Stroke risk among adult patients with third, fourth or sixth cranial nerve palsy: a Nationwide Cohort Study

Stroke, risk, adult, third, fourth or sixth cranial nerve palsy, Cohort Study

2017 Aug 3. doi: 10.1111/aos.13488. [Epub ahead of print]

Stroke risk among adult patients with third, fourth or sixth cranial nerve palsy: a Nationwide Cohort Study.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

This study sought to determine whether isolated third, fourth and sixth cranial nerve palsies (NPs) are associated with increased short- and long-term risk of a subsequent stroke.

METHODS:

This was a nationwide retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study. A cohort of patients with NP (n = 466) and a randomly selected, propensity-matched control cohort (n = 2281) were extracted from the Korean national insurance claim database. Subjects were tracked for 5 years total, subdivided into periods of 0-1 years, 1-3 years and 3-5 years. We assessed the risk of stroke using hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) after adjustments using Cox regression at different time intervals.

RESULTS:

The median follow-up was 3.1 years. Stroke developed in 18.9% of the NP cohort and 7.5% of the control cohort. Stroke risk after NP was highest in the first year [14.7 per 100 person-year at 0-1 years (HR = 6.6), 3.1 per 100 person-year at 1-3 years (HR = 1.6) and 4.3 per 100 person-year at 3-5 years (HR = 2.8)]. Each type of NP was also associated with stroke risk: within 0-1 years, stroke risk was increased in third (HR = 7.6), fourth (HR = 6.0) and sixth (HR = 5. 84) NPs. In the 3- to 5-year period, risk was increased in sixth (HR = 4.7) and fourth (HR = 3.3) NPs, but not third (HR = 0.6) NPs.

CONCLUSION:

Patients in the NP cohort were more likely to have a stroke than those in the matched control cohort; the increased risk was both time- and cranial nerve-dependent.

Stroke, risk, adult, third, fourth or sixth cranial nerve palsy, Cohort Study

KEYWORDS:

cranial nerve palsy; fourth nerve palsy; sixth nerve palsy; stroke; third nerve palsy

Comparison of Clinical Trial and Systematic Review Outcomes for the 4 Most Prevalent Eye Diseases

Clinical Trial,Review, Outcomes,  Eye Diseases

2017 Aug 3. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2583. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparison of Clinical Trial and Systematic Review Outcomes for the 4 Most Prevalent Eye Diseases.

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.

Clinical Trial,Review, Outcomes,  Eye Diseases

Clinical Trial, Review, Outcomes,  Eye Diseases

PMID:
28772305
DOI:
10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2583

Clinical Trial, Review, Outcomes,  Eye Diseases

Management of postoperative inflammation after cataract and complex ocular surgeries

Management,postoperative inflammation,cataract, ocular surgeries

 

Send to Br J Ophthalmol. 2017 Aug 3. pii: bjophthalmol-2017-310324. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310324. [Epub ahead of print] Management of postoperative inflammation after cataract and complex ocular surgeries: a systematic review and Delphi survey. Aptel F1, Colin C2, Kaderli S3, Deloche C3, Bron AM4, Stewart MW5, Chiquet C1. Author information Abstract Prevention and management of postoperative ocular inflammation with corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been evaluated in several randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, neither consensus regarding the efficacies of different regimens nor established guidelines are currently available. This has resulted in different practice patterns throughout the world. A systematic literature review found that for the management of postcataract inflammation nepafenac produced a positive outcome in three of three RCTs (3/3), as did ketorolac (1/1), bromfenac (7/7), loteprednol (3/3) and difluprednate (6/6), but not flurbiprofen (0/1). A single study found that betamethasone produced inconclusive results after retinal detachment (RD) surgery; ketorolac was effective (1/1) after vitrectomy, but triamcinolone was ineffective (0/1) after trabeculectomy. A two-round Delphi survey asked 28 international experts to rate both the inflammatory potential of different eye surgeries and their agreement with different treatment protocols. They rated trabeculectomy, RD surgery and combined phacovitrectomy as more inflammatory than cataract surgery. Vitrectomies for macular hole or epiretinal membrane were not deemed more inflammatory than cataract surgery. For trabeculectomy, they preferred to treat longer than for cataract surgery (NSAID + corticosteroid three times a day for 2 months vs 1 month). For vitrectomy alone, RD surgery and combined phacovitrectomy, the panel preferred the same treatment as for cataract surgery (NSAID + corticosteroid three times a day for 1 month). The discrepancy between preferred treatment and perception of the eye’s inflammatory status by the experts for RD and combined vitreoretinal surgeries highlights the need for RCTs to establish treatment guidelines. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Management,postoperative inflammation,cataract, ocular surgeries

KEYWORDS: Clinical Trial; Drugs; Glaucoma; Retina; Treatment Surgery PMID: 28774934 DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310324