Blue Light Exposure: Ocular Hazards and Prevention-A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to blue light has seriously increased in our environment since the arrival of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and, in recent years, the proliferation of digital devices rich in blue light. This raises some questions about its potential deleterious effects on eye health. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an update on the ocular effects of blue light and to discuss the efficiency of methods of protection and prevention against potential blue light-induced ocular injury. METHODS: The search of relevant English articles was conducted in PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar databases until December 2022. RESULTS: Blue light exposure provokes photochemical reactions in most eye tissues, in particular the cornea, the lens, and the retina. In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that certain exposures to blue light (depending on the wavelength or intensity) can cause temporary or permanent damage to some structures of the eye, especially the retina. However, currently, there is no evidence that screen use and LEDs in normal use are deleterious to the human retina. Regarding protection, there is currently no evidence of a beneficial effect of blue blocking lenses for the prevention of eye diseases, in particular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). In humans, macular pigments (composed of lutein and zeaxanthin) represent a natural protection by filtering blue light, and can be increased through increased intake from foods or food supplements. These nutrients are associated with lower risk for AMD and cataract. Antioxidants such as vitamins C, E, or zinc might also contribute to the prevention of photochemical ocular damage by preventing oxidative stress. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is no evidence that LEDs in normal use at domestic intensity levels or in screen devices are retinotoxic to the human eye. However, the potential toxicity of long-term cumulative exposure and the dose-response effect are currently unknown.

Azoospermia: Is it worth waiting for the confirmation of the semen abnormality to start an infertility assessment?

Azoospermia is found in about 1% of men in the general population and in about 10%-15% of infertile men. Upon discovery of semen analysis abnormality, another test must be performed after an interval of 3 months before any other infertility work-up. This research aimed at evaluating the benefit of waiting for the control test. This retrospective monocentric descriptive study was carried out in the fertility center of the University Hospital of Saint Etienne. All consecutive azoospermic patients diagnosed between January, 2012 and December, 2019 were included. For each patient, two consecutive semen analyses performed 3 months apart were studied. The main focas was on patients whose second semen analysis would have modified the infertility work-up. Amongst the 172 cases under study, the second semen analysis revealed the presence of sperm for three men. Only one of these 3 modified semen analyses was normal. In the observed azoospermic population, sperm was found on the second test in 1.7%. An infertility assessment is necessary after the discovery of azoospermia in the first semen analysis in 99.5%. These results suggest that it is useless to wait three stressful months before starting an infertility assessment for azoospermic population.

Diagnosis and treatment of peripheral exudative haemorrhagic chorioretinopathy.

PURPOSE: Peripheral exudative haemorrhagic chorioretinopathy (PEHCR) is a rare disorder that is often misdiagnosed. The aim of this study was to better characterise PEHCR and to assess treatment options. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective multicentric chart review. RESULTS: Of 84 eyes (69 patients) with PEHCR referred between 2005 and 2017, the most common referral diagnosis was choroidal melanoma (41.3%). Bilateral involvement was found in 21.7% of cases. Haemorrhagic retinal pigment epithelium detachment was the most common peripheral lesion (53.6%). Maculopathy was associated with peripheral lesions in 65.8% of cases. PEHCR lesions were mostly heterogeneous (58.8%) on B-scan ultrasonography. Choroidal neovascularisation was found in 10 eyes (26.3%) out of 38 eyes that underwent fluorescein angiography. Polyps were observed in 14 eyes (58.3%) out of 24 eyes that underwent indocyanine green angiography. Fifty-one eyes were treated (62.2%). Intravitreal injections (IVTI) of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were the most used treatment (36.6%) before laser photocoagulation, photodynamic therapy, vitrectomy and cryotherapy. Only vitrectomy improved visual acuity. Most lesions (65.6%) regressed at the last follow-up visit. CONCLUSION: In case of PEHCR, multimodal imaging is useful to avoid misdiagnosis, to characterise PEHCR lesions and to guide treatment strategies. Regression of PEHCR lesions was observed in two-thirds of the patients. Vitrectomy improved visual acuity. More than a third of patients underwent anti-VEGF IVTI. Further studies are needed to assess IVTI's efficacy.

An ART score to note objectively the quality of an ART procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To construct an ART score to evaluate an ART procedure before the result (pregnancy or not), and to provide objective data in discussions with couples in the decision to discontinue further attempts. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective multicentrique study was performed. The ART score was constructed using data from the MediFirst© database used in our center. The development of the score was conducted on a sample of 507 in vitro fertilization cycles carried out between January 2011 and July 2011. Model calibration and determination of the discrimination capacity of the ART score were performed with 4463 cycles in our center and 1369 cycles from an external ART center. The ART score was validated temporally and geographically with clinical pregnancy and take home baby rate. RESULTS: The ART score was obtained from data from both partners and ART procedure. The ART score was segmented into four classes depending on the clinical pregnancy rate. There was a linear relationship between the ART score and clinical pregnancy rate (r = 1.0, p < 0.001). The ART score was validated temporally and geographically. CONCLUSION: An objective ART score has been constructed and validated. It will be of help to ART teams and it is an objective tool to explain to a couple the choices for the next ART attempt.

A no-stop mutation in MAGEB4 is a possible cause of rare X-linked azoospermia and oligozoospermia in a consanguineous Turkish family.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify mutations that cause non-syndromic male infertility using whole exome sequencing of family cases. METHODS: We recruited a consanguineous Turkish family comprising nine siblings with male triplets; two of the triplets were infertile as well as one younger infertile brother. Whole exome sequencing (WES) performed on two azoospermic brothers identified a mutation in the melanoma antigen family B4 (MAGEB4) gene which was confirmed via Sanger sequencing and then screened for on control groups and unrelated infertile subjects. The effect of the mutation on messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein levels was tested after in vitro cell transfection. Structural features of MAGEB4 were predicted throughout the conserved MAGE domain. RESULTS: The novel single-base substitution (c.1041A>T) in the X-linked MAGEB4 gene was identified as a no-stop mutation. The mutation is predicted to add 24 amino acids to the C-terminus of MAGEB4. Our functional studies were unable to detect any effect either on mRNA stability, intracellular localization of the protein, or the ability to homodimerize/heterodimerize with other MAGE proteins. We thus hypothesize that these additional amino acids may affect the proper protein interactions with MAGEB4 partners. CONCLUSION: The whole exome analysis of a consanguineous Turkish family revealed MAGEB4 as a possible new X-linked cause of inherited male infertility. This study provides the first clue to the physiological function of a MAGE protein.

Longitudinal Study of Sustained-Release Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema.

Observational studies are needed to confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of Ozurdex® intravitreal implant in real life. Among 29 patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME), of whom 14 (48%) patients did not have any previous treatments and 22 (76%) any previous antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections, significant visual acuity (VA) improvement was observed with a mean gain of 13.8 letters at month 6 (p < 0.0001), 12.7 letters at month 12 (p = 0.0032) and 16.5 letters at month 18 (p = 0.0313). During the follow-up, a total of 17 (59%) patients had a VA improvement of ≥15 letters. Significant central macular thickness decrease was observed with a mean reduction of 159.07 µm at month 6 (p < 0.0001), 181.8 µm at month 12 (p < 0.0001) and 236.17 µm at month 18 (p = 0.0313). No serious adverse events were reported. With a good efficacy and safety, manageable adverse events and an injection rate much lower compared to that of anti-VEGF, this study confirms the use of Ozurdex® for the treatment of persistent DME.