Low Expression of Vitamin D Receptor in Patients With Dry Eye Disease.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the expression of vitamin D receptor (VDR) on the ocular surface of patients with dry eye disease (DED) and controls without ophthalmological pathologies. METHODS: Patients with DED without previous treatment were studied and compared with healthy subjects. Ocular Surface Disease Index assessement and ocular surface cytology were performed in all patients. The immunohistochemical expression of VDR was evaluated using fully automated immunohistochemistry. The evaluation involved multiplying the percentage of nuclear-labeled cells (0-100) by their intensity (0-3), resulting in a score ranging from 0 to 300 (VDR H-score). Squamous metaplasia was morphologically evaluated using liquid-phase cytology with Papanicolaou/periodic acid-Schiff staining using Nelson's grade (scale 0-3, higher grade to higher metaplastic change). RESULTS: Eighteen patients with DED without previous treatment and 10 healthy subjects were studied. Squamous metaplasia was observed in 74% of patients with DED, in contrast to 0% in the control group. In patients with DED, there was a lower expression of VDR than in the control group (VDR H-score: 11.2 ± 13.9 vs. 80.9 ± 56; P = 0.0001). Furthermore, an inverse correlation was observed between Nelson grade and VDR H-score ( P = 0.0001, rs = -0.71). No correlation was observed between Ocular Surface Disease Index and VDR H-score. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate the VDR in patients with DED. These patients presented with a lower expression of VDR than healthy subjects. No correlation was found with more severe symptoms. Patients with DED also had a higher frequency of squamous metaplasia.

Efectividad del moxifloxacino intracameral profiláctico para reducir la endoftalmitis posterior a cirugía de cataratas en población chilena

Background: Endophthalmitis is a serious infectious complication of cataract surgery, which may lead to vision loss. Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of intracameral moxifloxacin in reducing endophthalmitis after cataract surgery in Chilean patients. Material and Methods: We reviewed all phacoemulsification surgeries performed between 2012 and 2020 at a public hospital. The use of intraoperative intracameral moxifloxacin and possible surgical complications were recorded. In patients with postoperative endophthalmitis, we reviewed their risk factors and clinical characteristics. Results: In the study, 22,869 phacoemulsification surgeries were registered, with an annual average of 2,541. The use of prophylactic intracameral moxifloxacin started progressively in 2014. In 2018 it was used in 88% of the surgeries. Fifteen eyes evolved with postoperative endophthalmitis, but none of these surgeries used intracameral moxifloxacin. Five and seven cases occurred in 2012 and 2013, respectively. There was a trend favoring moxifloxacin use, as a preventive measure for endophthalmitis, but the difference between groups was not significant (p = 0.56). In the group with endophthalmitis, 33.3% of the eyes were from patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, in 13.3% there was rupture of the posterior capsule and 60% of the eyes corresponded to female patients. Since 2018 there is no record of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery performed in this center. Conclusions: Intracameral moxifloxacin showed a tendency to reduce the frequency of endophthalmitis after phacoemulsification surgery, but a longer observation period is required to reach statistical significance, due to the low frequency of this complication.

Aflibercept compared with dexamethasone in diabetic macular edema. / Aflibercept comparado con dexametasona en edema macular diabético.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic macular edema is a frequent pathology that causes gradual deterioration of visual acuity, which does not have a standardized treatment. The anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs and corticosteroids are widely used, especially aflibercept and dexamethasone, respectively, but it is unclear which one is best. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: No evidence that compared the interventions directly in the population of interest was found, so systematic reviews that provide an estimate of the effect indirectly using network meta-analysis were selected. We identified two systematic reviews that together included four primary studies, all randomized trials. We concluded that we are uncertain whether aflibercept compared to dexamethasone improves visual acuity or is safer, as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El edema macular diabético es una patología frecuente, causante de deterioro gradual de la agudeza visual, que no tiene un tratamiento estandarizado. Los fármacos anti factor del crecimiento vascular endotelial (anti-VEGF) y los corticoides se encuentran entre los tratamientos más ampliamente utilizados, destacando aflibercept y dexametasona, respectivamente, sin haber una clara superioridad entre ambas terapias. MÉTODOS: Realizamos una búsqueda en Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante el cribado de múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, analizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un meta análisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: No se encontró evidencia que compare las intervenciones directamente en la población de interés, por lo que se seleccionaron revisiones sistemáticas que entregan una estimación del efecto de manera indirecta, mediante la técnica de metanálisis de comparaciones múltiples (metanálisis en red). Identificamos dos revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron cuatro estudios primarios, todos ensayos aleatorizados. Concluimos que no es posible establecer con claridad si usar aflibercept comparado con dexametasona aumenta la agudeza visual o es más seguro, debido a que la certeza de la evidencia existente ha sido evaluada como muy baja.

Treat and extend compared to pro re nata regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. / Treat and extend comparado con pro re nata en degeneración macular asociada a la edad neovascular.

INTRODUCTION: Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in older people in the world. One of the most effective treat-ments consists of injection intravitreal of anti-endothelial vascular growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs. However, there is no con-sensus on their frequency of administration, being the treat and extend and the pro re nata the most commonly used regimens, but there is still controversy regarding their effectiveness. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified two systematic reviews that together included two primary studies, both observational studies. We concluded that we are uncertain whether the treat and extend regimen is superior in terms of visual gain, decrease in retinal thickness, number of injections and serious adverse effects at 12 months in comparison with the pro re nata regimen, because the certainty of the existing evidence has been assessed as very low.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La degeneración macular asociada a la edad es la principal causa de ceguera en personas mayores en el mundo. El tratamiento más eficaz consiste en inyecciones intravítreas de fármacos anti factor del crecimiento vascular endotelial (anti-VEGF). Sin embargo, no existe consenso sobre su frecuencia de administración, siendo pro re nata y treat and extend los protocolos más utilizados, pero existe controversia sobre su efectividad. MÉTODOS: Realizamos una búsqueda en Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante el cribado de múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, analizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un meta análisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos dos revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron dos estudios primarios, ambos observacionales. Concluimos que no es posible establecer con claridad si el protocolo treat and extend en comparación a pro re nata es superior en términos de ganancia visual, disminución del grosor de la retina, número de inyecciones ni en el desarrollo de efectos adversos serios a los 12 meses, debido a que la certeza de la evidencia existente es muy baja.

Treat and extend comparado con pro re nata en degeneración macular asociada a la edad neovascular / Treat and extend compared to pro re nata regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

INTRODUCCIÓN: La degeneración macular asociada a la edad es la principal causa de ceguera en personas mayores en el mundo. El tratamiento más eficaz consiste en inyecciones intravítreas de fármacos anti factor del crecimiento vascular endotelial (anti-VEGF). Sin embargo, no existe consenso sobre su frecuencia de administración, siendo pro re nata y treat and extend los protocolos más utilizados, pero existe controversia sobre su efectividad. MÉTODOS: Realizamos una búsqueda en Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante el cribado de múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, analizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un meta análisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos dos revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron dos estudios primarios, ambos observacionales. Concluimos que no es posible establecer con claridad si el protocolo treat and extend en comparación a pro re nata es superior en términos de ganancia visual, disminución del grosor de la retina, número de inyecciones ni en el desarrollo de efectos adversos serios a los 12 meses, debido a que la certeza de la evidencia existente es muy baja.

INTRODUCTION: Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in older people in the world. One of the most effective treat-ments consists of injection intravitreal of anti-endothelial vascular growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs. However, there is no con-sensus on their frequency of administration, being the treat and extend and the pro re nata the most commonly used regimens, but there is still controversy regarding their effectiveness. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified two systematic reviews that together included two primary studies, both observational studies. We concluded that we are uncertain whether the treat and extend regimen is superior in terms of visual gain, decrease in retinal thickness, number of injections and serious adverse effects at 12 months in comparison with the pro re nata regimen, because the certainty of the existing evidence has been assessed as very low.

Aflibercept versus dexamethasone for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. / Aflibercept versus dexametasona en edema macular secundario a la oclusión de la vena central de la retina.

INTRODUCTION: Macular edema is a frequent complication of central retinal vein occlusion that might lead to deterioration of visual acuity. The most commonly used treatments are dexamethasone implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs, being aflibercept one of the most commonly used them. However, there is no consensus about which treatment constitute the best alternative. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified two systematic reviews that included four primary studies overall, all randomized trials. We concluded that it is not possible to establish whether aflibercept is superior to dexamethasone in terms of improvement of visual acuity and safety, because the certainty of the existing evidence has been evaluated as very low.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El edema macular es una complicación frecuente de la oclusión de la vena central de la retina que clínicamente provoca deterioro de la agudeza visual. Los tratamientos más utilizados son el implante de dexametasona y los fármacos anti factor del crecimiento endotelial vascular, destacando aflibercept dentro de estos. Sin embargo, no existe consenso acerca de qué tratamiento constituye la mejor alternativa. MÉTODOS: Realizamos una búsqueda en Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante el cribado de múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, analizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un meta análisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos dos revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron cuatro estudios primarios, todos ensayos aleatorizados. Concluimos que no es posible establecer si aflibercept es superior a dexametasona en términos de mejora de agudeza visual y seguridad, debido a que la certeza de la evidencia existente ha sido evaluada como muy baja.