Conectar
by Germán Mejía-Salgado, Paula Tatiana Muñoz-Vargas, Carlos Cifuentes-González, Gabriela Flórez-Esparza, Rebeca Paquentín-Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Castro-Monreal, Naomi Medina-Galindo, Gilma Norella Hernández-Herrera, Luz Elena Concha-del-Río, Alejandra de-la-Torre
PurposeTo establish the effects of anterior chamber inflammation (ACI) on the corneal endothelium parameters and central corneal thickness (CCT).
MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature review using medical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, VHL, and medRxiv) on March 8, 2023, for studies that included patients with ACI who had undergone specular microscopy or pachymetry. Case series with >10 patients, cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed using CLARITY tools and validated scales such as those by Hassan Murad et al. and Hoy et al. A narrative synthesis and a quantitative standardized mean difference meta-analysis, I2 heterogeneity assessment, and publication bias tests were conducted. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023420148) and approved by the Universidad del Rosario ethical committee (DVO005 2277- CV1712).
ResultsThirty-four studies, encompassing 1,388 eyes with ACI, were included. Compared with healthy controls, overall, ACI eyes show significant mean differences in endothelial parameters (endothelial cell density (ECD), coefficient of variation (CV), and hexagonality (HEX)) (P Conclusion
ACI leads to significant alterations in endothelial parameters and CCT. The primary contributors to these changes are increased IOP, uveitis duration, and intraocular surgeries. Further studies are needed to explore the impact of ACI etiology on the endothelium, potential biases in IOP measurements during acute ACI episodes, and the potential necessity for monitoring the endothelial parameters and CCT in patients with chronic ACI.
by Jonas Sundén-Cullberg, Puran Chen, Henrike Häbel, Paul Skorup, Helena Janols, Johan Rasmuson, Katarina Niward, Åse Östholm Balkhed, Katerina Chatzidionysiou, Hilmir Asgeirsson, Ola Blennow, Åsa Parke, Anna-Karin Svensson, Jagadeeswara Rao Muvva, Hans-Gustav Ljunggren, Karolinska KI/K COVID-19 Treatment Working Group , Anna-Carin Horne, Ulrika Ådén, Jan-Inge Henter, Anders Sönnerborg, Jan Vesterbacka, Piotr Nowak, Jon Lampa
BackgroundAnakinra and tocilizumab are used for severe Covid-19, but only one previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has studied both. We performed a multi-center RCT comparing anakinra or tocilizumab versus usual care (UC) for adults at high risk of deterioration.
MethodsThe study was conducted June 2020 to March 2021. Eligibility required ≥ 5 liters/minute of Oxygen to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation at ≥ 93%, CRP > 70 mg/L, ferritin > 500 μg/L and at least two points where one point was awarded for lymphocytes 9/L; D-dimer ≥ 0.5 mg/L and; lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 8 microkatal/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive either a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or anakinra 100 mg IV QID for seven days or UC alone. The primary outcome was time to recovery.
ResultsRecruitment was ended prematurely when tocilizumab became part of usual care. Out of a planned 195 patients, 77 had been randomized, 27 to UC, 28 to anakinra and 22 to tocilizumab. Median time to recovery was 15, 15 and 11 days. Rate ratio for recovery for UC vs anakinra was 0.91, 0.47 to 1.78, 95% [CI], p = 0.8 and for UC vs tocilizumab 1.13, 0.55 to 2.30; p = 0.7. There were non-significant trends favoring tocilizumab (and to limited degree anakinra) vs UC for some secondary outcomes. Safety profiles did not differ significantly.
ConclusionPremature closure of trial precludes firm conclusions. Anakinra or tocilizumab did not significantly shorten time to clinical recovery compared to usual care. (IMMCoVA, NCT04412291, EudraCT: 2020–00174824).
FreshRSS