Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema : Subgroup analysis of the MEAD study

Background: Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) was approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) after demonstration of its efficacy and safety in the MEAD registration trials. We performed subgroup analysis of MEAD study results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX 0.7 treatment in patients with previously treated DME. Methods: Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled phase 3 study in patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 34.68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (20/200.20/50 Snellen equivalent), and central retinal thickness (CRT) 65300 \u3bcm measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of DEX (0.7 mg or 0.35 mg), or to sham procedure, with retreatment no more than every 6 months. The primary endpoint was 6515-letter gain in BCVA at study end. Average change in BCVA and CRT from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) and adverse events were also evaluated. The present subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients randomized to DEX 0.7 (marketed dose) or sham based on prior treatment for DME at study entry. Results: Baseline characteristics of previously treated DEX 0.7 (n = 247) and sham (n=261) patients were similar. In the previously treated subgroup, mean number of treatments over 3 years was 4.1 for DEX 0.7 and 3.2 for sham, 21.5 % of DEX 0.7 patients versus 11.1 % of sham had 6515-letter BCVA gain from baseline at study end (P = 0.002), mean average BCVA change from baseline was +3.2 letters with DEX 0.7 versus +1.5 letters with sham (P = 0.024), and mean average CRT change from baseline was -126.1 \u3bcm with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 \u3bcm with sham(P < 0.001). Cataract-related adverse events were reported in 70.3 % of baseline phakic patients in the previously treated DEX 0.7 subgroup; vision gains were restored following cataract surgery. Conclusions: DEX 0.7 significantly improved visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME previously treated with laser, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or a combination of these therapies. The safety profile of DEX 0.7 in previously treated patients was similar to its safety profile in the total study population

Role of the repeat expansion size in predicting age of onset and severity in RFC1 disease

RFC1 disease, caused by biallelic repeat expansion in RFC1, is clinically heterogeneous in terms of age of onset, disease progression and phenotype. We investigated the role of the repeat size in influencing clinical variables in RFC1 disease. We also assessed the presence and role of meiotic and somatic instability of the repeat. In this study, we identified 553 patients carrying biallelic RFC1 expansions and measured the repeat expansion size in 392 cases. Pearson’s coefficient was calculated to assess the correlation between the repeat size and age at disease onset. A Cox model with robust cluster standard errors was adopted to describe the effect of repeat size on age at disease onset, on age at onset of each individual symptoms, and on disease progression. A quasi-Poisson regression model was used to analyse the relationship between phenotype and repeat size. We performed multivariate linear regression to assess the association of the repeat size with the degree of cerebellar atrophy. Meiotic stability was assessed by Southern blotting on first-degree relatives of 27 probands. Finally, somatic instability was investigated by optical genome mapping on cerebellar and frontal cortex and unaffected peripheral tissue from four post-mortem cases. A larger repeat size of both smaller and larger allele was associated with an earlier age at neurological onset [smaller allele hazard ratio (HR) = 2.06, P < 0.001; larger allele HR = 1.53, P < 0.001] and with a higher hazard of developing disabling symptoms, such as dysarthria or dysphagia (smaller allele HR = 3.40, P < 0.001; larger allele HR = 1.71, P = 0.002) or loss of independent walking (smaller allele HR = 2.78, P < 0.001; larger allele HR = 1.60; P < 0.001) earlier in disease course. Patients with more complex phenotypes carried larger expansions [smaller allele: complex neuropathy rate ratio (RR) = 1.30, P = 0.003; cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy and vestibular areflexia syndrome (CANVAS) RR = 1.34, P < 0.001; larger allele: complex neuropathy RR = 1.33, P = 0.008; CANVAS RR = 1.31, P = 0.009]. Furthermore, larger repeat expansions in the smaller allele were associated with more pronounced cerebellar vermis atrophy (lobules I–V β = −1.06, P < 0.001; lobules VI–VII β = −0.34, P = 0.005). The repeat did not show significant instability during vertical transmission and across different tissues and brain regions. RFC1 repeat size, particularly of the smaller allele, is one of the determinants of variability in RFC1 disease and represents a key prognostic factor to predict disease onset, phenotype and severity. Assessing the repeat size is warranted as part of the diagnostic test for RFC1 expansion

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries