Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of bromfenac, nepafenac and diclofenac sodium for the prevention of cystoid macular edema after phacoemulsification

AIM: To compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of bromfenac 0.09%, nepafenac 0.1% or diclofenac 0.1% for the prophylaxis of the cystoid macular edema (CME) after phacoemulsification. METHODS: Group sequential observational comparative study. After phacoemulsification, patients received two months for topical treatment of either diclofenac sodium, bromfenac or nepafenac. All patients received concomitant topical tobramycin 0.3% and topical prednisolone 1%. We measured CME using optical coherence tomography (OCT) central foveal thickness, macular thickness and total macular volume. RESULTS: We enrolled 243 patients from January to June 2015, and 35% received diclofenac, 32.9% bromfenac and 32.1% nepafenac. When we compared pre-operative to three weeks to two months, bromfenac was more effective in reducing foveal volume (21.3 and 35.4 mm3, respectively), compared with the diclofenac (1.3 and 11.5 mm3, respectively), and the nepafenac group, became more edematous 6.4 and 5.3, respectively. Totally 133 patients completed the post-surgical satisfaction questionnaire. Patients complained of eye stickiness in 13.8% whom we gave nepafenac, versus 10.3% whom we gave diclofenac sodium, and in 0 whom we gave bromfenac. CONCLUSION: Bromfenac is the best tolerated and is more effective than diclofenac and nepafenac in reducing CME after phacoemulsification

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis in adults

Background: Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biologic drugs. Objectives: To evaluate clinical and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab and dexamethasone intravitreal implant in adults with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis. Methods: Nine electronic databases were searched to June 2016. A Markov model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from an NHS and PSS perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Results: Two studies (VISUAL I, active uveitis; and VISUAL II, inactive uveitis) compared adalimumab against placebo, plus limited standard care in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer for adalimumab than placebo, with hazard ratio 0.50 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.70, p<0.001) in VISUAL I and 0.57 (0.39 to 0.84, p=0.004) in VISUAL II. Adalimumab provided significantly greater improvement in VFQ-25 composite score in VISUAL I (mean difference, 4.20; p=0.010) but not VISUAL II (mean difference, 2.12; p=0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than placebo. One study (HURON, active uveitis) compared single 0.7mg dexamethasone implant against sham, plus limited standard care in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over sham at 8 and 26 weeks in percentage of patients with vitreous haze score zero (p<0.014); mean BCVA improvement (p≤0.002); and percentage of patients with ≥5-point improvement in VFQ-25 (p<0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than sham. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis, compared with limited current practice as per the HURON trial, is estimated as £19,509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis, compared with limited current practice as per the VISUAL trials, is estimated as £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggest rate of blindness has the biggest impact upon model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations where there is a greater risk of blindness. Limitations: The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen studies of clinically-relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Conclusions: Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or sham. The ICERs for adalimumab are estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone is estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. Future work: Primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term, and in important subgroups, and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42016041799 Funding details: NIHR HTA Programm

Ocular involvement in idiopathic hypertrophic pachymeningitis associated with eosinophilic angiocentric fibrosis: a case report.

A 43-year-old male with a history of eosinophilic angiocentric fibrosis presented with headache and double vision since 48 h. Idiopathic hypertrophic pachymeningitis was diagnosed based on nuclear magnetic resonance and comprehensive systemic study findings. Eosinophilic angiocentric fibrosis and idiopathic hypertrophic pachymeningitis have been associated with IgG4-related diseases, but this was the first case in which they coexisted in the same patient. After steroid treatment failure, rituximab was used with excellent results

Rivaroxaban Inappropriate Dosage Predictor Factors Using The Ckd-Epi Equation

Alejandro Isidoro Pérez Cabeza y Francisco Ruiz Mateas declaran haber recibido honorarios de consultoría por Bayer Hispania, S.L.Ye

TIMI-AF score and cardiovascular events in vitamin K antagonists-naïve outpatients with atrial fibrillation.

The TIMI-AF score predicts poor outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and guides selection of anticoagulant therapy by identifying clinical benefit of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Our objective was to determine the ability to predict cardiovascular events according to the TIMI-AF score in a real-world population. Retrospective observational study of VKA-naïve patients with AF was seen at a cardiology outpatient clinic in Spain between November 2012 and August 2014. We recorded adverse events (myocardial infarction, systemic embolism or stroke, major bleeding, and death). The study population comprised of 426 patients (50.7% men, mean age, 69 ± 14 years). The TIMI-AF score identified 372 patients (87.3%) with a low risk, 50 patients (11.7%) with an intermediate risk, and 4 patients (0.9%) with a high risk. After a mean follow-up of 423.4 ± 200.1 days, 37 patients (9%) experienced an adverse event. Patients with a TIMI-AF score ≥ 7 had a poorer cardiovascular prognosis (HR, 6.1; 95%CI, 3.2-11.7; P The TIMI-AF risk score can identify patients who are at greater risk of cardiovascular events and a poor net clinical outcome with a better diagnostic yield than CHA2 DS2 VASc, HAS-BLED, and SAMeTT2 R2