ABSTRACT
Aim: The intraocular silicone oil (SO) tamponades used in the treatment of retinal detachment (RD) have been associated with a difference ocular hypertension (OH) rate. To clarify, if this complication was associated to use of standard SO (SSO) versus heavy SO (HSO), we performed a systematic review and meta‑analysis of comparative study between two kind of SO (standard or light vs. heavy) for the treatment of RD and macular hole, without restriction to study design. Materials and Methods: The methodological quality of two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the criteria given in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention, while three non‑RCTs were assessed with the Newcastle– Ottawa Scale and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklists. We calculated Mantel–Haenszel risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The primary outcome was the rate of patients with OH treated with SSO compared to HSO. Results: There were a higher number of rates of OH in HSO compared to SSO. This difference was statistically significant with the fixed effect model (Mantel–Haenszel RR; 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06–2.28; P = 0.02) while there was not significative difference with the random effect model (Mantel–Haenszel RR; 1.51; 95% CI, 0.98–2.33; P = 0.06). Conclusion: We noted a trend that points out a higher OH rate in HSO group compared to SSO, but this finding, due to the small size and variable design of studies, needs to be confirmed in well‑designed and large size RCTs.
ABSTRACT
Fluoroquinolones have been studied extensively as prophylaxis in neutropenic cancer patients. Their efficacy has been reviewed in several meta-analyses. As yet, there is no question that prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones has led to a decrease in the occurrence of gram-negative infections in neutropenic patients. By contrast, the benefits of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis on other parameters of infection-related morbidity and on the occurrence of infection-related mortality are not evident. Part of the limited overall effectiveness of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis is related to the inadequate coverage for gram-positive bacteria. The results of a meta-analysis do not support the routine use of grampositive coverage in combination with quinolone prophylaxis in neutropenic patients; however, the use gram-positive coverage can be considered in particular subgroups of neutropenic patients, such as those with more severe neutropenia, oral mucositis, bone marrow transplantation, and receiving highdose cytosine arabinoside. Recent well conducted, large clinical trials confirm the long lasting efficacy of fluoroquinolones prophylaxis. There is also evidence that fluoroquinolones prophylaxis is a cost-effective intervention. Moreover, a reduction in mortality has been demonstated in a recent meta-analysis, and reports from cancer centers in Europe have shown a striking rebound of gram negative bacteremias after discontinuation in the use of prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones. In light of the these findings, prophylaxis with a quinolone during granulocytopenia, where resistance permits, is still appropriate
Las fluoroquinolonas han sido extensamente estudiadas como profilaxis en los pacientes oncológicos con neutropenia. Su eficacia se revisó en diversos metaanálisis. Hasta el momento, no hay dudas acerca de que la profilaxis con fluoroquinolonas produjo una disminución en la aparición de infecciones gramnegativas en los individuos neutropénicos. Por el contrario, los beneficios de la profilaxis con fluoroquinolonas sobre otros parámetros de la morbimortalidad secundaria a la infección no fueron evidentes. En parte, la efectividad global limitada de la profilaxis con fluoroquinolonas se relaciona con la cobertura inadecuada de las bacterias grampositivas. Los resultados de un metaanálisis no avalaron el uso rutinario de cobertura frente a las bacterias grampositivas en combinación con la profilaxis con fluoroquinolonas en pacientes neutropénicos. Sin embargo, la utilización de cobertura frente a gérmenes grampositivos puede considerarse en subgrupos especiales, como las personas con neutropenia grave, mucositis oral, trasplante de médula ósea y tratamiento con altas dosis de arabinósido de citosina. Recientemente, ensayos clínicos grandes, bien realizados, confirmaron la eficacia a largo plazo de la profilaxis con fluoroquinolonas. También hay pruebas de que la profilaxis con fluoroquinolonas constituye una intervención costo-efectiva. Además, se demostró una reducción de la mortalidad en un metaanálisis reciente y en informes provenientes de los centros oncológicos de Europa se comprobó un rebote importante de las bacteriemias por patógenos gramnegativos después de la interrupción de la profilaxis con fluoroquinolonas. En vista de estos hallazgos, la profilaxis con quinolonas durante la granulocitopenia, siempre y cuando la resistencia lo permita, aún es apropiada.