Sífilis, la gran simuladora / 8 SYPHILIS, THE GREAT SIMULATOR. Case report of a patient with syphilitic uveitis

La sífilis desde hace siglos desafía a la humanidad, es transmitida por vía sexual y verticalmente durante la gestación.9 Esta enfermedad se hizo conocida en Europa a finales del siglo XV,13 y su rápida propagación por todo el continente la transformó en una de las principales plagas mundiales.Era preocupante el crecimiento de la endemia sifilítica en el siglo XIX 13.1. En contrapartida la medicina se desarrollaba, y la síntesis de las primeras drogas se hacía realidad. El mayor impacto tal vez fue la introducción de la penicilina en 1946, la cual por su eficacia hizo a muchos pensar que la enfermedad estaba controlada. En un estudio de revisión de literatura se dice que a raíz de la introducción de la penicilina la incidencia de sífilis (y de uveítis sifilítica) fue disminuyendo constantemente hasta finales de los años 90.3 resultando en la disminución del interés por su estudio y control. Con la aparición del síndrome de inmunodeficiencia adquirida (SIDA).2 se incrementó dramáticamente la evolución de esta enfermedad.En la literatura oftalmológica se comenzaron a documentar cada vez más casos e incluso se ha llegado a hablar de la «nueva epidemia de sífilis ocular¼1 Se estima que, anualmente, unos 357 millones de personas contraen alguna de las cuatro infecciones de transmisión sexual (ITS) siguientes: clamidias, gonorrea, sífilis o tricomoniasis.7 En el mundo hay una incidencia anual de aproximadamente 12 millones de pacientes con sífilis el 90% ocurre en países en desarrollo (OMS).

Syphilis has defied humanity for centuries, is transmitted sexually and vertically during pregnancy. This disease became known in Europe at the end of the 15th century,13 and its rapid spread throughout the continent transformed it into one of the main world plagues. The growth of the syphilitic endemic in the 19th century was worrisome.13.1 In contrast, medicine developed, and the synthesis of the first drugs became a reality. Perhaps the biggest impact was the introduction of penicillin in 1946, which, due to its effectiveness, led many to believe that the disease was controlled. In a literature review study, it is said that following the introduction of penicillin the incidence of syphilis (and syphilitic uveitis) was steadily decreasing until the end of the 90s.3 resultando in the decrease of interest in its study and control. With the onset of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). the evolution of this disease increased dramatically. In the ophthalmological literature, more and more cases have been documented and there has even been talk of the "new epidemic of ocular syphilis".1.1 It is estimated that some 357 million people each year get one of the four sexually transmitted infections (STIs) following: chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis or trichomonas's. In the world there is an annual incidence of approximately 12 million patients with syphilis 90% occurs in developing countries (WHO)

Maximum Medical Therapy: Brinzolamide/Brimonidine And Travoprost/Timolol Fixed-Dose Combinations In Glaucoma And Ocular Hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Maximal medical therapy (MMT) is the use of ≥3 classes of topical anti-glaucoma agents to achieve maximal intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction while minimizing adverse effects and compliance challenges. PURPOSE: To evaluate the additive IOP-lowering effect of twice-daily brinzolamide 1%/brimonidine 0.2% fixed-dose combination (BBFC) used adjunctively with once daily travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed-dose combination (TTFC) in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG)/ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: In this phase IV, double-masked study, patients on TTFC for ≥28 days, aged ≥18 years, with mean IOP ≥19 and ≤28 mmHg in at least 1 eye were randomized to receive BBFC+TTFC (n=67) or vehicle+TTFC (n=67) for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was mean change in diurnal IOP from baseline (BL, averaged over 09:00 and 11:00) at Week 6. RESULTS: The study was terminated prematurely due to recruitment challenges. BL mean IOP was similar in both groups (BBFC+TTFC: 21.6±1.78 mmHg; vehicle+TTFC: 21.8±1.90 mmHg). Mean change in diurnal IOP from BL at Week 6 was greater with BBFC+TTFC (-4.25 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.7, -3.8) than with vehicle+TTFC (-2.11 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.6, -1.6, treatment difference, -2.15 mmHg (95% CI: -2.8, -1.5; P<0.001). Ocular adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11.9% of patients given BBFC+TTFC and 7.5% of patients given vehicle+TTFC. The AE with highest frequency was punctate keratitis (3%) in the BBFC+TTFC group; eye irritation (3%) in the vehicle+TTFC group. CONCLUSION: BBFC+TTFC as MMT demonstrated clinically relevant and statistically significant reductions in mean diurnal IOP in patients with OAG/OHT. AEs were consistent with known safety profiles of individual medications.

Randomized trial of brinzolamide/brimonidine versus brinzolamide plus brimonidine for open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Fixed-combination intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications simplify treatment regimens for patients requiring 2 ocular hypotensive agents to maintain sufficiently low IOP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fixed-combination brinzolamide 1%/brimonidine 0.2% (BBFC) versus concomitant administration of brinzolamide 1% plus brimonidine 0.2% (BRINZ + BRIM) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a prospective, phase 3, multicenter, double-masked, 6-month trial. Patients who had insufficient IOP control with monotherapy or who were receiving 2 IOP-lowering medications were randomized 1:1 to receive twice-daily BBFC or BRINZ + BRIM. IOP was assessed at 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. during week 2, week 6, month 3, and month 6 visits. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean diurnal IOP change from baseline to month 3; noninferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the between-group difference was <1.5 mmHg. Supportive endpoints included mean IOP, IOP change from baseline, and percentage of patients with IOP <18 mmHg. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The mean diurnal IOP change from baseline with BBFC (least squares mean ± standard error -8.5 ± 0.16 mmHg) was noninferior to that with BRINZ + BRIM (-8.3 ± 0.16 mmHg; mean difference -0.1 mmHg; 95% CI -0.5 to 0.2 mmHg). The upper limits of the 95% CIs were <1.5 mmHg at all time points. Decreases from baseline >8 mmHg were observed for least squares mean diurnal IOP in both groups as early as week 2 and continued to the end of the study. The results of all other supportive endpoints were similar to the primary efficacy endpoint. The most common ocular adverse drug reactions were hyperemia of the eye (reported as ocular or conjunctival hyperemia), visual disturbances, ocular allergic reactions, and ocular discomfort. Common systemic adverse drug reactions included dysgeusia, oral dryness, and fatigue/drowsiness. CONCLUSION: Brinzolamide 1%/brimonidine 0.2% fixed combination was as well tolerated and effective as concomitant therapy with its components. BBFC reduces treatment burden in patients who require multiple IOP-lowering medications.

Preference for a fixed combination of brinzolamide/timolol versus dorzolamide/timolol among patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To assess ocular discomfort upon instillation and patient preference for brinzolamide/timolol relative to dorzolamide/timolol, in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, patient-masked, randomized, crossover study. On day 0, patients received one drop of brinzolamide/timolol in one eye and one drop of dorzolamide/timolol in the contralateral eye. On day 1, patients were randomly assigned to receive one drop of either brinzolamide/timolol or dorzolamide/timolol in both eyes; on day 2, patients received one drop of the alternate treatment in both eyes. Measures included a patient preference question on day 2 (primary) and mean ocular discomfort scale scores on days 1 and 2 (secondary). Safety assessments included adverse events, visual acuity, and slit-lamp examinations. RESULTS: Of 120 patients who enrolled, 115 completed the study. Of these, 112 patients instilled both medications and expressed a study medication preference on day 2. A significantly greater percentage preferred brinzolamide/timolol to dorzolamide/timolol (67.0% versus 30.4%; P < 0.001). The ocular discomfort (expressed as mean [standard deviation]) with brinzolamide/timolol was significantly lower than with dorzolamide/timolol (day 2:1.9 [2.3] versus 3.7 [2.8], respectively [P = 0.0003]; both days combined: 2.1 [2.5] versus 3.5 [2.9], respectively [P = 0.00014]). On day 1, five patients receiving brinzolamide/timolol reported five nonserious adverse events (AEs): flu (n = 1), bitter taste (n = 2), and headache (n = 2). Four events, bitter taste (two events) and headache (two events), were considered related to brinzolamide/timolol. Events were mild in intensity, except bitter taste of moderate intensity reported by one patient. No AEs were reported at day 2. All AEs resolved without additional treatment. No clinically relevant changes from baseline were observed in best-corrected visual acuity or slit-lamp examinations of ocular signs. CONCLUSION: Patients had less discomfort with brinzolamide/timolol than with dorzolamide/timolol, and more expressed a preference for brinzolamide/timolol. Both treatments were generally safe and well tolerated.