Iridotomy to slow progression of visual field loss in angle-closure glaucoma

BACKGROUND: Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a type of glaucoma associated with a physically obstructed anterior chamber angle. Obstruction of the anterior chamber angle blocks drainage of fluids (aqueous humor) within the eye and may raise intraocular pressure (IOP). Elevated IOP is associated with glaucomatous optic nerve damage and visual field loss. Laser peripheral iridotomy (often just called 'iridotomy') is a procedure to eliminate pupillary block by allowing aqueous humor to pass directly from the posterior to anterior chamber through use of a laser to create a hole in the iris. It is commonly used to treat patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma, patients with primary angle closure (narrow angles and no signs of glaucomatous optic neuropathy), and patients who are primary angle-closure suspects (patients with reversible obstruction). The effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss, however, is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of iridotomy compared with no iridotomy for primary angle-closure glaucoma, primary angle closure, and primary angle-closure suspects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 9) which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 18 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared iridotomy to no iridotomy in primary angle-closure suspects, patients with primary angle closure, or patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma in one or both eyes were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors worked independently to extract data on study characteristics, outcomes for the review, and risk of bias in the included studies. We resolved differences through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two trials (2502 eyes of 1251 participants) that compared iridotomy to no iridotomy. Both trials recruited primary angle suspects from Asia and randomized one eye of each participant to iridotomy and the other to no iridotomy. Because the full trial reports are not yet available for both trials, no data are available to assess the effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss, change in IOP, need for additional surgeries, number of medications needed to control IOP, mean change in best-corrected visual acuity, and quality of life. Based on currently reported data, one trial showed evidence that iridotomy increases angle width at 18 months (by 12.70°, 95% confidence interval (CI) 12.06° to 13.34°, involving 1550 eyes, moderate-certainty evidence) and may be associated with IOP spikes at one hour after treatment (risk ratio 24.00 (95% CI 7.60 to 75.83), involving 1468 eyes, low-certainty evidence). The risk of bias of the two studies was overall unclear due to lack of availability of a full trial report. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available studies that directly compared iridotomy to no iridotomy have not yet published full trial reports. At present, we cannot draw reliable conclusions based on randomized controlled trials as to whether iridotomy slows progression of visual field loss at one year compared to no iridotomy. Full publication of the results from the studies may clarify the benefits of iridotomy

Iridotomy to slow progression of angle-closure glaucoma

The objectives are as follows: The primary objective is to assess the role of iridotomy - compared with observation - in the prevention of visual field loss for individuals who have primary angle closure or primary angle-closure glaucoma in at least one eye. We will also examine the role of iridotomy in the prevention of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in individuals with narrow angles (primary angle-closure suspect) in at least one eye

Mycobacterial immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in HIV-1 infection after antiretroviral therapy is associated with deregulated specific T-cell responses: Beneficial effect of IL-2 and GM-CSF immunotherapy

BACKGROUND: With the advent of antiretroviral therapy (ART) cases of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) have increasingly been reported. IRIS usually occurs in individuals with a rapidly rising CD4 T-cell count or percentage upon initiation of ART, who develop a deregulated immune response to infection with or without reactivation of opportunistic organisms. Here, we evaluated rises in absolute CD4 T-cells, and specific CD4 T-cell responses in 4 HIV-1(+ )individuals presenting with mycobacterial associated IRIS who received in conjunction with ART, IL-2 plus GM-CSF immunotherapy. METHODS: We assessed CD4 T-cell counts, HIV-1 RNA loads, phenotype for naïve and activation markers, and in vitro proliferative responses. Results were compared with those observed in 11 matched, successfully treated asymptomatic clinical progressors (CP) with no evidence of opportunistic infections, and uninfected controls. RESULTS: Median CD4 T-cell counts in IRIS patients rose from 22 cells/μl before initiation of ART, to 70 cells/μl after 8 months of therapy (median 6.5 fold increase). This coincided with IRIS diagnosis, lower levels of naïve CD4 T-cells, increased expression of immune activation markers, and weak CD4 T-cell responses. In contrast, CP had a median CD4 T-cell counts of 76 cells/μl at baseline, which rose to 249 cells/μl 6 months post ART, when strong T-cell responses were seen in > 80% of patients. Higher levels of expression of immune activation markers were seen in IRIS patients compared to CP and UC (IRIS > CP > UC). Immunotherapy with IL-2 and GM-CSF paralleled clinical recovery. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that mycobacterial IRIS is associated with inadequate immune reconstitution rather than vigorous specific T-cell responses, and concomitant administration of IL-2 and GM-CSF immunotherapy with effective ART may correct/augment T-cell immunity in such setting resulting in clinical benefit

Treatment exhaustion of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) among individuals infected with HIV in the United Kingdon: multicentre cohort study

Objectives: To investigate whether there is evidence that an increasing proportion of HIV infected patients is starting to experience increases in viral load and decreases in CD4 cell count that are consistent with exhaustion of available treatment options. Design: Multicentre cohort study. Setting: Six large HIV treatment centres in southeast England. Participants: All individuals seen for care between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2002. Main outcome measures: Exposure to individual antiretroviral drugs and drug classes, CD4 count, plasma HIV RNA burden. Results: Information is available on 16 593 individuals (13 378 (80.6%) male patients, 10 340 (62.3%) infected via homosexual or bisexual sex, 4426 (26.7%) infected via heterosexual sex, median age 34 years). Overall, 10 207 of the 16 593 patients (61.5%) have been exposed to any antiretroviral therapy. This proportion increased from 41.2% of patients under follow up at the end of 1996 to 71.3% of those under follow up in 2002. The median CD4 count and HIV RNA burden of patients under follow up in each year changed from 270 cells/mm3 and 4.34 log10 copies/ml in 1996 to 408 cells/mm3 and 1.89 log10 copies/ml, respectively, in 2002. By 2002, 3060 (38%) of patients who had ever been treated with antiretroviral therapy had experienced all three main classes. Of these, around one quarter had evidence of “viral load failure” with all these three classes. Patients with three class failure were more likely to have an HIV RNA burden > 2.7 log10 copies/ml and a CD4 count < 200 cells/mm3. Conclusions: The proportion of individuals with HIV infection in the United Kingdom who have been treated has increased gradually over time. A substantial proportion of these patients seem to be in danger of exhausting their options for antiretroviral treatment. New drugs with low toxicity, which are not associated with cross resistance to existing drugs, are urgently needed for such patients

Lower healthcare costs associated with the use of a single-pill ARV regimen in the UK, 2004-2008

Aim: Investigate the cost and effects of a single-pill versus two- or three pill first-line antiretroviral combinations in reducing viral load, increasing CD4 counts, and first-line failure rate associated with respective regimens at 6 and 12 months. Methods: Patients on first-line TDF+3TC+EFV, TDF+FTC+EFV, TruvadaH+EFV or AtriplaH between 1996–2008 were identified and viral load and CD4 counts measured at baseline, six and twelve months respectively. Factors that independently predicted treatment failure at six and twelve months were derived using multivariate Cox’s proportional hazard regression analyses. Use and cost of hospital services were calculated at six and twelve months respectively. Results: All regimens reduced viral load to below the limit of detection and CD4 counts increased to similar levels at six and twelve months for all treatment regimens. No statistically significant differences were observed for rate of treatment failure at six and twelve months. People on AtriplaH generated lower healthcare costs for non-AIDS patients at £5,340 (£5,254 to £5,426) per patient-semester and £9,821 (£9,719 to £9,924) per patient-year that was £1,344 (95%CI £1,222 to £1,465) less per patient-semester and £1,954 (95%CI £1,801 to £2,107) less per patient-year compared with TruvadaH+EFV; healthcare costs for AIDS patients were similar across all regimens. Conclusion: The single pill regimen is as effective as the two- and three-pill regimens of the same drugs, but if started as first-line induction therapy there would be a 20% savings on healthcare costs at six and 17% of costs at twelve months compared with TruvadaH+EFV, that generated the next lowest costs

High Treatment Success Rates When Switching to Once Daily Nevirapine Containing Antiretroviral Therapy

INTRODUCTION: Two recent studies have highlighted low rates of virological response to once daily nevirapine containing combination antiretroviral therapy (CART) in treatment naïve HIV-1 infected subjects. AIM: We assessed factors associated with treatment responses in a cohort of HIV-1 infected, therapy naïve individuals, commencing nevirapine CART with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) containing either lamivudine or emtricitabine. RESULTS: Between January 2002 and 2006, 173 subjects (80 female) met the study inclusion criteria. All subjects initially commenced on twice daily nevirapine with six different NRTI backbones. Mean follow up was 802 days. 49 (28%) subjects switched to once daily nevirapine, 23 (13%) within the first year. After 48 weeks of therapy, HIV RNA was < 50 copies/mL in 154/173 subjects (89%). A trend was observed towards improved virological outcome (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL) and switching to once daily nevirapine during the first year of therapy (p=0.051). CONCLUSION: Whilst awaiting the results of prospective studies assessing once daily nevirapine, our data describe high treatment success rates and good safety responses when switching to once daily nevirapine