomized and seven quasi-randomized studies with a total of 2643 participants. Interventions included antifibrinolytic agents (systemic and topical aminocaproic acid, tranexamic acid, and aminomethylbenzoic acid), corticosteroids (systemic and topical), cycloplegics, miotics, aspirin, conjugated estrogens, traditional Chinese medicine, monocular versus bilateral patching, elevation of the head, and bed rest.We found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity for any intervention, whether measured within two weeks (short term) or for longer periods. In a meta-analysis of two trials, we found no evidence of an effect of aminocaproic acid on long-term visual acuity (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.29) or final visual acuity measured up to three years after the hyphema (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18). Eight trials evaluated the effects of various interventions on short-term visual acuity; none of these interventions was measured in more than one trial. No intervention showed a statistically significant effect (RRs ranged from 0.75 to 1.10). Similarly, visual acuity measured for longer periods in four trials evaluating different interventions was also not statistically significant (RRs ranged from 0.82 to 1.02). The evidence supporting these findings was of low or very low certainty.Systemic aminocaproic acid reduced the rate of recurrent hemorrhage (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60) as assessed in six trials with 330 participants. A sensitivity analysis omitting two studies not using an intention-to-treat analysis reduced the strength of the evidence (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.08). We obtained similar results for topical aminocaproic acid (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10) in two studies with 121 participants. We assessed the certainty of these findings as low and very low, respectively. Systemic tranexamic acid had a significant effect in reducing the rate of secondary hemorrhage (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55) in five trials with 578 participants, as did aminomethylbenzoic acid as reported in one study (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41). The evidence to support an associated reduction in the risk of complications from secondary hemorrhage (i.e. corneal blood staining, peripheral anterior synechiae, elevated intraocular pressure, and development of optic atrophy) by antifibrinolytics was limited by the small number of these events. Use of aminocaproic acid was associated with increased nausea, vomiting, and other adverse events compared with placebo. We found no evidence of an effect in the number of adverse events with the use of systemic versus topical aminocaproic acid or with standard versus lower drug dose. The number of days for the primary hyphema to resolve appeared to be longer with the use of systemic aminocaproic acid compared with no use, but this outcome was not altered by any other intervention.The available evidence on usage of systemic or topical corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or aspirin in traumatic hyphema was limited due to the small numbers of participants and events in the trials.We found no evidence of an effect between a single versus binocular patch or ambulation versus complete bed rest on the risk of secondary hemorrhage or time to rebleed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity by any of the interventions evaluated in this review. Although evidence was limited, it appears that people with traumatic hyphema who receive aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid are less likely to experience secondary hemorrhaging. However, hyphema took longer clear in people treated with systemic aminocaproic acid.There is no good evidence to support the use of antifibrinolytic agents in the management of traumatic hyphema other than possibly to reduce the rate of secondary hemorrhage. Similarly, there is no evidence to support the use of corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or non-drug interventions (such as binocular patching, bed rest, or head elevation) in the management of traumatic hyphema. As these multiple interventions are rarely used in isolation, further research to assess the additive effect of these interventions might be of value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Almutez Gharaibeh
- Faculty of Medicine, The University of JordanDepartment of Special Surgery‐OphthalmologyP.O. Box 13046AmmanJordan
| | - Howard I Savage
- Kaiser Permanente Largo Medical Center1221 Mercantile LaneLargoMarylandUSA20774
| | - Roberta W Scherer
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of EpidemiologyRoom W6138615 N. Wolfe St.BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | - Morton F Goldberg
- Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineWilmer Eye Institute600 N. Wolfe StreetMaumenee, 7th floorBaltimoreMarylandUSA21287
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of EpidemiologyRoom W6138615 N. Wolfe St.BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cataract surgery is practiced widely, and substantial resources are committed to an increasing cataract surgical rate in low- and middle-income countries. With the current volume of cataract surgery and future increases, it is critical to optimize the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure. Most cataracts are performed on older individuals with correspondingly high systemic and ocular comorbidities. It is likely that routine preoperative medical testing will detect medical conditions, but it is questionable whether these conditions should preclude individuals from cataract surgery or change their perioperative management. OBJECTIVES 1. To investigate the evidence for reductions in adverse events through preoperative medical testing2. To estimate the average cost of performing routine medical testing SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; LILACS BIREME, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (last searched 5 January 2012); ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 29 June 2018, with the exception of mRCT which is no longer in service. We searched the references of reports from included studies for additional relevant studies without restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized clinical trials in which routine preoperative medical testing was compared to no preoperative or selective preoperative testing prior to age-related cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed abstracts to identify possible trials for inclusion. For each included study, two review authors independently documented study characteristics, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS We identified three randomized clinical trials that compared routine preoperative medical testing versus selective or no preoperative testing for 21,531 cataract surgeries. The largest trial, in which 19,557 surgeries were randomized, was conducted in Canada and the USA. Another study was conducted in Brazil and the third in Italy. Although the studies had some issues with respect to performance and detection bias due to lack of masking (high risk for one study, unclear for two studies), we assessed the studies as at overall low risk of bias.The three randomized clinical trials included in this review reported results for 21,531 total cataract surgeries with 707 total surgery-associated medical adverse events, including 61 hospitalizations and three deaths. Of the 707 medical adverse events reported, 353 occurred in the pre-testing group and 354 occurred in the no-testing group (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.16; high-certainty evidence). Most events were cardiovascular and occurred during the intraoperative period. Routine preoperative medical testing did not reduce the risk of intraoperative (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.38) or postoperative ocular adverse events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.67) when compared to selective or no testing (2 studies; 2281 cataract surgeries; moderate-certainty evidence). One study evaluated cost savings, estimating the costs to be 2.55 times higher in those with preoperative medical testing compared to those without preoperative medical testing (1 study; 1005 cataract surgeries; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference in cancellation of surgery between those with preoperative medical testing and those with selective or no preoperative testing, reported by two studies with 20,582 cataract surgeries (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21; high-certainty evidence). No study reported outcomes related to clinical management changes (other than cancellation) or quality of life scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review has shown that routine preoperative testing does not increase the safety of cataract surgery. Alternatives to routine preoperative medical testing have been proposed, including self administered health questionnaires, which could substitute for health provider histories and physical examinations. Such avenues may lead to cost-effective means of identifying those at increased risk of medical adverse events due to cataract surgery. However, despite the rare occurrence, adverse medical events precipitated by cataract surgery remain a concern because of the large number of elderly patients with multiple medical comorbidities who have cataract surgery in various settings. The studies summarized in this review should assist recommendations for the standard of care of cataract surgery, at least in low- and middle-income settings. Unfortunately, in these settings, medical history questionnaires may be useless to screen for risk because few people have ever been to a physician, let alone been diagnosed with any chronic disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Keay
- The University of SydneyThe George Institute for Global HealthLevel 24, Maritime Trade Towers207 Kent StreetSydneyNSWAustralia2000
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | - James Tielsch
- George Washington UniversityDepartment of Global Health, Milken Institute of Public Health950 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 400Washington DCUSA20052
| | - Joanne Katz
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of International Health615 N. Wolfe StreetBaltimoreMarylandUSA21209
| | - Oliver Schein
- Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineWilmer Eye Institute600 N. Wolfe Street, Wilmer 116BaltimoreMarylandUSA21287‐9019
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Redondo MJ, Geyer S, Steck AK, Sharp S, Wentworth JM, Weedon MN, Antinozzi P, Sosenko J, Atkinson M, Pugliese A, Oram RA, Antinozzi P, Atkinson M, Battaglia M, Becker D, Bingley P, Bosi E, Buckner J, Colman P, Gottlieb P, Herold K, Insel R, Kay T, Knip M, Marks J, Moran A, Palmer J, Peakman M, Philipson L, Pugliese A, Raskin P, Rodriguez H, Roep B, Russell W, Schatz D, Wherrett D, Wilson D, Winter W, Ziegler A, Benoist C, Blum J, Chase P, Clare-Salzler M, Clynes R, Eisenbarth G, Fathman C, Grave G, Hering B, Kaufman F, Leschek E, Mahon J, Nanto-Salonen K, Nepom G, Orban T, Parkman R, Pescovitz M, Peyman J, Roncarolo M, Simell O, Sherwin R, Siegelman M, Steck A, Thomas J, Trucco M, Wagner J, Greenbaum ,CJ, Bourcier K, Insel R, Krischer JP, Leschek E, Rafkin L, Spain L, Cowie C, Foulkes M, Krause-Steinrauf H, Lachin JM, Malozowski S, Peyman J, Ridge J, Savage P, Skyler JS, Zafonte SJ, Kenyon NS, Santiago I, Sosenko JM, Bundy B, Abbondondolo M, Adams T, Amado D, Asif I, Boonstra M, Bundy B, Burroughs C, Cuthbertson D, Deemer M, Eberhard C, Fiske S, Ford J, Garmeson J, Guillette H, Browning G, Coughenour T, Sulk M, Tsalikan E, Tansey M, Cabbage J, Dixit N, Pasha S, King M, Adcock K, Geyer S, Atterberry H, Fox L, Englert K, Mauras N, Permuy J, Sikes K, Berhe T, Guendling B, McLennan L, Paganessi L, Hays B, Murphy C, Draznin M, Kamboj M, Sheppard S, Lewis V, Coates L, Moore W, Babar G, Bedard J, Brenson-Hughes D, Henderson C, Cernich J, Clements M, Duprau R, Goodman S, Hester L, Huerta-Saenz L, Karmazin A, Letjen T, Raman S, Morin D, Henry M, Bestermann W, Morawski E, White J, Brockmyer A, Bays R, Campbell S, Stapleton A, Stone N, Donoho A, Everett H, Heyman K, Hensley H, Johnson M, Marshall C, Skirvin N, Taylor P, Williams R, Ray L, Wolverton C, Nickels D, Dothard C, Hsiao B, Speiser P, Pellizzari M, Bokor L, Izuora K, Abdelnour S, Cummings P, Paynor S, Leahy M, Riedl M, Shockley S, Karges C, Saad R, Briones T, Casella S, Herz C, Walsh K, Greening J, Hay F, Hunt S, Sikotra N, Simons L, Keaton N, Karounos D, Oremus R, Dye L, Myers L, Ballard D, Miers W, Sparks R, Thraikill K, Edwards K, Fowlkes J, Kinderman A, Kemp S, Morales A, Holland L, Johnson L, Paul P, Ghatak A, Phelen K, Leyland H, Henderson T, Brenner D, Law P, Oppenheimer E, Mamkin I, Moniz C, Clarson C, Lovell M, Peters A, Ruelas V, Borut D, Burt D, Jordan M, Leinbach A, Castilla S, Flores P, Ruiz M, Hanson L, Green-Blair J, Sheridan R, Wintergerst K, Pierce G, Omoruyi A, Foster M, Linton C, Kingery S, Lunsford A, Cervantes I, Parker T, Price P, Urben J, Doughty I, Haydock H, Parker V, Bergman P, Liu S, Duncum S, Rodda C, Thomas A, Ferry R, McCommon D, Cockroft J, Perelman A, Calendo R, Barrera C, Arce-Nunez E, Lloyd J, Martinez Y, De la Portilla M, Cardenas I, Garrido L, Villar M, Lorini R, Calandra E, D’Annuzio G, Perri K, Minuto N, Malloy J, Rebora C, Callegari R, Ali O, Kramer J, Auble B, Cabrera S, Donohoue P, Fiallo-Scharer R, Hessner M, Wolfgram P, Maddox K, Kansra A, Bettin N, McCuller R, Miller A, Accacha S, Corrigan J, Fiore E, Levine R, Mahoney T, Polychronakos C, Martin J, Gagne V, Starkman H, Fox M, Chin D, Melchionne F, Silverman L, Marshall I, Cerracchio L, Cruz J, Viswanathan A, Miller J, Wilson J, Chalew S, Valley S, Layburn S, Lala A, Clesi P, Genet M, Uwaifo G, Charron A, Allerton T, Milliot E, Cefalu W, Melendez-Ramirez L, Richards R, Alleyn C, Gustafson E, Lizanna M, Wahlen J, Aleiwe S, Hansen M, Wahlen H, Moore M, Levy C, Bonaccorso A, Rapaport R, Tomer Y, Chia D, Goldis M, Iazzetti L, Klein M, Levister C, Waldman L, Muller S, Wallach E, Regelmann M, Antal Z, Aranda M, Reynholds C, Leech N, Wake D, Owens C, Burns M, Wotherspoon J, Nguyen T, Murray A, Short K, Curry G, Kelsey S, Lawson J, Porter J, Stevens S, Thomson E, Winship S, Wynn L, O’Donnell R, Wiltshire E, Krebs J, Cresswell P, Faherty H, Ross C, Vinik A, Barlow P, Bourcier M, Nevoret M, Couper J, Oduah V, Beresford S, Thalagne N, Roper H, Gibbons J, Hill J, Balleaut S, Brennan C, Ellis-Gage J, Fear L, Gray T, Pilger J, Jones L, McNerney C, Pointer L, Price N, Few K, Tomlinson D, Denvir L, Drew J, Randell T, Mansell P, Roberts A, Bell S, Butler S, Hooton Y, Navarra H, Roper A, Babington G, Crate L, Cripps H, Ledlie A, Moulds C, Sadler K, Norton R, Petrova B, Silkstone O, Smith C, Ghai K, Murray M, Viswanathan V, Henegan M, Kawadry O, Olson J, Stavros T, Patterson L, Ahmad T, Flores B, Domek D, Domek S, Copeland K, George M, Less J, Davis T, Short M, Tamura R, Dwarakanathan A, O’Donnell P, Boerner B, Larson L, Phillips M, Rendell M, Larson K, Smith C, Zebrowski K, Kuechenmeister L, Wood K, Thevarayapillai M, Daniels M, Speer H, Forghani N, Quintana R, Reh C, Bhangoo A, Desrosiers P, Ireland L, Misla T, Xu P, Torres C, Wells S, Villar J, Yu M, Berry D, Cook D, Soder J, Powell A, Ng M, Morrison M, Young K, Haslam Z, Lawson M, Bradley B, Courtney J, Richardson C, Watson C, Keely E, DeCurtis D, Vaccarcello-Cruz M, Torres Z, Alies P, Sandberg K, Hsiang H, Joy B, McCormick D, Powell A, Jones H, Bell J, Hargadon S, Hudson S, Kummer M, Badias F, Sauder S, Sutton E, Gensel K, Aguirre-Castaneda R, Benavides Lopez V, Hemp D, Allen S, Stear J, Davis E, Jones T, Baker A, Roberts A, Dart J, Paramalingam N, Levitt Katz L, Chaudhary N, Murphy K, Willi S, Schwartzman B, Kapadia C, Larson D, Bassi M, McClellan D, Shaibai G, Kelley L, Villa G, Kelley C, Diamond R, Kabbani M, Dajani T, Hoekstra F, Magorno M, Beam C, Holst J, Chauhan V, Wilson N, Bononi P, Sperl M, Millward A, Eaton M, Dean L, Olshan J, Renna H, Boulware D, Milliard C, Snyder D, Beaman S, Burch K, Chester J, Ahmann A, Wollam B, DeFrang D, Fitch R, Jahnke K, Bounmananh L, Hanavan K, Klopfenstein B, Nicol L, Bergstrom R, Noland T, Brodksy J, Bacon L, Quintos J, Topor L, Bialo S, Bream S, Bancroft B, Soto A, Lagarde W, Lockemer H, Vanderploeg T, Ibrahim M, Huie M, Sanchez V, Edelen R, Marchiando R, Freeman D, Palmer J, Repas T, Wasson M, Auker P, Culbertson J, Kieffer T, Voorhees D, Borgwardt T, DeRaad L, Eckert K, Gough J, Isaacson E, Kuhn H, Carroll A, Schubert M, Francis G, Hagan S, Le T, Penn M, Wickham E, Leyva C, Ginem J, Rivera K, Padilla J, Rodriguez I, Jospe N, Czyzyk J, Johnson B, Nadgir U, Marlen N, Prakasam G, Rieger C, Granger M, Glaser N, Heiser E, Harris B, Foster C, Slater H, Wheeler K, Donaldson D, Murray M, Hale D, Tragus R, Holloway M, Word D, Lynch J, Pankratz L, Rogers W, Newfield R, Holland S, Hashiguchi M, Gottschalk M, Philis-Tsimikas A, Rosal R, Kieffer M, Franklin S, Guardado S, Bohannon N, Garcia M, Aguinaldo T, Phan J, Barraza V, Cohen D, Pinsker J, Khan U, Lane P, Wiley J, Jovanovic L, Misra P, Wright M, Cohen D, Huang K, Skiles M, Maxcy S, Pihoker C, Cochrane K, Nallamshetty L, Fosse J, Kearns S, Klingsheim M, Wright N, Viles L, Smith H, Heller S, Cunningham M, Daniels A, Zeiden L, Parrimon Y, Field J, Walker R, Griffin K, Bartholow L, Erickson C, Howard J, Krabbenhoft B, Sandman C, Vanveldhuizen A, Wurlger J, Paulus K, Zimmerman A, Hanisch K, Davis-Keppen L, Cotterill A, Kirby J, Harris M, Schmidt A, Kishiyama C, Flores C, Milton J, Ramiro J, Martin W, Whysham C, Yerka A, Freels T, Hassing J, Webster J, Green R, Carter P, Galloway J, Hoelzer D, Ritzie AQL, Roberts S, Said S, Sullivan P, Allen H, Reiter E, Feinberg E, Johnson C, Newhook L, Hagerty D, White N, Sharma A, Levandoski L, Kyllo J, Johnson M, Benoit C, Iyer P, Diamond F, Hosono H, Jackman S, Barette L, Jones P, Shor A, Sills I, Bzdick S, Bulger J, Weinstock R, Douek I, Andrews R, Modgill G, Gyorffy G, Robin L, Vaidya N, Song X, Crouch S, O’Brien K, Thompson C, Thorne N, Blumer J, Kalic J, Klepek L, Paulett J, Rosolowski B, Horner J, Terry A, Watkins M, Casey J, Carpenter K, Burns C, Horton J, Pritchard C, Soetaert D, Wynne A, Kaiserman K, Halvorson M, Weinberger J, Chin C, Molina O, Patel C, Senguttuvan R, Wheeler M, Furet O, Steuhm C, Jelley D, Goudeau S, Chalmers L, Wootten M, Greer D, Panagiotopoulos C, Metzger D, Nguyen D, Horowitz M, Christiansen M, Glades E, Morimoto C, Macarewich M, Norman R, Harding P, Patin K, Vargas C, Barbanica A, Yu A, Vaidyanathan P, Osborne W, Mehra R, Kaster S, Neace S, Horner J, McDonough S, Reeves G, Cordrey C, Marrs L, Miller T, Dowshen S, Doyle D, Walker S, Catte D, Dean H, Drury-Brown M, McGee PF, Hackman B, Lee M, Malkani S, Cullen K, Johnson K, Hampton P, McCarrell M, Curtis C, Paul E, Zambrano Y, Hess KO, Phoebus D, Quinlan S, Raiden E, Batts E, Buddy C, Kirpatrick K, Ramey M, Shultz A, Webb C, Romesco M, Fradkin J, Blumberg E, Beck G, Brillon D, Gubitosi-Klug R, Laffel L, Veatch R, Wallace D, Braun J, Lernmark A, Lo B, Mitchell H, Naji A, Nerup J, Orchard T, Steffes M, Tsiatis A, Zinman B, Loechelt B, Baden L, Green M, Weinberg A, Marcovina S, Palmer JP, Weinberg A, Yu L, Babu S, Winter W, Eisenbarth GS, Bingley P, Clynes R, DiMeglio L, Eisenbarth G, Hays B, Marks J, Matheson D, Rodriguez H, Wilson D, Redondo MJ, Gomez D, Zheng X, Pena S, Pietropaolo M, Batts E, Brown T, Buckner J, Dove A, Hammond M, Hefty D, Klein J, Kuhns K, Letlau M, Lord S, McCulloch-Olson M, Miller L, Nepom G, Odegard J, Ramey M, Sachter E, St. Marie M, Stickney K, VanBuecken D, Vellek B, Webber C, Allen L, Bollyk J, Hilderman N, Ismail H, Lamola S, Sanda S, Vendettuoli H, Tridgell D, Monzavi R, Bock M, Fisher L, Halvorson M, Jeandron D, Kim M, Wood J, Geffner M, Kaufman F, Parkman R, Salazar C, Goland R, Clynes R, Cook S, Freeby M, Gallagher MP, Gandica R, Greenberg E, Kurland A, Pollak S, Wolk A, Chan M, Koplimae L, Levine E, Smith K, Trast J, DiMeglio L, Blum J, Evans-Molina C, Hufferd R, Jagielo B, Kruse C, Patrick V, Rigby M, Spall M, Swinney K, Terrell J, Christner L, Ford L, Lynch S, Menendez M, Merrill P, Pescovitz M, Rodriguez H, Alleyn C, Baidal D, Fay S, Gaglia J, Resnick B, Szubowicz S, Weir G, Benjamin R, Conboy D, deManbey A, Jackson R, Jalahej H, Orban T, Ricker A, Wolfsdorf J, Zhang HH, Wilson D, Aye T, Baker B, Barahona K, Buckingham B, Esrey K, Esrey T, Fathman G, Snyder R, Aneja B, Chatav M, Espinoza O, Frank E, Liu J, Perry J, Pyle R, Rigby A, Riley K, Soto A, Gitelman S, Adi S, Anderson M, Berhel A, Breen K, Fraser K, Gerard-Gonzalez A, Jossan P, Lustig R, Moassesfar S, Mugg A, Ng D, Prahalod P, Rangel-Lugo M, Sanda S, Tarkoff J, Torok C, Wesch R, Aslan I, Buchanan J, Cordier J, Hamilton C, Hawkins L, Ho T, Jain A, Ko K, Lee T, Phelps S, Rosenthal S, Sahakitrungruang T, Stehl L, Taylor L, Wertz M, Wong J, Philipson L, Briars R, Devine N, Littlejohn E, Grant T, Gottlieb P, Klingensmith G, Steck A, Alkanani A, Bautista K, Bedoy R, Blau A, Burke B, Cory L, Dang M, Fitzgerald-Miller L, Fouts A, Gage V, Garg S, Gesauldo P, Gutin R, Hayes C, Hoffman M, Ketchum K, Logsden-Sackett N, Maahs D, Messer L, Meyers L, Michels A, Peacock S, Rewers M, Rodriguez P, Sepulbeda F, Sippl R, Steck A, Taki I, Tran BK, Tran T, Wadwa RP, Zeitler P, Barker J, Barry S, Birks L, Bomsburger L, Bookert T, Briggs L, Burdick P, Cabrera R, Chase P, Cobry E, Conley A, Cook G, Daniels J, DiDomenico D, Eckert J, Ehler A, Eisenbarth G, Fain P, Fiallo-Scharer R, Frank N, Goettle H, Haarhues M, Harris S, Horton L, Hutton J, Jeffrrey J, Jenison R, Jones K, Kastelic W, King MA, Lehr D, Lungaro J, Mason K, Maurer H, Nguyen L, Proto A, Realsen J, Schmitt K, Schwartz M, Skovgaard S, Smith J, Vanderwel B, Voelmle M, Wagner R, Wallace A, Walravens P, Weiner L, Westerhoff B, Westfall E, Widmer K, Wright H, Schatz D, Abraham A, Atkinson M, Cintron M, Clare-Salzler M, Ferguson J, Haller M, Hosford J, Mancini D, Rohrs H, Silverstein J, Thomas J, Winter W, Cole G, Cook R, Coy R, Hicks E, Lewis N, Marks J, Pugliese A, Blaschke C, Matheson D, Sanders-Branca N, Sosenko J, Arazo L, Arce R, Cisneros M, Sabbag S, Moran A, Gibson C, Fife B, Hering B, Kwong C, Leschyshyn J, Nathan B, Pappenfus B, Street A, Boes MA, Eck SP, Finney L, Fischer TA, Martin A, Muzamhindo CJ, Rhodes M, Smith J, Wagner J, Wood B, Becker D, Delallo K, Diaz A, Elnyczky B, Libman I, Pasek B, Riley K, Trucco M, Copemen B, Gwynn D, Toledo F, Rodriguez H, Bollepalli S, Diamond F, Eyth E, Henson D, Lenz A, Shulman D, Raskin P, Adhikari S, Dickson B, Dunnigan E, Lingvay I, Pruneda L, Ramos-Roman M, Raskin P, Rhee C, Richard J, Siegelman M, Sturges D, Sumpter K, White P, Alford M, Arthur J, Aviles-Santa ML, Cordova E, Davis R, Fernandez S, Fordan S, Hardin T, Jacobs A, Kaloyanova P, Lukacova-Zib I, Mirfakhraee S, Mohan A, Noto H, Smith O, Torres N, Wherrett D, Balmer D, Eisel L, Kovalakovska R, Mehan M, Sultan F, Ahenkorah B, Cevallos J, Razack N, Ricci MJ, Rhode A, Srikandarajah M, Steger R, Russell WE, Black M, Brendle F, Brown A, Moore D, Pittel E, Robertson A, Shannon A, Thomas JW, Herold K, Feldman L, Sherwin R, Tamborlane W, Weinzimer S, Toppari J, Kallio T, Kärkkäinen M, Mäntymäki E, Niininen T, Nurmi B, Rajala P, Romo M, Suomenrinne S, Näntö-Salonen K, Simell O, Simell T, Bosi E, Battaglia M, Bianconi E, Bonfanti R, Grogan P, Laurenzi A, Martinenghi S, Meschi F, Pastore M, Falqui L, Muscato MT, Viscardi M, Castleden H, Farthing N, Loud S, Matthews C, McGhee J, Morgan A, Pollitt J, Elliot-Jones R, Wheaton C, Knip M, Siljander H, Suomalainen H, Colman P, Healy F, Mesfin S, Redl L, Wentworth J, Willis J, Farley M, Harrison L, Perry C, Williams F, Mayo A, Paxton J, Thompson V, Volin L, Fenton C, Carr L, Lemon E, Swank M, Luidens M, Salgam M, Sharma V, Schade D, King C, Carano R, Heiden J, Means N, Holman L, Thomas I, Madrigal D, Muth T, Martin C, Plunkett C, Ramm C, Auchus R, Lane W, Avots E, Buford M, Hale C, Hoyle J, Lane B, Muir A, Shuler S, Raviele N, Ivie E, Jenkins M, Lindsley K, Hansen I, Fadoju D, Felner E, Bode B, Hosey R, Sax J, Jefferies C, Mannering S, Prentis R, She J, Stachura M, Hopkins D, Williams J, Steed L, Asatapova E, Nunez S, Knight S, Dixon P, Ching J, Donner T, Longnecker S, Abel K, Arcara K, Blackman S, Clark L, Cooke D, Plotnick L, Levin P, Bromberger L, Klein K, Sadurska K, Allen C, Michaud D, Snodgrass H, Burghen G, Chatha S, Clark C, Silverberg J, Wittmer C, Gardner J, LeBoeuf C, Bell P, McGlore O, Tennet H, Alba N, Carroll M, Baert L, Beaton H, Cordell E, Haynes A, Reed C, Lichter K, McCarthy P, McCarthy S, Monchamp T, Roach J, Manies S, Gunville F, Marosok L, Nelson T, Ackerman K, Rudolph J, Stewart M, McCormick K, May S, Falls T, Barrett T, Dale K, Makusha L, McTernana C, Penny-Thomas K, Sullivan K, Narendran P, Robbie J, Smith D, Christensen R, Koehler B, Royal C, Arthur T, Houser H, Renaldi J, Watsen S, Wu P, Lyons L, House B, Yu J, Holt H, Nation M, Vickers C, Watling R, Heptulla R, Trast J, Agarwal C, Newell D, Katikaneni R, Gardner C, Del Rio A, Logan A, Collier H, Rishton C, Whalley G, Ali A, Ramtoola S, Quattrin T, Mastrandea L, House A, Ecker M, Huang C, Gougeon C, Ho J, Pacuad D, Dunger D, May J, O’Brien C, Acerini C, Salgin B, Thankamony A, Williams R, Buse J, Fuller G, Duclos M, Tricome J, Brown H, Pittard D, Bowlby D, Blue A, Headley T, Bendre S, Lewis K, Sutphin K, Soloranzo C, Puskaric J, Madison H, Rincon M, Carlucci M, Shridharani R, Rusk B, Tessman E, Huffman D, Abrams H, Biederman B, Jones M, Leathers V, Brickman W, Petrie P, Zimmerman D, Howard J, Miller L, Alemzadeh R, Mihailescu D, Melgozza-Walker R, Abdulla N, Boucher-Berry C, Ize-Ludlow D, Levy R, Swenson Brousell C, Scott R, Heenan H, Lunt H, Kendall D, Willis J, Darlow B, Crimmins N, Edler D, Weis T, Schultz C, Rogers D, Latham D, Mawhorter C, Switzer C, Spencer W, Konstantnopoulus P, Broder S, Klein J, Bachrach B, Gardner M, Eichelberger D, Knight L, Szadek L, Welnick G, Thompson B, Hoffman R, Revell A, Cherko J, Carter K, Gilson E, Haines J, Arthur G, Bowen B, Zipf W, Graves P, Lozano R, Seiple D, Spicer K, Chang A, Fregosi J, Harbinson J, Paulson C, Stalters S, Wright P, Zlock D, Freeth A, Victory J, Maheshwari H, Maheshwari A, Holmstrom T, Bueno J, Arguello R, Ahern J, Noreika L, Watson V, Hourse S, Breyer P, Kissel C, Nicholson Y, Pfeifer M, Almazan S, Bajaj J, Quinn M, Funk K, McCance J, Moreno E, Veintimilla R, Wells A, Cook J, Trunnel S, Transue D, Surhigh J, Bezzaire D, Moltz K, Zacharski E, Henske J, Desai S, Frizelis K, Khan F, Sjoberg R, Allen K, Manning P, Hendry G, Taylor B, Jones S, Couch R, Danchak R, Lieberman D, Strader W, Bencomo M, Bailey T, Bedolla L, Roldan C, Moudiotis C, Vaidya B, Anning C, Bunce S, Estcourt S, Folland E, Gordon E, Harrill C, Ireland J, Piper J, Scaife L, Sutton K, Wilkins S, Costelloe M, Palmer J, Casas L, Miller C, Burgard M, Erickson C, Hallanger-Johnson J, Clark P, Taylor W, Galgani J, Banerjee S, Banda C, McEowen D, Kinman R, Lafferty A, Gillett S, Nolan C, Pathak M, Sondrol L, Hjelle T, Hafner S, Kotrba J, Hendrickson R, Cemeroglu A, Symington T, Daniel M, Appiagyei-Dankah Y, Postellon D, Racine M, Kleis L, Barnes K, Godwin S, McCullough H, Shaheen K, Buck G, Noel L, Warren M, Weber S, Parker S, Gillespie I, Nelson B, Frost C, Amrhein J, Moreland E, Hayes A, Peggram J, Aisenberg J, Riordan M, Zasa J, Cummings E, Scott K, Pinto T, Mokashi A, McAssey K, Helden E, Hammond P, Dinning L, Rahman S, Ray S, Dimicri C, Guppy S, Nielsen H, Vogel C, Ariza C, Morales L, Chang Y, Gabbay R, Ambrocio L, Manley L, Nemery R, Charlton W, Smith P, Kerr L, Steindel-Kopp B, Alamaguer M, Tabisola-Nuesca E, Pendersen A, Larson N, Cooper-Olviver H, Chan D, Fitz-Patrick D, Carreira T, Park Y, Ruhaak R, Liljenquist D. A Type 1 Diabetes Genetic Risk Score Predicts Progression of Islet Autoimmunity and Development of Type 1 Diabetes in Individuals at Risk. Diabetes Care 2018; 41:1887-1894. [PMID: 30002199 PMCID: PMC6105323 DOI: 10.2337/dc18-0087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2018] [Accepted: 06/06/2018] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We tested the ability of a type 1 diabetes (T1D) genetic risk score (GRS) to predict progression of islet autoimmunity and T1D in at-risk individuals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We studied the 1,244 TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study participants (T1D patients' relatives without diabetes and with one or more positive autoantibodies) who were genotyped with Illumina ImmunoChip (median [range] age at initial autoantibody determination 11.1 years [1.2-51.8], 48% male, 80.5% non-Hispanic white, median follow-up 5.4 years). Of 291 participants with a single positive autoantibody at screening, 157 converted to multiple autoantibody positivity and 55 developed diabetes. Of 953 participants with multiple positive autoantibodies at screening, 419 developed diabetes. We calculated the T1D GRS from 30 T1D-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. We used multivariable Cox regression models, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves, and area under the curve (AUC) measures to evaluate prognostic utility of T1D GRS, age, sex, Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) Risk Score, positive autoantibody number or type, HLA DR3/DR4-DQ8 status, and race/ethnicity. We used recursive partitioning analyses to identify cut points in continuous variables. RESULTS Higher T1D GRS significantly increased the rate of progression to T1D adjusting for DPT-1 Risk Score, age, number of positive autoantibodies, sex, and ethnicity (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29 for a 0.05 increase, 95% CI 1.06-1.6; P = 0.011). Progression to T1D was best predicted by a combined model with GRS, number of positive autoantibodies, DPT-1 Risk Score, and age (7-year time-integrated AUC = 0.79, 5-year AUC = 0.73). Higher GRS was significantly associated with increased progression rate from single to multiple positive autoantibodies after adjusting for age, autoantibody type, ethnicity, and sex (HR 2.27 for GRS >0.295, 95% CI 1.47-3.51; P = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS The T1D GRS independently predicts progression to T1D and improves prediction along T1D stages in autoantibody-positive relatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria J. Redondo
- Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | | | - Andrea K. Steck
- Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Seth Sharp
- Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, U.K
| | - John M. Wentworth
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Michael N. Weedon
- Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, U.K
| | | | | | | | | | - Richard A. Oram
- Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, U.K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Michelessi M, Lindsley K, Yu T, Li T. Combination medical treatment for primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a network meta-analysis. Hippokratia 2018. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011366.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Manuele Michelessi
- Fondazione G.B. Bietti per lo studio e la ricerca in Oftalmolologia-IRCCS; Ophthalmology; Via Livenza n 3 Rome Italy 00198
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 N. Wolfe Street Mailroom W5010 Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 N. Wolfe Street Mailroom W5010 Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| | - Tsung Yu
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 N. Wolfe Street Mailroom W5010 Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| | - Tianjing Li
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 N. Wolfe Street Mailroom W5010 Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. It results in a progressive loss of peripheral vision and, in late stages, loss of central vision leading to blindness. Early treatment of glaucoma aims to prevent or delay vision loss. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is the main causal modifiable risk factor for glaucoma. Aqueous outflow obstruction is the main cause of IOP elevation, which can be mitigated either by increasing outflow or reducing aqueous humor production. Cyclodestructive procedures use various methods to target and destroy the ciliary body epithelium, the site of aqueous humor production, thereby lowering IOP. The most common approach is laser cyclophotocoagulation. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of cyclodestructive procedures for the management of non-refractory glaucoma (i.e. glaucoma in an eye that has not undergone incisional glaucoma surgery). We also aimed to compare the effect of different routes of administration, laser delivery instruments, and parameters of cyclophotocoagulation with respect to IOP control, visual acuity, pain control, and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; LILACS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the search was 7 August 2017. We also searched the reference lists of reports from included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials of participants who had undergone cyclodestruction as a primary treatment for glaucoma. We included only head-to-head trials that had compared cyclophotocoagulation to other procedural interventions, or compared cyclophotocoagulation using different types of lasers, delivery methods, parameters, or a combination of these factors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed risks of bias, extracted data, and graded the certainty of the evidence in accordance with Cochrane standards. MAIN RESULTS We included one trial (92 eyes of 92 participants) that evaluated the efficacy of diode transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (TSCPC) as primary surgical therapy. We identified no other eligible ongoing or completed trial. The included trial compared low-energy versus high-energy TSCPC in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma. The trial was conducted in Ghana and had a mean follow-up period of 13.2 months post-treatment. In this trial, low-energy TSCPC was defined as 45.0 J delivered, high-energy as 65.5 J delivered; it is worth noting that other trials have defined high- and low-energy TSCPC differently. We assessed this trial to have had low risk of selection bias and reporting bias, unclear risk of performance bias, and high risk of detection bias and attrition bias. Trial authors excluded 13 participants with missing follow-up data; the analyses therefore included 40 (85%) of 47 participants in the low-energy group and 39 (87%) of 45 participants in the high-energy group.Control of IOP, defined as a decrease in IOP by 20% from baseline value, was achieved in 47% of eyes, at similar rates in the low-energy group and the high-energy groups; the small study size creates uncertainty about the significance of the difference, if any, between energy settings (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.65; 79 participants; low-certainty evidence). The difference in effect between energy settings based on mean decrease in IOP, if any exists, also was uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.50 mmHg, 95% CI -5.79 to 4.79; 79 participants; low-certainty evidence).Decreased vision was defined as the proportion of participants with a decrease of 2 or more lines on the Snellen chart or one or more categories of visual acuity when unable to read the eye chart. Twenty-three percent of eyes had a decrease in vision. The size of any difference between the low-energy group and the high-energy group was uncertain (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.76; 79 participants; low-certainty evidence). Data were not available for mean visual acuity and proportion of participants with vision change defined as greater than 1 line on the Snellen chart.The difference in the mean number of glaucoma medications used after cyclophotocoagulation was similar when comparing treatment groups (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.63; 79 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Twenty percent of eyes were retreated; the estimated effect of energy settings on the need for retreatment was inconclusive (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84; 79 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data for visual field, cost effectiveness, or quality-of-life outcomes were reported by the trial investigators.Adverse events were reported for the total study population, rather than by treatment group. The trial authors stated that most participants reported mild to moderate pain after the procedure, and many had transient conjunctival burns (percentages not reported). Severe iritis occurred in two eyes and hyphema occurred in three eyes. No instances of hypotony or phthisis bulbi were reported. The only adverse outcome that was reported by the treatment group was atonic pupil (RR 0.89 in the low-energy group, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68; 92 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of cyclodestructive procedures for the primary procedural management of non-refractory glaucoma. Results from the one included trial did not compare cyclophotocoagulation to other procedural interventions and yielded uncertainty about any difference in outcomes when comparing low-energy versus high-energy diode TSCPC. Overall, the effect of laser treatment on IOP control was modest and the number of eyes experiencing vision loss was limited. More research is needed specific to the management of non-refractory glaucoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuele Michelessi
- Fondazione G.B. Bietti per lo studio e la ricerca in Oftalmolologia‐IRCCSOphthalmologyVia Livenza n 3RomeItaly00198
| | - Amanda K Bicket
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineDepartment of OphthalmologyBaltimoreMarylandUSA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Saldanha IJ, Lindsley K, Do DV, Chuck RS, Meyerle C, Jones LS, Coleman AL, Jampel HD, Dickersin K, Virgili G. Comparison of Clinical Trial and Systematic Review Outcomes for the 4 Most Prevalent Eye Diseases. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017; 135:933-940. [PMID: 28772305 PMCID: PMC5625342 DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2017] [Accepted: 06/09/2017] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Importance Suboptimal overlap in outcomes reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews compromises efforts to compare and summarize results across these studies. Objectives To examine the most frequent outcomes used in trials and reviews of the 4 most prevalent eye diseases (age-related macular degeneration [AMD], cataract, diabetic retinopathy [DR], and glaucoma) and the overlap between outcomes in the reviews and the trials included in the reviews. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study examined all Cochrane reviews that addressed AMD, cataract, DR, and glaucoma; were published as of July 20, 2016; and included at least 1 trial and the trials included in the reviews. For each disease, a pair of clinical experts independently classified all outcomes and resolved discrepancies. Outcomes (outcome domains) were then compared separately for each disease. Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of review outcomes also reported in trials and vice versa. Results This study included 56 reviews that comprised 414 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial and per review was the same (n = 5) for each disease, the trials included a greater number of outcomes overall than did the reviews, ranging from 2.9 times greater (89 vs 30 outcomes for glaucoma) to 4.9 times greater (107 vs 22 outcomes for AMD). Most review outcomes, ranging from 14 of 19 outcomes (73.7%) (for DR) to 27 of 29 outcomes (93.1%) (for cataract), were also reported in the trials. For trial outcomes, however, the proportion also named in reviews was low, ranging from 19 of 107 outcomes (17.8%) (for AMD) to 24 of 89 outcomes (27.0%) (for glaucoma). Only 1 outcome (visual acuity) was consistently reported in greater than half the trials and greater than half the reviews. Conclusions and Relevance Although most review outcomes were reported in the trials, most trial outcomes were not reported in the reviews. The current analysis focused on outcome domains, which might underestimate the problem of inconsistent outcomes. Other important elements of an outcome (ie, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points) might have differed even though the domains overlapped. Inconsistency in trial outcomes may impede research synthesis and indicates the need for disease-specific core outcome sets in ophthalmology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian J. Saldanha
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Diana V. Do
- Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Roy S. Chuck
- Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
| | - Catherine Meyerle
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Leslie S. Jones
- Department of Ophthalmology, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC
| | - Anne L. Coleman
- Frank and Ray Stark Foundation, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California
| | - Henry D. Jampel
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Kay Dickersin
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Gianni Virgili
- Eye Clinic, Department of Translational Surgery and Medicine, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Affiliation(s)
- Shi-Ming Li
- Capital Medical University; Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Science Key Lab, Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology; No.1 Dongijiaominxiang, Dongcheng District Beijing China 100730
| | - Meng-Tian Kang
- Capital Medical University; Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Science Key Lab, Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology; No.1 Dongijiaominxiang, Dongcheng District Beijing China 100730
| | - Yuehua Zhou
- Capital Medical University; Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Science Key Lab, Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology; No.1 Dongijiaominxiang, Dongcheng District Beijing China 100730
| | - Ning-Li Wang
- Capital Medical University; Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Science Key Lab, Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology; No.1 Dongijiaominxiang, Dongcheng District Beijing China 100730
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132 Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
de la Parra-Colin P, Garza-Leon M, Ortiz-Nieva G, Barrientos-Gutierrez T, Lindsley K. Oral antivirals for preventing recurrence of herpes simplex virus keratitis. Hippokratia 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010556.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Paola de la Parra-Colin
- La Raza Medical Center; Cornea and Ocular Surface Clinic, Ophthalmology Department; Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) Mexico City Mexico
| | - Manuel Garza-Leon
- Destellos de Luz non-profit Foundation; Cornea and Uveitis Department; Av. Lázaro Cárdenas # 2600 Ote. Col. Valle Oriente San Pedro Garza Garcia Nuevo León Mexico 66269
| | - Gabriela Ortiz-Nieva
- Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals; Sussex Eye Hospital; Eastern Brighton Road Brighton UK BN2 5BF
| | - Tonatiuh Barrientos-Gutierrez
- National Institute of Public Health; Tobacco Research Department; 7a Cerrada de Fray Pedro de Gante #50 Col Seccion XVI, Tlalpan Mexico City Mexico City Mexico 14000
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132 Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Law A, Lindsley K, Rouse B, Wormald R, Dickersin K, Li T. Missed opportunity from randomised controlled trials of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2017; 101:1315-1317. [PMID: 28270487 DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309695] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2016] [Revised: 01/05/2017] [Accepted: 02/12/2017] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the extent to which intraocular pressure and visual field have been reported as outcomes in randomised controlled trials (also referred to as 'trials') of medical treatments for open-angle glaucoma. METHODS We identified published reports of trials in a systematic review of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma our group conducted. We assessed whether intraocular pressure and visual field were reported as trial outcomes and classified them to be either completely or incompletely reported for meta-analysis. We also collected data on the length of time patients were followed and source of funding for the trial. RESULTS As of March 2014, we identified 401 trials that had enrolled 76 861 participants. Eighty per cent of 401 trials provided complete information on intraocular pressure and 11% of the 401 trials provided complete information on visual field. Only a minority of trials followed patients for at least 1 year. About half of all reports in our study stated that receiving funding from the industry. CONCLUSIONS Although the vast majority of trials provided sufficient data for meta-analysis of the effect of medical management of open-angle glaucoma on intraocular pressure, relatively few provided data for analysing the effect on visual field. We considered this as missed opportunity because the data were not available for evidence synthesis. Investigators have an obligation to patients and providers to determine the comparative effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in terms of patient-important outcomes and not to waste data that could have been collected in trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Law
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Benjamin Rouse
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | | | - Kay Dickersin
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Tianjing Li
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cataract and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are common causes of decreased vision that often occur simultaneously in people over age 50. Although cataract surgery is an effective treatment for cataract-induced visual loss, some clinicians suspect that such an intervention may increase the risk of worsening of underlying AMD and thus have deleterious effects on vision. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cataract surgery compared with no surgery in eyes with AMD. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1980 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 December 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials that enrolled participants whose eyes were affected by both cataract and AMD in which cataract surgery was compared with no surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently evaluated the search results against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias for included studies, and graded the certainty of evidence. We followed methods as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included two RCTs with a total of 114 participants (114 study eyes) with visually significant cataract and AMD. We identified no ongoing trials. Participants in each RCT were randomized to immediate cataract surgery (within two weeks of enrollment) or delayed cataract surgery (six months after enrollment). The risk of bias was unclear for most domains in each study; one study was registered prospectively.In one study conducted in Australia outcomes were reported only at six months (before participants in the delayed-surgery group had cataract surgery). At six months, the immediate-surgery group showed mean improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) compared with the delayed-surgery group (mean difference (MD) -0.15 LogMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to -0.02; 56 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the other study, conducted in Austria, outcomes were reported only at 12 months (12 months after participants in the immediate-surgery group and six months after participants in the delayed-surgery group had cataract surgery). There was uncertainty as to which treatment group had better improvement in distance visual acuity at 12 months (unit of measure not reported; very low-certainty evidence).At 12 months, the mean change from baseline between groups in cumulated drusen or geographic atrophy area size was small and there was uncertainty which, if either, of the groups was favored (MD 0.76, 95% CI -8.49 to 10.00; 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). No participant in one study had exudative AMD develop in the study eye during 12 months of follow-up; in the other study, choroidal neovascularization developed in the study eye of 1 of 27 participants in the immediate-surgery group versus 0 of 29 participants in the delayed-surgery group at six months (risk ratio 3.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 75.68; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was measured using two different questionnaires. Scores on the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire suggested that the immediate-surgery group fared better regarding vision-related quality of life than the delayed-surgery group at six months (MD in IVI logit scores 1.60, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.59; low-certainty evidence). However, we could not analyze scores from the Visual Function-14 (VF-14) questionnaire from the other study due to insufficient data. No postoperative complication was reported from either study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS At this time, it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions from the available data as to whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in people with AMD after 12 months. Although cataract surgery provides short-term (six months) improvement in BCVA in eyes with AMD compared with no surgery, it is unclear whether the timing of surgery has an effect on long-term outcomes. Physicians must make recommendations to their AMD patients regarding cataract surgery based on experience and clinical judgment until large controlled trials are conducted and their findings published.There is a need for prospective RCTs in which cataract surgery is compared with no surgery in people with AMD to better evaluate whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in all or a subset of AMD patients. However, ethical considerations preclude withholding surgery, or delaying it for several years, if it may be a potentially beneficial treatment. Designers of future trials are encouraged to utilize existing standardized systems for grading cataract and AMD and for measuring key outcomes: visual acuity, change in visual acuity, worsening of AMD, quality of life measures, and adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Casparis
- Private practice, Ophthalmology, Via Antonio Ciseri 13CH‐6600 LocarnoSwitzerland
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | - Irene C Kuo
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineDepartment of Ophthalmology4924 Campbell Blvd #100BaltimoreMarylandUSA21236
| | - Shameema Sikder
- Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineWilmer Ophthalmological Institute600 N. Wolfe St., Wilmer B‐20BaltimoreMarylandUSA21287
| | - Neil M Bressler
- Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineWilmer Ophthalmological Institute600 N. Wolfe St., Wilmer B‐20BaltimoreMarylandUSA21287
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endophthalmitis is a severe inflammation of the anterior or posterior (or both) chambers of the eye that may be sterile or associated with infection. It is a potentially vision-threatening complication of cataract surgery. Prophylactic measures for endophthalmitis are targeted against various sources of infection. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery compared with no prophylaxis or other form of prophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1980 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to December 2016),the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 December 2016. We also searched for additional studies that cited any included trials using the Science Citation Index. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled adults undergoing cataract surgery (any method and incision type) for lens opacities due to any origin. We included trials that evaluated preoperative antibiotics, intraoperative (intracameral, subconjunctival or systemic), or postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for acute endophthalmitis. We excluded studies that evaluated antiseptic preoperative preparations using agents such as povidone iodine or antibiotics for treating acute endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias for each included study, and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS Five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, including 101,005 adults and 132 endophthalmitis cases. While the sample size was very large, the heterogeneity of the study designs and modes of antibiotic delivery made it impossible to conduct a formal meta-analysis. Interventions investigated included the utility of adding vancomycin and gentamycin to the irrigating solution compared with standard balanced saline solution irrigation alone, use of intracameral cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin perioperatively, periocular penicillin injections and topical chloramphenicol-sulfadimidine drops compared with topical antibiotics alone, and mode of antibiotic delivery (subconjunctival versus retrobulbar injections; fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone). The risk of bias among studies was low to unclear due to information not being reported. We identified one ongoing study.Two studies compared any antibiotic with no antibiotic. One study, which compared irrigation with antibiotics in balanced salt solution (BSS) versus BSS alone, was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study found reduced risk of endophthalmitis when combining intracameral cefuroxime and topical levofloxacin (risk ratio (RR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.63; 8106 participants; high-certainty evidence) or using intracameral cefuroxime alone (RR 0.21, CI 0.06 to 0.74; 8110 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared with placebo, and an uncertain effect when using topical levofloxacin alone compared with placebo (RR 0.72, CI 0.32 to 1.61; 8103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies found reduced risk of endophthalmitis when combining antibiotic injections during surgery and topical antibiotics compared with topical antibiotics alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.92 (periocular penicillin and topical chloramphenicol-sulfadimidine; 6618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.91 (intracameral cefuroxime and topical levofloxacin; 8101 participants; high-certainty evidence)).One study, which compared fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone, was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups (very low-certainty evidence). Another study found no evidence of a difference in endophthalmitis when comparing subconjunctival versus retrobulbar antibiotic injections (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.32; 77,015 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies reported any visual acuity outcome; one study, which compared fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone, reported only that mean visual acuity was the same for both groups at 20 days postoperation. In the other study, the difference in the proportion of eyes with final visual acuity greater than 20/40 following endophthalmitis between groups receiving intracameral cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin compared with no intracameral cefuroxime was uncertain (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11; 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Only one study reported adverse events (1 of 129 eyes had pupillary membrane in front of the intraocular lens and 8 eyes showed posterior capsule opacity). No study reported outcomes related to quality of life or economic outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Multiple measures for preventing endophthalmitis following cataract surgery have been studied. High-certainty evidence shows that injection with cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin lowers the chance of endophthalmitis after surgery, and there is moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that using antibiotic eye drops in addition to antibiotic injection probably lowers the chance of endophthalmitis compared with using injections or eye drops alone. Clinical trials with rare outcomes require very large sample sizes and are quite costly to conduct; thus, it is unlikely that many additional clinical trials will be conducted to evaluate currently available prophylaxis. Practitioners should rely on current evidence to make informed decisions regarding prophylaxis choices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily W Gower
- Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina135 Dauer Drive2102A McGavran Greenberg, CB#7435Chapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA27599
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | - Samantha E Tulenko
- Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina135 Dauer Drive2102A McGavran Greenberg, CB#7435Chapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA27599
| | - Afshan A Nanji
- Oregon Health & Science UniversityCasey Eye InstitutePortlandOregonUSA97239
| | - Ilya Leyngold
- Duke University Hospital Department of OphthalmologyDivision of Oculofacial Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryDurhamNorth CarolinaUSA27710
| | - Peter J McDonnell
- Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineWilmer Eye Institute600 N. Wolfe StreetMaumenee 727BaltimoreMarylandUSA21287
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Glaucoma is a heterogeneous group of conditions involving progressive damage to the optic nerve, deterioration of retinal ganglion cells, and ultimately visual field loss. It is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Open angle glaucoma (OAG), the most common form of glaucoma, is a chronic condition that may or may not present with increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Neuroprotection for glaucoma refers to any intervention intended to prevent optic nerve damage or cell death. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to systematically examine the evidence regarding the effectiveness of neuroprotective agents for slowing the progression of OAG in adults compared with no neuroprotective agent, placebo, or other glaucoma treatment. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to August 2016), Embase (January 1980 to August 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 August 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which topical or oral treatments were used for neuroprotection in adults with OAG. Minimum follow-up time was four years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts from the literature searches. We obtained full-text copies of potentially relevant studies and re-evaluated for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data related to study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes. We identified one trial for this review, thus we performed no meta-analysis. Two studies comparing memantine to placebo are currently awaiting classification until study investigators provide additional study details. We documented reasons for excluding studies from the review. MAIN RESULTS We included one multicenter RCT of adults with low-pressure glaucoma (Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study, LoGTS) conducted in the USA. The primary outcome was progression of visual field loss after four years of treatment with either brimonidine or timolol. Of the 190 adults enrolled in the study, the investigators excluded 12 (6.3%) after randomization; 77 participants (40.5%) did not complete four years of follow-up. The rate of attrition was unbalanced between groups with more participants dropping out of the brimonidine group (55%) than the timolol group (29%).Of those remaining in the study at four years, participants assigned to brimonidine showed less progression of visual field loss than participants assigned to timolol (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.86; 101 participants). Because of high risk of attrition bias and potential selective outcome reporting, we graded the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low. At the four-year follow-up, the mean IOP was similar in both groups among those for whom data were available (mean difference 0.20 mmHg, 95% CI -0.73 to 1.13; 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors did not report analyzable data for visual acuity or any data related to vertical cup-disc ratio, quality of life, or economic outcomes. The most frequent adverse event was ocular allergy to the study drug, which affected more participants in the brimonidine group than the timolol group (RR 5.32, 95% CI 1.64 to 17.26; 178 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Although the only trial we included in this review found less visual field loss in the brimonidine-treated group, the evidence was of such low certainty that we can draw no conclusions from this finding. Further clinical research is needed to determine whether neuroprotective agents may be beneficial for individuals with OAG. Such research should focus on outcomes important to patients, such as preservation of vision, and how these outcomes relate to cell death and optic nerve damage. As OAG is a chronic, progressive disease with variability in symptoms, RCTs designed to measure the effectiveness of neuroprotective agents require a long-term follow-up of five years or longer to detect clinically meaningful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dayse F Sena
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary243 Charles St, Connecting Building 703BostonMassachusettsUSA02114
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND A hordeolum is a common, painful inflammation of the eyelid margin that is usually caused by a bacterial infection. The infection affects oil glands of the eyelid and can be either internal or external. In many cases, the lesion drains spontaneously and resolves without treatment; however, the inflammation can spread to other ocular glands or tissues, and recurrences are common. If unresolved, an acute internal hordeolum can become chronic, or can develop into a chalazion. External hordeola, also known as styes, were not included in the scope of this review. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness, and when possible, the safety, of non-surgical treatments for acute internal hordeola compared with observation or placebo. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2016; Issue 12)), MEDLINE Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid Epub Ahead of Print, MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R) Ovid Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1947 to December 2016), PubMed (1948 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS (January 1982 to December 2016)), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT; www.controlled-trials.com (last searched 26 July 2012)), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 December 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA The selection criteria for this review included randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials of participants diagnosed with an acute internal hordeolum. Studies of participants with external hordeola (styes), chronic hordeola, or chalazia were excluded. Non-surgical interventions of interest included the use of hot or warm compresses, lid scrubs, antibiotics, or steroids compared with observation, placebo, or other active interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the references identified by electronic searches for inclusion in this review. No relevant studies were found. The reasons for exclusion were documented. MAIN RESULTS No trials were identified for this review. Most of the references identified through our search reported on external hordeola or chronic internal hordeola. The few references specific to acute internal hordeola reported recommendations for treatment, were reports of interventional case series, case studies, or other types of observational study designs, and were published more than 20 years ago. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We did not find any evidence for or against the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for the treatment of an internal hordeolum. Controlled clinical trials would be useful to determine which interventions are effective for the treatment of acute internal hordeola.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | - Jason J Nichols
- The University of Alabama at BirminghamOffice of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development, Office of Industry Engagement, Clinical Trials Office1720 2nd Avenue SouthAB 714ABirminghamAlabamaUSA35294‐0107
| | - Kay Dickersin
- Johns Hopkins UniversityCenter for Clinical Trials and US Cochrane CenterBloomberg School of Public Health615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Rm E6152BaltimoreMDUSA21205
| | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Stapleton F, Keay L, Szczotka-Flynn L, Carnt N, Lindsley K, Schein O. Silicone hydrogel contact lenses versus hydrogel daily wear contact lenses for the correction of simple refractive error. Hippokratia 2016. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009320.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Stapleton
- University of New South Wales; School of Optometry and Vision Science; Level 3 North Wing, Rupert Myers Building Sydney Australia 2052
| | - Lisa Keay
- The University of Sydney; The George Institute for Global Health; Level 24, Maritime Trade Towers 207 Kent Street Sydney NSW Australia 2000
| | - Loretta Szczotka-Flynn
- University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University; Department of Ophthalmology; Cleveland Ohio USA
| | - Nicole Carnt
- University of New South Wales; School of Optometry and Vision Science and Institute for Eye Research; Level 3 North Wing, Rupert Myers Building Sydney Australia 2052
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132 Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| | - Oliver Schein
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Wilmer Eye Institute; 600 N. Wolfe Street, Wilmer 116 Baltimore Maryland USA 21287-9019
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Affiliation(s)
- Gianni Virgili
- Eye Clinic, Department of Translational Surgery and Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Laura Amato
- Dipartimento di Epidemiologia del Servizio Sanitario Regionale, Lazio, Italy
| | - Jennifer Evans
- International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Glaucoma is a chronic optic neuropathy characterized by retinal ganglion cell death resulting in damage to the optic nerve head and the retinal nerve fiber layer. Pigment dispersion syndrome is characterized by a structural disturbance in the iris pigment epithelium (the densely pigmented posterior surface of the iris) that leads to dispersion of the pigment and its deposition on various structures within the eye. Pigmentary glaucoma is a specific form of open-angle glaucoma found in patients with pigment dispersion syndrome.Topcial medical therapy is usually the first-line treatment; however, peripheral laser iridotomy has been proposed as an alternate treatment. Peripheral laser iridotomy involves creating an opening in the iris tissue to allow drainage of fluid from the posterior chamber to the anterior chamber and vice versa. Equalizing the pressure within the eye may help to alleviate the friction that leads to pigment dispersion and prevent visual field deterioration. However, the effectiveness of peripheral laser iridotomy in reducing the development or progression of pigmentary glaucoma is unknown. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to assess the effects of peripheral laser iridotomy compared with other interventions, including medication, trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy, or no treatment, for pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma. SEARCH METHODS We searched a number of electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE and clinical trials websites such as (mRCT) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 November 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared peripheral laser iridotomy versus no treatment or other treatments for pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures for systematic reviews. Two review authors independently screened articles for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. We did not perform a meta-analysis because of variability in reporting and follow-up intervals for primary and secondary outcomes of interest. MAIN RESULTS We included five RCTs (260 eyes of 195 participants) comparing yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser iridotomy versus no laser iridotomy. Three trials included participants with pigmentary glaucoma at baseline, and two trials enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome. Only two trials reported the country of enrollment: one - Italy, the other - United Kingdom. Overall, we assessed trials as having high or unclear risk of bias owing to incomplete or missing data and selective outcome reporting.Data on visual fields were available for one of three trials that included participants with pigmentary glaucoma at baseline. At an average follow-up of 28 months, the risk of progression of visual field damage was uncertain when comparing laser iridotomy with no iridotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.16 to 6.25; 32 eyes; very low-quality evidence). The two trials that enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome at baseline reported the proportion of participants with onset of glaucomatous visual field changes during the study period. At three-year follow-up, one trial reported that the risk ratio for conversion to glaucoma was 2.72 (95% CI 0.76 to 9.68; 42 eyes; very low-quality evidence). At 10-year follow-up, the other trial reported that no eye showed visual field progression.One trial reported the mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP) in eyes with pigmentary glaucoma: At an average of nine months of follow-up, the mean difference in IOP between groups was 2.69 mmHg less in the laser iridotomy group than in the control group (95% CI -6.05 to 0.67; 14 eyes; very low-quality evidence). This trial also reported the mean change in anterior chamber depth at an average of nine months of follow-up and reported no meaningful differences between groups (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.15; 14 eyes; very low-quality evidence). No other trial reported mean change in anterior chamber depth. Two trials reported greater flattening of iris configuration in the laser iridotomy group than in the control group among eyes with pigmentary glaucoma; however, investigators provided insufficient data for analysis. No trial reported data related to mean visual acuity, aqueous melanin granules, costs, or quality of life outcomes.Two trials assessed the need for additional treatment for control of IOP. One trial that enrolled participants with pigmentary glaucoma reported that more eyes in the laser iridotomy group required additional treatment between six and 23 months of follow-up than eyes in the control group (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.75; 46 eyes); however, the other trial enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome and indicated that the difference between groups at three-year follow-up was uncertain (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.17; 105 eyes). We graded the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low.Two trials reported that no serious adverse events were observed in either group among eyes with pigment dispersion syndrome. Mild adverse events included postoperative inflammation; two participants required cataract surgery (at 18 and 34 months after baseline), and two participants required a repeat iridotomy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found insufficient evidence of high quality on the effectiveness of peripheral iridotomy for pigmentary glaucoma or pigment dispersion syndrome. Although adverse events associated with peripheral iridotomy may be minimal, the long-term effects on visual function and other patient-important outcomes have not been established. Future research on this topic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients and the optimal timing of treatment in the disease process (eg, pigment dispersion syndrome with normal IOP, pigment dispersion syndrome with established ocular hypertension, pigmentary glaucoma).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuele Michelessi
- Ophthalmology, Fondazione G.B. Bietti per lo studio e la ricerca in Oftalmolologia-IRCCS, Via Livenza n 3, Rome, Italy, 00198
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Virgili G, Amato L, Lindsley K, Evans J. Outcome measures in health research: from assessing validity to outcome reporting. Intern Emerg Med 2016; 11:143-5. [PMID: 26602386 DOI: 10.1007/s11739-015-1357-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2015] [Accepted: 11/12/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Gianni Virgili
- Eye Clinic, Department of Translational Surgery and Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
| | - Laura Amato
- Department of Epidemiology, ASP Lazio, Lazio, Italy
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jennifer Evans
- International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Lindsley K, Li T, Ssemanda E, Virgili G, Dickersin K. Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews? Ophthalmology 2016; 123:884-97. [PMID: 26804762 DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2015] [Revised: 12/07/2015] [Accepted: 12/07/2015] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? DESIGN High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. METHODS Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation. RESULTS Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
| | - Tianjing Li
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Elizabeth Ssemanda
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Gianni Virgili
- Department of Translational Surgery and Medicine, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Kay Dickersin
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Ahmad S, Mathews PM, Lindsley K, Alkharashi M, Hwang FS, Ng SM, Aldave AJ, Akpek EK. Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis versus Repeat Donor Keratoplasty for Corneal Graft Failure. Ophthalmology 2016; 123:165-77. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2015] [Revised: 09/10/2015] [Accepted: 09/18/2015] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
|
31
|
Li T, Lindsley K, Rouse B, Hong H, Shi Q, Friedman DS, Wormald R, Dickersin K. Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Medications for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2015; 123:129-40. [PMID: 26526633 DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 185] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2015] [Revised: 09/01/2015] [Accepted: 09/04/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022] Open
Abstract
TOPIC Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a highly prevalent condition worldwide and the most common cause of irreversible sight loss. The objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of first-line medical treatments in patients with POAG or ocular hypertension through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and to provide relative rankings of these treatments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Treatment for POAG currently relies completely on lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP). Although topical drops, lasers, and surgeries can be considered in the initial treatment of glaucoma, most patients elect to start treatment with eye drops. METHODS We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a single active topical medication with no treatment/placebo or another single topical medication. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Food and Drug Administration's website. Two individuals independently assessed trial eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed Bayesian network meta-analyses. RESULTS We included 114 RCTs with data from 20 275 participants. The overall risk of bias of the included trials is mixed. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals) in IOP in millimeters of mercury at 3 months ordered from the most to least effective drugs were as follows: bimatoprost 5.61 (4.94; 6.29), latanoprost 4.85 (4.24; 5.46), travoprost 4.83 (4.12; 5.54), levobunolol 4.51 (3.85; 5.24), tafluprost 4.37 (2.94; 5.83), timolol 3.70 (3.16; 4.24), brimonidine 3.59 (2.89; 4.29), carteolol 3.44 (2.42; 4.46), levobetaxolol 2.56 (1.52; 3.62), apraclonidine 2.52 (0.94; 4.11), dorzolamide 2.49 (1.85; 3.13), brinzolamide 2.42 (1.62; 3.23), betaxolol 2.24 (1.59; 2.88), and unoprostone 1.91 (1.15; 2.67). CONCLUSIONS All active first-line drugs are effective compared with placebo in reducing IOP at 3 months. Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost are among the most efficacious drugs, although the within-class differences were small and may not be clinically meaningful. All factors, including adverse effects, patient preferences, and cost, should be considered in selecting a drug for a given patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tianjing Li
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Benjamin Rouse
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Hwanhee Hong
- Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Qiyuan Shi
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - David S Friedman
- The Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Richard Wormald
- Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kay Dickersin
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Acanthamoeba are microscopic, free-living, single-celled organisms which can infect the eye and lead to Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK). AK can result in loss of vision in the infected eye or loss of eye itself; however, there are no formal guidelines or standards of care for the treatment of AK. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of medical therapy for the treatment of AK. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), PubMed (1948 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to January 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy for AK, regardless of the participants' age, sex, or etiology of disease. We included studies that compared either anti-amoeba therapy (drugs used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) with no anti-amoeba therapy or one anti-amoeba therapy with another anti-amoeba therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently screened search results and full-text reports, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data. We used standard methodological procedures as set forth by the Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS We included one RCT (56 eyes of 55 participants) in this review. The study compared two types of topical biguanides for the treatment of AK: chlorhexidine 0.02% and polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) 0.02%. All participants were contact lens wearers with a median age of 31 years. Treatment duration ranged from 51 to 145 days. The study, conducted in the UK, was well-designed and had low risk of bias overall.Outcome data were available for 51 (91%) of 56 eyes. Follow-up times for outcome measurements in the study were not reported. Resolution of infection, defined as control of ocular inflammation, relief of pain and photosensitivity, and recovery of vision, was 86% in the chlorhexidine group compared with 78% in the PHMB group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.84 to 1.42). In the chlorhexidine group, 20 of 28 eyes (71%) had better visual acuity compared with 13 of 23 eyes (57%) in the PHMB group at final follow-up (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.94). Five participants required therapeutic keratoplasty: 2 in the chlorhexidine group compared with 3 in the PHMB group (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00). No serious adverse event related to drug toxicity was observed in the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of medical therapy for the treatment of AK. Results from the one included study yielded no difference with respect to outcomes reported between chlorhexidine and PHMB. However, the sample size was inadequate to detect clinically meaningful differences between the two groups as indicated by the wide confidence intervals of effect estimates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Majed Alkharashi
- Department of Ophthalmology, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Individuals who have failed one or more full thickness penetrating keratoplasties (PKs) may be offered repeat corneal surgery using an artificial or donor cornea. An artificial or prosthetic cornea is known as a keratoprosthesis. Both donor and artificial corneal transplantations involve removal of the diseased and opaque recipient cornea (or the previously failed cornea) and replacement with another donor or prosthetic cornea. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of artificial versus donor corneas in individuals who have had one or more failed donor corneal transplantations. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to November 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 27 November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA Two review authors independently assessed reports from the electronic searches to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). We resolved discrepancies by discussion or consultation with a third review author. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS For discussion purposes, we assessed findings from observational cohort studies and non-comparative case series. No data synthesis was performed. MAIN RESULTS We did not identify any RCTs or CCTs comparing artificial corneas with donor corneas for repeat corneal transplantations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The optimal management for those individuals who have failed a conventional corneal transplantation is not known. Currently, in some centers, artificial corneal devices routinely are recommended after just one graft failure, and in others, not until after multiple graft failures, or not at all. To date, there have been no controlled trials comparing the visual outcomes and complications of artificial corneal devices (particularly the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis which is the most commonly implanted artificial corneal device) with repeat donor corneal transplantation, in order to guide surgeons and their patients. It is apparent that such a trial is needed and would offer significant benefit to an ever-increasing pool of people with visual disability due to corneal opacification, most of whom are still in productive stages of their lives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esen K Akpek
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Majed Alkharashi
- Department of Ophthalmology, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Frank S Hwang
- Cornea, External Disease and Refractive Surgery, Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Sueko M Ng
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Michelessi M, Lindsley K, Yu T, Li T. Combination medical treatment for primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2014:CD011366. [PMID: 25774087 PMCID: PMC4356167 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objectives of this review are to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety of different glaucoma fixed combination therapies and monotherapies in eyes with primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and to provide relative rankings of these treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuele Michelessi
- Ophthalmology, Fondazione G.B. Bietti per lo studio e la ricerca in Oftalmolologia-IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Tsung Yu
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Tianjing Li
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Moja L, Lucenteforte E, Kwag KH, Bertele V, Campomori A, Chakravarthy U, D’Amico R, Dickersin K, Kodjikian L, Lindsley K, Loke Y, Maguire M, Martin DF, Mugelli A, Mühlbauer B, Püntmann I, Reeves B, Rogers C, Schmucker C, Subramanian ML, Virgili G. Systemic safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 9:CD011230. [PMID: 25220133 PMCID: PMC4262120 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011230.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of legal blindness in elderly populations of industrialised countries. Bevacizumab (Avastin®) and ranibizumab (Lucentis®) are targeted biological drugs (a monoclonal antibody) that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor, an angiogenic cytokine that promotes vascular leakage and growth, thereby preventing its pathological angiogenesis. Ranibizumab is approved for intravitreal use to treat neovascular AMD, while bevacizumab is approved for intravenous use as a cancer therapy. However, due to the biological similarity of the two drugs, bevacizumab is widely used off-label to treat neovascular AMD. OBJECTIVES To assess the systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (brand name Avastin®; Genentech/Roche) compared with intravitreal ranibizumab (brand name Lucentis®; Novartis/Genentech) in people with neovascular AMD. Primary outcomes were death and All serious systemic adverse events (All SSAEs), the latter as a composite outcome in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice. Secondary outcomes examined specific SSAEs: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarctions, strokes, arteriothrombotic events, serious infections, and events grouped in some Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Classes (MedDRA SOC). We assessed the safety at the longest available follow-up to a maximum of two years. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other online databases up to 27 March 2014. We also searched abstracts and clinical study presentations at meetings, trial registries, and contacted authors of included studies when we had questions. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) and ranibizumab (0.5 mg) in people with neovascular AMD, regardless of publication status, drug dose, treatment regimen, or follow-up length, and whether the SSAEs of interest were reported in the trial report. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected studies and assessed the risk of bias for each study. Three authors independently extracted data.We conducted random-effects meta-analyses for the primary and secondary outcomes. We planned a pre-specified analysis to explore deaths and All SSAEs at the one-year follow-up. MAIN RESULTS We included data from nine studies (3665 participants), including six published (2745 participants) and three unpublished (920 participants) RCTs, none supported by industry. Three studies excluded participants at high cardiovascular risk, increasing clinical heterogeneity among studies. The studies were well designed, and we did not downgrade the quality of the evidence for any of the outcomes due to risk of bias. Although the estimated effects of bevacizumab and ranibizumab on our outcomes were similar, we downgraded the quality of the evidence due to imprecision.At the maximum follow-up (one or two years), the estimated risk ratio (RR) of death with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab was 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.57, P value = 0.59; eight studies, 3338 participants; moderate quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of death with ranibizumab of 3.4% and with bevacizumab of 3.7% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.3%).For All SSAEs, the estimated RR was 1.08 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.31, P value = 0.41; nine studies, 3665 participants; low quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of SSAEs of 22.2% with ranibizumab and with bevacizumab of 24% (95% CI 20% to 29.1%).For the secondary outcomes, we could not detect any difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders MedDRA SOC where there was a higher risk with bevacizumab (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04 to 3.19, P value = 0.04; six studies, 3190 participants).Pre-specified analyses of deaths and All SSAEs at one-year follow-up did not substantially alter the findings of our review.Fixed-effect analysis for deaths did not substantially alter the findings of our review, but fixed-effect analysis of All SSAEs showed an increased risk for bevacizumab (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, P value = 0.04; nine studies, 3665 participants): the meta-analysis was dominated by a single study (weight = 46.9%).The available evidence was sensitive to the exclusion of CATT or unpublished results. For All SSAEs, the exclusion of CATT moved the overall estimate towards no difference (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.25, P value = 0.92), while the exclusion of LUCAS yielded a larger RR, with more SSAEs in the bevacizumab group, largely driven by CATT (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, P value = 0.004). The exclusion of all unpublished studies produced a RR of 1.12 for death (95% CI 0.78 to 1.62, P value = 0.53) and a RR of 1.21 for SSAEs (95% CI 1.06 to 1.37, P value = 0.004), indicating a higher risk of SSAEs in those assigned to bevacizumab than ranibizumab. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This systematic review of non-industry sponsored RCTs could not determine a difference between intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab for deaths, All SSAEs, or specific subsets of SSAEs in the first two years of treatment, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders. The current evidence is imprecise and might vary across levels of patient risks, but overall suggests that if a difference exists, it is likely to be small. Health policies for the utilisation of ranibizumab instead of bevacizumab as a routine intervention for neovascular AMD for reasons of systemic safety are not sustained by evidence. The main results and quality of evidence should be verified once all trials are fully published.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorenzo Moja
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan - IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Ersilia Lucenteforte
- Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Children’s Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Koren H Kwag
- Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Vittorio Bertele
- Laboratory of Regulatory Policies, IRCCS Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, Milan, Italy
| | - Annalisa Campomori
- Hospital Pharmacy, Trento General Hospital, Health Trust of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Trento, Italy
| | - Usha Chakravarthy
- Centre for Vision and Vascular Science, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Roberto D’Amico
- Italian Cochrane Centre, Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Kay Dickersin
- Center for Clinical Trials and US Cochrane Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Laurent Kodjikian
- Department of Ophthalmology, Hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, Lyon, France
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Yoon Loke
- School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Maureen Maguire
- Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | - Alessandro Mugelli
- Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Bernd Mühlbauer
- Dept of Pharmacology, Klinikum Bremen Mitte gGmbH, Bremen, Germany
| | - Isabel Püntmann
- Dept of Pharmacology, Klinikum Bremen Mitte gGmbH, Bremen, Germany
| | - Barnaby Reeves
- School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Chris Rogers
- School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Christine Schmucker
- German Cochrane Centre, Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Manju L Subramanian
- Department of Ophthalmology, Boston University, School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Gianni Virgili
- Department of Translational Surgery and Medicine, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to neovascular AMD accounts for most AMD-related severe vision loss. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, injected intravitreally, aim to block the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye to prevent vision loss and, in some instances, improve vision. OBJECTIVES To investigate: (1) the ocular and systemic effects of, and quality of life associated with, intravitreally injected anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) for the treatment of neovascular AMD compared with no anti-VEGF treatment; and (2) the relative effects of one anti-VEGF agent compared with another when administered in comparable dosages and regimens. SEARCH METHODS We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 27 March 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab versus each other or a control treatment (e.g., sham treatment or photodynamic therapy). All trials followed participants for at least one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We analyzed outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS We included 12 RCTs including a total of 5496 participants with neovascular AMD (the number of participants per trial ranged from 28 to 1208). One trial compared pegaptanib, three trials ranibizumab, and two trials bevacizumab versus controls; six trials compared bevacizumab with ranibizumab. Four trials were conducted by pharmaceutical companies; none of the eight studies which evaluated bevacizumab were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The trials were conducted at various centers across five continents (North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia). The overall quality of the evidence was very good, with most trials having an overall low risk of bias.When compared with control treatments, participants who received any of the three anti-VEGF agents were more likely to have gained 15 letters or more of visual acuity, lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity, and had vision 20/200 or better after one year of follow up. Visual acuity outcomes after bevacizumab and ranibizumab were similar when the same regimens were compared in the same RCTs, despite the substantially lower cost for bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab. No trial directly compared pegaptanib with other anti-VEGF agents; however, when compared with controls, ranibizumab or bevacizumab yielded larger improvements in visual acuity outcomes than pegaptanib.Participants treated with anti-VEGFs showed improvements in morphologic outcomes (e.g., size of CNV or central retinal thickness) compared with participants not treated with anti-VEGF agents. There was less reduction in central retinal thickness among bevacizumab-treated participants than among ranibizumab-treated participants after one year (MD -13.97 μm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.52 to -1.41); however, this difference is within the range of measurement error and we did not interpret it as being clinically meaningful.Ocular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure after intravitreal injection were the most frequently reported serious ocular adverse events. Endophthalmitis was reported in fewer than 1% of anti-VEGF treated participants; no cases were reported in control groups. The occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was comparable across anti-VEGF-treated groups and control groups; however, the numbers of events and trial participants may have been insufficient to detect a meaningful difference between groups. Data for visual function, quality of life, and economic outcomes were sparsely measured and reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The results of this review indicate the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) in terms of maintaining visual acuity; ranibizumab and bevacizumab were also shown to improve visual acuity. The information available on the adverse effects of each medication do not suggest a higher incidence of potentially vision-threatening complications with intravitreal injection compared with control interventions; however, clinical trial sample sizes may not have been sufficient to detect rare safety outcomes. Research evaluating variable dosing regimens with anti-VEGF agents, effects of long-term use, combination therapies (e.g., anti-VEGF treatment plus photodynamic therapy), and other methods of delivering the agents should be incorporated into future Cochrane reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon D. Solomon
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | | | | | - Barbara S. Hawkins
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Zadnik
- The Ohio State University; College of Optometry; 338 West Tenth Avenue Columbus Ohio USA OH 43210
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 North Wolfe Street, W5010 Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a relatively common retinal vascular disorder in which macular oedema may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. Until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit, but growing evidence supports the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. OBJECTIVES To investigate the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGF therapies for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to CRVO. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2013), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to October 2013), OpenGrey, OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to October 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). There were no language or date restrictions in the electronic search for trials. The electronic databases and clinical trials registers were last searched on 29th October 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender and a minimum of six months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with a loss of 15 letters or more of BCVA, the mean change from baseline BCVA, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), the number and type of complications or adverse outcomes, and the number of additional interventions administered. Where available, we also presented quality of life and economic data. MAIN RESULTS We found six RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs included 937 participants and compared outcomes at six months to sham injection for four anti-VEGF agents: aflibercept (VEGF Trap-Eye, Eylea), bevacizumab (Avastin), pegaptanib sodium (Macugen) and ranibizumab (Lucentis). Three trials were conducted in Norway, Sweden and the USA, and three trials were multicentre, one including centres in the USA, Canada, India, Israel, Argentina and Columbia, a second including centres in the USA, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, and Spain, and a third including centres in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Australia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. We performed meta-analysis on three key visual outcomes, using data from up to six trials. High-quality evidence from six trials revealed that participants receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment were 2.71 times more likely to gain at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to participants treated with sham injections (risk ratio (RR) 2.71; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.10 to 3.49). High-quality evidence from five trials suggested anti-VEGF treatment was associated with an 80% lower risk of losing at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to sham injection (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.34). Moderate-quality evidence from three trials (481 participants) revealed that the mean reduction from baseline to six months in central retinal thickness was 267.4 µm (95% CI 211.4 µm to 323.4 µm) greater in participants treated with anti-VEGF than in participants treated with sham. The meta-analyses demonstrate that treatment with anti-VEGF is associated with a clinically meaningful gain in vision at six months. One trial demonstrated sustained benefit at 12 months compared to sham. No significant ocular or systemic safety concerns were identified in this time period. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Compared to no treatment, repeated intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents in eyes with CRVO macular oedema improved visual outcomes at six months. All agents were relatively well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse effects in the short term. Future trials should address the relative efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGF agents and other treatments, including intravitreal corticosteroids, for longer-term outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology615 North Wolfe Street, W5010BaltimoreMarylandUSA21205
| | - Paul B Greenberg
- Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown UniversityDivision of OphthalmologyProvidenceRhode IslandUSA02908
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Affiliation(s)
- Sueko M Ng
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 N. Wolfe Street, W5010 c/o Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Department of Epidemiology; 615 N. Wolfe Street, W5010 c/o Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Baltimore Maryland USA 21205
| | - Esen K Akpek
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Wilmer Eye Institute; 600 N. Wolfe Street, Maumenee #317 Baltimore MD USA 21287
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cataract formation often occurs in people with uveitis. It is unclear which intraocular lens (IOL) type is optimal for use in cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis. OBJECTIVES To summarize the effects of different IOLs on visual acuity, other visual outcomes, and quality of life in people with uveitis. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2013), 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 did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 14 August 2013. We also performed forward and backward searching using the Science Citation Index and the reference lists of the included studies, respectively, in August 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic, silicone, or poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) IOLs with or without heparin-surface modification (HSM), with each other, or with no treatment in adults with uveitis, for any indication, undergoing cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors screened the search results and for included studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. We contacted study investigators for additional information. We did not perform a meta-analysis due to variability in reporting and follow-up intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes of interest. MAIN RESULTS We included four RCTs involving 216 participants (range of 2 to 140 participants with uveitic cataract per trial) and comparing up to four types of IOLs. The largest study was an international study with centers in Brazil, Egypt, Finland, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Spain, and the USA; two studies were conducted in Germany and one in Saudi Arabia. There was substantial heterogeneity with respect to the ages of participants and etiologies of uveitis within and across studies. The length of follow-up among the studies ranged from 1 to 24 months after cataract surgery. The studies were at low risk of selection bias, but two of the four studies did not employ masking and only one study included all randomized participants in the final analyses. The funding source was disclosed by investigators of the largest study (professional society) and not reported by the other three. Due to heterogeneity in lens types evaluated and outcomes reported among the trials, we did not combine data in a meta-analysis.In the largest study (140 participants), the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive one of four types of IOLs: hydrophobic acrylic, silicone, HSM PMMA, or unmodified PMMA. Proportions of participants with one or more Snellen lines of visual improvement were similar among the four treatment groups at one year' follow-up: 45 of 48 (94%) in the hydrophobic acrylic IOL group, 39 of 44 (89%) in the silicone IOL group, 18 of 22 (82%) in the HSM PMMA IOL group, and 22 of 26 (85%) in the unmodified PMMA IOL group. When comparing hydrophobic acrylic IOLs with silicone IOLs, the risk ratio (RR) was 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.20). At one year' follow-up, fewer eyes randomized to hydrophobic acrylic IOLs developed posterior synechiae when compared with eyes receiving silicone IOLs (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79); the effects between these groups were less certain with respect to developing posterior capsule opacification (PCO) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.37), corneal edema (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.12), cystoid macular edema (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.84), or mild IOL decentration (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.22).Two intra-individual studies also compared HSM PMMA IOLs with unmodified PMMA IOLs at three or six months of follow-up. These studies, including a combined total of 16 participants with uveitis, were insufficiently powered to detect differences in outcomes among eyes of people with uveitis randomized to receive HSM PMMA IOLs when compared with fellow eyes receiving unmodified PMMA IOLs.In the fourth study (60 participants), the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive a hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOL. At three months, there were no statistical or clinical differences between hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic IOL types in the proportions of participants with two or more Snellen lines of visual improvement (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.22). There were similar rates in the development of PCO between hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOLs at six months' follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25). The effect of the lenses on posterior synechiae was uncertain at six months' follow-up (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).None of the included studies reported quality of life outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on the trials identified in this review, there is uncertainty as to which type of IOL provides the best visual and clinical outcomes in people with uveitis undergoing cataract surgery. The studies were small, not all lens materials were compared in all studies, and not all lens materials were available in all study sites. Evidence of a superior effect of hydrophobic acrylic lenses over silicone lenses, specifically for posterior synechiae outcomes comes from a single study at a high risk of performance and detection bias. However, due to small sample sizes and heterogeneity in outcome reporting, we found insufficient information to assess these and other types of IOL materials for cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Theresa G Leung
- The Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Irene C Kuo
- Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traumatic hyphema is the entry of blood into the anterior chamber (the space between the cornea and iris) subsequent to a blow or a projectile striking the eye. Hyphema uncommonly causes permanent loss of vision. Associated trauma (e.g. corneal staining, traumatic cataract, angle recession glaucoma, optic atrophy, etc.) may seriously affect vision. Such complications may lead to permanent impairment of vision. Patients with sickle cell trait/disease may be particularly susceptible to increases of elevated intraocular pressure. If rebleeding occurs, the rates and severity of complications increase. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of various medical interventions in the management of traumatic hyphema. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2013), 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 did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 30 August 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA Two authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all reports identified by the electronic and manual searches. In this review, we included randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared various medical interventions versus other medical interventions or control groups for the treatment of traumatic hyphema following closed globe trauma. We applied no restrictions regarding age, gender, severity of the closed globe trauma, or level of visual acuity at the time of enrolment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently extracted the data for the primary and secondary outcomes. We entered and analyzed data using Review Manager 5. We performed meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model and reported dichotomous outcomes as odds ratios and continuous outcomes as mean differences. MAIN RESULTS We included 20 randomized and seven quasi-randomized studies with 2643 participants in this review. Interventions included antifibrinolytic agents (oral and systemic aminocaproic acid, tranexamic acid, and aminomethylbenzoic acid), corticosteroids (systemic and topical), cycloplegics, miotics, aspirin, conjugated estrogens, traditional Chinese medicine, monocular versus bilateral patching, elevation of the head, and bed rest. No intervention had a significant effect on visual acuity whether measured at two weeks or less after the trauma or at longer time periods. The number of days for the primary hyphema to resolve appeared to be longer with the use of aminocaproic acid compared with no use, but was not altered by any other intervention.Systemic aminocaproic acid reduced the rate of recurrent hemorrhage (odds ratio (OR) 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.57), but a sensitivity analysis omitting studies not using an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis reduced the strength of the evidence (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.09). We obtained similar results for topical aminocaproic acid (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10). We found tranexamic acid had a significant effect in reducing the rate of secondary hemorrhage (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49), as did aminomethylbenzoic acid as reported in one study (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.32). The evidence to support an associated reduction in the risk of complications from secondary hemorrhage (i.e. corneal bloodstaining, peripheral anterior synechiae, elevated intraocular pressure, and development of optic atrophy) by antifibrinolytics was limited by the small number of these events. Use of aminocaproic acid was associated with increased nausea, vomiting, and other adverse events compared with placebo. We found no difference in the number of adverse events with the use of systemic versus topical aminocaproic acid or with standard versus lower drug dose. The available evidence on usage of corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or aspirin in traumatic hyphema was limited due to the small numbers of participants and events in the trials.We found no difference in effect between a single versus binocular patch or ambulation versus complete bed rest on the risk of secondary hemorrhage or time to rebleed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Traumatic hyphema in the absence of other intraocular injuries uncommonly leads to permanent loss of vision. Complications resulting from secondary hemorrhage could lead to permanent impairment of vision, especially in patients with sickle cell trait/disease. We found no evidence to show an effect on visual acuity by any of the interventions evaluated in this review. Although evidence was limited, it appears that patients with traumatic hyphema who receive aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid are less likely to experience secondary hemorrhaging. However, hyphema in patients treated with aminocaproic acid take longer to clear.Other than the possible benefits of antifibrinolytic usage to reduce the rate of secondary hemorrhage, the decision to use corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or nondrug interventions (such as binocular patching, bed rest, or head elevation) should remain individualized because no solid scientific evidence supports a benefit. As these multiple interventions are rarely used in isolation, further research to assess the additive effect of these interventions might be of value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Almutez Gharaibeh
- Department of Special Surgery-Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Howard I Savage
- Kaiser Permanente Largo Medical Center, Largo, Maryland, USA
| | - Roberta W Scherer
- Center for Clinical Trials, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Morton F Goldberg
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Abstract
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) agents are specific inhibitors of the primary mediators of neovascularization. Studies have reported the effectiveness of anti-VEGFs for the control of intraocular pressure (IOP) in NVG. OBJECTIVES To compare the IOP lowering effects of intraocular anti-VEGF agents to no anti-VEGF treatment, as an adjunct to existing modalities for the treatment of NVG. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to January 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2013), 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 did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 11 January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of people treated with anti-VEGF agents for NVG. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed the search results for trials to be included in the review. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third author. Since no trial met our inclusion criteria, no assessment of risk of bias or meta-analysis was undertaken. MAIN RESULTS No RCTs were found that met the inclusion criteria for this review. Two RCTs of anti-VEGF agents for treating NVG were not included in the review due to the heterogeneity and uncontrolled assignment of adjunct treatments received by the study participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Currently available evidence is insufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-VEGF treatments, such as intravitreal ranibizumab or bevacizumab, as an adjunct to conventional treatment in lowering IOP in NVG. Well designed RCTs are needed to address this issue, particularly trials that evaluate long-term (at least six months) benefits and risks since the effects of anti-VEGF agents may be short-term only. An RCT comparing anti-VEGF agents with no anti-VEGF agents taking into account the need for co-interventions, such as panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), glaucoma shunt procedures, cyclodestructive procedures, cataract surgery, and deep vitrectomy, could be of use to investigate the additional beneficial effect of anti-VEGF agents in treating NVG. Since decisions for when and which co-interventions should be used are based on clinical criteria, they would not be appropriate for randomization. However, the design of a study on this topic should aim to balance groups by stratification of co-intervention at time of randomization or by enrolling a sufficient number of participants to conduct subgroup analysis by co-interventions (ideally 15 participants per treatment group for each subgroup). Alternatively, the inclusion criteria for a trial could limit participants to those who receive the same co-intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arathi Simha
- Department of Ophthalmology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | - Andrew Braganza
- Department of Ophthalmology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | - Lekha Abraham
- Department of Ophthalmology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | - Prasanna Samuel
- Department of Biostatistics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endophthalmitis is a severe inflammation of the anterior and/or posterior chambers of the eye that may be sterile or associated with infection. It is a potentially vision-threatening complication of cataract surgery. Prophylactic measures for endophthalmitis are targeted against various sources of infection. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to evaluate the effects of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to October 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 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 did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 October 2012. We also searched for additional studies that cited any included trials using the Science Citation Index. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled adults undergoing cataract surgery (any method and incision type) for lens opacities due to any origin. Trials that evaluated preoperative antibiotics, intraoperative (intracameral, subconjunctival or systemic) or postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for acute endophthalmitis were included. We did not include studies that evaluated antiseptic preoperative preparations using agents such as povidone iodine, nor did we include studies that evaluated antibiotics for treating acute endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias for each included study, and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS Four studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, including 100,876 adults and 131 endophthalmitis cases. While the sample size is very large, the heterogeneity of the study designs and modes of antibiotic delivery made it impossible to conduct a formal meta-analysis. Interventions investigated in the studies included the utility of adding vancomycin and gentamycin to the irrigating solution compared with standard balanced saline solution irrigation alone, use of intracameral cefuroxime and/or topical levofloxacin perioperatively, periocular penicillin injections and topical chloramphenicol-sulphadimidine drops compared with topical antibiotics alone, and mode of antibiotic delivery (subconjunctival versus retrobulbar injections). Two studies with adequate sample sizes to evaluate a rare outcome found reduced risk of endophthalmitis with antibiotic injections during surgery compared with topical antibiotics alone: risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.92 (periocular penicillin versus topical chloramphenicol-sulphadimidine) and RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.74 (intracameral cefuroxime versus topical levofloxacin). Another study found no significant difference in endophthalmitis when comparing subconjunctival versus retrobulbar antibiotic injections (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.32). The fourth study which compared irrigation with balanced salt solution (BSS) alone versus BSS with antibiotics was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups. The risk of bias among studies was low to unclear due to information not being reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Multiple measures for preventing endophthalmitis following cataract surgery have been studied. One of the included studies, the ESCRS (European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons) study, was performed using contemporary surgical technique and employed cefuroxime, an antibiotic commonly used in many parts of the world. Clinical trials with rare outcomes require very large sample sizes and are quite costly to conduct; thus, it is unlikely that additional clinical trials will be conducted to evaluate currently available prophylaxis. Practitioners should rely on current evidence to make informed decisions regarding prophylaxis choices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily W Gower
- Wake Forest Public Health Sciences and Ophthalmology,Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hordeolum is a common, painful inflammation of the eyelid margin that is usually caused by bacterial infection. The infection affects oil glands of the eyelid and can be internal or external. In many cases, the lesion drains spontaneously and resolves untreated; however, the inflammation can spread to other ocular glands or tissues, and recurrences are common. If unresolved, acute internal hordeolum can become chronic or can develop into a chalazion. External hordeola, also known as styes, were not included in the scope of this review. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of nonsurgical treatments for acute internal hordeolum compared with observation or placebo. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to July 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to July 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 did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA The selection criteria for this review included randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials of participants diagnosed with acute internal hordeolum. Studies of participants with external hordeolum (stye), chronic hordeolum, or chalazion were excluded. Nonsurgical interventions of interest included the use of hot or warm compresses, lid scrubs, antibiotics, or steroids compared with observation, placebo, or other active interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the references identified by electronic searches for inclusion in this review. No relevant studies were found. The reasons for exclusion were documented. MAIN RESULTS No trials were identified for inclusion in this review. Most of the references identified from our search reported on external hordeola or chronic internal hordeola. The few references specific to acute internal hordeolum reported mostly recommendations for treatment or were reports of interventional case series, case studies, or other types of observational study designs and were published more than 20 years ago. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We did not find any evidence for or against the effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions for the treatment of hordeolum. Controlled clinical trials would be useful in determining which interventions are effective for the treatment of acute internal hordeolum.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina Lindsley
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Glaucoma is a heterogeneous group of conditions involving progressive damage to the optic nerve, deterioration of retinal ganglion cells and ultimately visual field loss. It is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Open angle glaucoma (OAG), the commonest form of glaucoma, is a chronic condition that may or may not present with increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Neuroprotection for glaucoma refers to any intervention intended to prevent optic nerve damage or cell death. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to systematically examine the evidence regarding the effectiveness of neuroprotective agents for slowing the progression of OAG in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to October 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 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 did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 16 October 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which topical or oral treatments were used for neuroprotection in adults with OAG. Minimum follow up time was four years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts from the literature searches. Full-text copies of potentially relevant studies were obtained and re-evaluated for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data related study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcome data. One trial was identified for this review, thus we performed no meta-analysis. Two studies comparing memantine to placebo are currently awaiting classification until additional study details are provided. We documented reasons for excluding studies from the review. MAIN RESULTS We included one multi-center RCT of adults with low-pressure glaucoma (Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study, LoGTS) conducted in the USA. The primary outcome was visual field progression after four years of treatment with either brimonidine or timolol. Of the 190 adults enrolled in the study, 12 (6.3%) were excluded after randomization and 77 (40.5%) did not complete four years of follow up. The rate of attrition was unbalanced between groups with more participants dropping out of the brimonidine group (55%) than the timolol group (29%). Of those remaining in the study at four years, participants assigned to brimonidine showed less visual field progression than participants assigned to timolol (5/45 participants in the brimonidine group compared with 18/56 participants in the timolol group). Since no information was available for the 12 participants excluded from the study, or the 77 participants who dropped out of the study, we cannot draw any conclusions from these results as the participants for whom data are missing may or may not have progressed. The mean IOP was similar in both groups at the four-year follow up among those for whom data were available: 14.2 mmHg (standard deviation (SD) = 1.9) among the 43 participants in the brimonidine group and 14.0 mmHg (SD = 2.6) among the 48 participants in the timolol group. Among the participants who developed progressive visual field loss, IOP reduction of 20% or greater was not significantly different between groups: 4/9 participants in the brimonidine group and 12/31 participants in the timolol group. The study authors did not report data for visual acuity or vertical cup-disc ratio. The most frequent adverse event was ocular allergy to study drug, which occurred more frequently in the brimonidine group (20/99 participants) than the timolol group (3/79 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Although neuroprotective agents are intended to act as pharmacological antagonists to prevent cell death, this trial did not provide evidence that they are effective in preventing retinal ganglion cell death, and thus preserving vision in people with OAG. Further clinical research is needed to determine whether neuroprotective agents may be beneficial for individuals with OAG. Such research should focus outcomes important to patients, such as preservation of vision, and how these outcomes relate to cell death and optic nerve damage. Since OAG is a chronic, progressive disease with variability in symptoms, RCTs designed to measure the effectiveness of neuroprotective agents would require long-term follow up (more than four years) in order to detect clinically meaningful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dayse F Sena
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston,Massachusetts,
| | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cataract and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are common causes of decreased vision that often occur simultaneously in people over age 50. Although cataract surgery is an effective treatment for cataract-induced visual loss, some clinicians suspect that such an intervention may increase the risk of worsening of underlying AMD and thus have deleterious effects on vision. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cataract surgery in eyes with AMD. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1950 to April 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to April 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). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 16 April 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials of eyes affected by both cataract and AMD in which cataract surgery would be compared to no surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently evaluated the search results against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for included studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. MAIN RESULTS One RCT with 60 participants with visually significant cataract and AMD was included in this review. Participants were randomized to immediate cataract surgery (within two weeks of enrollment) (n = 29) or delayed cataract surgery (six months after enrollment) (n = 31). At six months, four participants were lost to follow-up; two participants from each group. The immediate surgery group showed mean improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) compared with the delayed surgery group at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.15 LogMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.02). There was no significant difference in the development of choroidal neovascularization between groups (1/27 eyes in the immediate surgery group versus 0/29 eyes in the delayed surgery group). Results from Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaires suggested that the immediate surgery group faired better with quality of life outcomes than the delayed surgery group (MD in IVI logit scores 1.60, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.59). No postoperative complication was reported. We identified a second potentially relevant study of immediate versus delayed cataract surgery in 54 people with AMD. Results for the study are not yet available, but may be eligible for future updates of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS At this time, it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions from the available data to determine whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in people with AMD. Physicians will have to make practice decisions based on best clinical judgment until controlled trials are conducted and their findings published.It would be valuable for future research to investigate prospective RCTs comparing cataract surgery to no surgery in patients with AMD to better evaluate whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in this group. However ethical considerations need to be addressed when delaying a potentially beneficial treatment and it may not be feasible to conduct a long-term study where surgery is withheld from the control group. Utilization of pre-existing, standardized systems for grading cataract and AMD and measuring outcomes (visual acuity, change in visual acuity, worsening of AMD and quality of life measures) should be encouraged.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Casparis
- Unité de Chirurgie Vitréorétinienne, Jules Gonin EyeHospital, CH-1004 Lausanne, Switzerland.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina Lindsley
- Center for Clinical Trials, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland,USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cataract surgery is practiced widely and substantial resources are committed to an increasing cataract surgical rate in developing countries. With the current volume of cataract surgery and the increases in the future, it is critical to optimize the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure. Most cataracts are performed on older individuals with correspondingly high systemic and ocular comorbidities. It is likely that routine preoperative medical testing will detect medical conditions, but it is questionable whether these conditions should preclude individuals from cataract surgery or change their perioperative management. OBJECTIVES (1) To investigate the evidence for reductions in adverse events through preoperative medical testing, and (2) to estimate the average cost of performing routine medical testing. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1950 to December 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2011), 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). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 9 December 2011. We used reference lists and the Science Citation Index to search for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized clinical trials in which routine preoperative medical testing was compared to no preoperative or selective preoperative testing prior to age-related cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed abstracts to identify possible trials for inclusion. For each included study, two review authors independently documented study characteristics, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS The three randomized clinical trials included in this review reported results for 21,531 total cataract surgeries with 707 total surgery-associated medical adverse events, including 61 hospitalizations and three deaths. Of the 707 medical adverse events reported, 353 occurred in the pretesting group and 354 occurred in the no testing group. Most events were cardiovascular and occurred during the intraoperative period. Routine preoperative medical testing did not reduce the risk of intraoperative (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22) or postoperative medical adverse events (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.24) when compared to selective or no testing. Cost savings were evaluated in one study which estimated the costs to be 2.55 times higher in those with preoperative medical testing compared to those without preoperative medical testing. There was no difference in cancellation of surgery between those with preoperative medical testing and those with no or limited preoperative testing, reported by two studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review has shown that routine pre-operative testing does not increase the safety of cataract surgery. Alternatives to routine preoperative medical testing have been proposed, including self-administered health questionnaires, which could substitute for health provider histories and physical examinations. Such avenues may lead to cost-effective means of identifying those at increased risk of medical adverse events due to cataract surgery. However, despite the rare occurrence, adverse medical events precipitated by cataract surgery remain a concern because of the large number of elderly patients with multiple medical comorbidities who have cataract surgery in various settings. The studies summarized in this review should assist recommendations for the standard of care of cataract surgery, at least in developed settings. Unfortunately, in developing country settings, medical history questionnaires would be useless to screen for risk since few people have ever been to a physician, let alone been diagnosed with any chronic disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Keay
- Injury Division, The George Institute for Global Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when looking at distant objects. Highly nearsighted people are at greater risk of several vision-threatening problems such as retinal detachments, choroidal atrophy, cataracts and glaucoma. Interventions that have been explored to slow the progression of myopia include bifocal spectacles, cycloplegic drops, intraocular pressure-lowering drugs, muscarinic receptor antagonists and contact lenses. The purpose of this review was to systematically assess the effectiveness of strategies to control progression of myopia in children. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of several types of interventions, including eye drops, undercorrection of nearsightedness, multifocal spectacles and contact lenses, on the progression of nearsightedness in myopic children younger than 18 years. We compared the interventions of interest with each other, to single vision lenses (SVLs) (spectacles), placebo or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 11 October 2011. We also searched the reference lists and Science Citation Index for additional, potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were treated with spectacles, contact lenses or pharmaceutical agents for the purpose of controlling progression of myopia. We excluded trials where participants were older than 18 years at baseline or participants had less than -0.25 diopters (D) spherical equivalent myopia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each included study. When possible, we analyzed data with the inverse variance method using a fixed-effect or random-effects model, depending on the number of studies and amount of heterogeneity detected. MAIN RESULTS We included 23 studies (4696 total participants) in this review, with 17 of these studies included in quantitative analysis. Since we only included RCTs in the review, the studies were generally at low risk of bias for selection bias. Undercorrection of myopia was found to increase myopia progression slightly in two studies; children who were undercorrected progressed on average 0.15 D (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to 0.00) more than the fully corrected SVLs wearers at one year. Rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPCLs) were found to have no evidence of effect on myopic eye growth in two studies (no meta-analysis due to heterogeneity between studies). Progressive addition lenses (PALs), reported in four studies, and bifocal spectacles, reported in four studies, were found to yield a small slowing of myopia progression. For seven studies with quantitative data at one year, children wearing multifocal lenses, either PALs or bifocals, progressed on average 0.16 D (95% CI 0.07 to 0.25) less than children wearing SVLs. The largest positive effects for slowing myopia progression were exhibited by anti-muscarinic medications. At one year, children receiving pirenzepine gel (two studies), cyclopentolate eye drops (one study), or atropine eye drops (two studies) showed significantly less myopic progression compared with children receiving placebo (mean differences (MD) 0.31 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.44), 0.34 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.60), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.90), respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The most likely effective treatment to slow myopia progression thus far is anti-muscarinic topical medication. However, side effects of these medications include light sensitivity and near blur. Also, they are not yet commercially available, so their use is limited and not practical. Further information is required for other methods of myopia control, such as the use of corneal reshaping contact lenses or bifocal soft contact lenses (BSCLs) with a distance center are promising, but currently no published randomized clinical trials exist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey J Walline
- College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Center for Clinical Trials, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Satyanarayana S Vedula
- Center for Clinical Trials, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Susan A Cotter
- Southern California College of Optometry, Fullerton, California, USA
| | - Donald O Mutti
- College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - J. Daniel Twelker
- Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traumatic hyphema is the entry of blood into the anterior chamber (the space between the cornea and iris) subsequent to a blow or a projectile striking the eye. Hyphema uncommonly causes permanent loss of vision. Associated trauma (e.g., corneal staining, traumatic cataract, angle recession glaucoma, optic atrophy, etc.) may seriously affect vision. Such complications may lead to permanent impairment of vision. Patients with sickle cell trait/disease may be particularly susceptible to increases of elevated intraocular pressure. If rebleeding occurs, the rates and severity of complications increase. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of various medical interventions in the management of traumatic hyphema. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 6), MEDLINE (January 1950 to June 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov). We searched the reference lists of identified trial reports to find additional trials. We also searched the ISI Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) to find studies that cited the identified trials. There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 25 June 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA Two authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all reports identified by the electronic and manual searches. In this review, we included randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared various medical interventions to other medical interventions or control groups for the treatment of traumatic hyphema following closed globe trauma. There were no restrictions regarding age, gender, severity of the closed globe trauma or level of visual acuity at the time of enrollment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently extracted the data for the primary and secondary outcomes. We entered and analyzed data using Review Manager (RevMan) 5. We performed meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model and reported dichotomous outcomes as odds ratios and continuous outcomes as mean differences. MAIN RESULTS Nineteen randomized and seven quasi-randomized studies with 2,560 participants were included in this review. Interventions included antifibrinolytic agents (oral and systemic aminocaproic acid, tranexamic acid, and aminomethylbenzoic acid), corticosteroids (systemic and topical), cycloplegics, miotics, aspirin, conjugated estrogens, monocular versus bilateral patching, elevation of the head, and bed rest. No intervention had a significant effect on visual acuity whether measured at two weeks or less after the trauma or at longer time periods. The number of days for the primary hyphema to resolve appeared to be longer with the use of aminocaproic acid compared to no use, but was not altered by any other intervention.Systemic aminocaproic acid reduced the rate of recurrent hemorrhage (odds ratio (OR) 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.5), but a sensitivity analysis omitting studies not using an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis reduced the strength of the evidence (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.09). We obtained similar results for topical aminocaproic acid (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10). We found tranexamic acid had a significant effect in reducing the rate of secondary hemorrhage (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49), as did aminomethylbenzoic acid as reported in a single study (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.32). The evidence to support an associated reduction in the risk of complications from secondary hemorrhage (i.e., corneal blood staining, peripheral anterior synechiae, elevated intraocular pressure, and development of optic atrophy) by antifibrinolytics was limited by the small number of these events. Use of aminocaproic acid was associated with increased nausea, vomiting, and other adverse events compares with placebo. We found no difference in the number of adverse events with the use of systemic versus topical aminocaproic acid or with standard versus lower drug dose. The available evidence on usage of corticosteroids, cycloplegics or aspirin in traumatic hyphema was limited due to the small numbers of participants and events in the trials.We found no difference in effect between a single versus binocular patch nor ambulation versus complete bed rest on the risk of secondary hemorrhage or time to rebleed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Traumatic hyphema in the absence of other intraocular injuries, uncommonly leads to permanent loss of vision. Complications resulting from secondary hemorrhage could lead to permanent impairment of vision, especially in patients with sickle cell trait/disease. We found no evidence to show an effect on visual acuity by any of the interventions evaluated in this review. Although evidence is limited, it appears that patients with traumatic hyphema who receive aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid are less likely to experience secondary hemorrhaging. However, hyphema in patients on aminocaproic acid take longer to clear.Other than the possible benefits of antifibrinolytic usage to reduce the rate of secondary hemorrhage, the decision to use corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or non-drug interventions (such as binocular patching, bed rest, or head elevation) should remain individualized because no solid scientific evidence supports a benefit. As these multiple interventions are rarely used in isolation, further research to assess the additive effect of these interventions might be of value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Almutez Gharaibeh
- Department of Special Surgery-Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Howard I Savage
- Kaiser Permanente Largo Medical Center, Maryland, Largo, USA
| | - Roberta W Scherer
- Center for Clinical Trials, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, Baltimore, USA
| | - Morton F Goldberg
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Maryland, Baltimore, USA
| | - Kristina Lindsley
- Center for Clinical Trials, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, Baltimore, USA
| |
Collapse
|