The future of canine glaucoma therapy

Canine glaucoma is a group of disorders that are generally associated with increased intraocular pressure (IOP) resulting in a characteristic optic neuropathy. Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible vision loss in dogs and may be either primary or secondary. Despite the growing spectrum of medical and surgical therapies, there is no cure, and many affected dogs go blind. Often eyes are enucleated because of painfully high, uncontrollable IOP. While progressive vision loss due to primary glaucoma is considered preventable in some humans, this is mostly not true for dogs. There is an urgent need for more effective, affordable treatment options. Because newly developed glaucoma medications are emerging at a very slow rate and may not be effective in dogs, work toward improving surgical options may be the most rewarding approach in the near term. This Viewpoint Article summarizes the discussions and recommended research strategies of both a Think Tank and a Consortium focused on the development of more effective therapies for canine glaucoma; both were organized and funded by the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists Vision for Animals Foundation (ACVO‐VAF). The recommendations consist of (a) better understanding of disease mechanisms, (b) early glaucoma diagnosis and disease staging, (c) optimization of IOP‐lowering medical treatment, (d) new surgical therapies to control IOP, and (e) novel treatment strategies, such as gene and stem cell therapies, neuroprotection, and neuroregeneration. In order to address these needs, increases in research funding specifically focused on canine glaucoma are necessary.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151896/1/vop12678_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151896/2/vop12678.pd

Translocated LPS Might Cause Endotoxin Tolerance in Circulating Monocytes of Cystic Fibrosis Patients

Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is an inherited pleiotropic disease that results from abnormalities in the gene codes of a chloride channel. The lungs of CF patients are chronically infected by several pathogens but bacteraemia have rarely been reported in this pathology. Besides that, circulating monocytes in CF patients exhibit a patent Endotoxin Tolerance (ET) state since they show a significant reduction of the inflammatory response to bacterial stimulus. Despite a previous description of this phenomenon, the direct cause of ET in CF patients remains unknown. In this study we have researched the possible role of microbial/endotoxin translocation from a localized infection to the bloodstream as a potential cause of ET induction in CF patients. Plasma analysis of fourteen CF patients revealed high levels of LPS compared to healthy volunteers and patients who suffer from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Experiments in vitro showed that endotoxin concentrations found in plasma of CF patients were enough to induce an ET phenotype in monocytes from healthy controls. In agreement with clinical data, we failed to detect bacterial DNA in CF plasma. Our results suggest that soluble endotoxin present in bloodstream of CF patients causes endotoxin tolerance in their circulating monocytes

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11‐item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all‐cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all‐cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta‐analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver‐operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full‐text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta‐analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta‐analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study. The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14‐30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17‐26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta‐analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient‐relevant outcomes

Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89.6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60.6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 0.21, P <0001) or low (363 of 860, 422 per cent; OR 008, 007 to 010, P <0.001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -94 (95 per cent c.i. -11.9 to -6.9) per cent; P <0001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+121 (+7.0 to +173) per cent; P <0001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.60, 0.50 to 073; P <0.001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.Peer reviewe

Global variation in anastomosis and end colostomy formation following left-sided colorectal resection

Background End colostomy rates following colorectal resection vary across institutions in high-income settings, being influenced by patient, disease, surgeon and system factors. This study aimed to assess global variation in end colostomy rates after left-sided colorectal resection. Methods This study comprised an analysis of GlobalSurg-1 and -2 international, prospective, observational cohort studies (2014, 2016), including consecutive adult patients undergoing elective or emergency left-sided colorectal resection within discrete 2-week windows. Countries were grouped into high-, middle- and low-income tertiles according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Factors associated with colostomy formation versus primary anastomosis were explored using a multilevel, multivariable logistic regression model. Results In total, 1635 patients from 242 hospitals in 57 countries undergoing left-sided colorectal resection were included: 113 (6·9 per cent) from low-HDI, 254 (15·5 per cent) from middle-HDI and 1268 (77·6 per cent) from high-HDI countries. There was a higher proportion of patients with perforated disease (57·5, 40·9 and 35·4 per cent; P < 0·001) and subsequent use of end colostomy (52·2, 24·8 and 18·9 per cent; P < 0·001) in low- compared with middle- and high-HDI settings. The association with colostomy use in low-HDI settings persisted (odds ratio (OR) 3·20, 95 per cent c.i. 1·35 to 7·57; P = 0·008) after risk adjustment for malignant disease (OR 2·34, 1·65 to 3·32; P < 0·001), emergency surgery (OR 4·08, 2·73 to 6·10; P < 0·001), time to operation at least 48 h (OR 1·99, 1·28 to 3·09; P = 0·002) and disease perforation (OR 4·00, 2·81 to 5·69; P < 0·001). Conclusion Global differences existed in the proportion of patients receiving end stomas after left-sided colorectal resection based on income, which went beyond case mix alone

Child Health Care in Ireland

The Irish health care system is based on a complex and costly mix of private, statutory, and voluntary provisions. The majority of health care expenditure comes from the state, with a significant proportion of acute hospital care funded from private insurance, but there are relatively high out-of-pocket costs for most service users. There is free access to acute hospital care, but not for primary care, for all children. About 40% of the population have free access to primary care. Universal preventive public health services, including vaccination and immunization, newborn blood spot screening, and universal neonatal hearing screening are free. Major health challenges include poverty, obesity, drug and alcohol use, and mental health. The health care system has been dominated for the last 5 years by the impact of the current recession, which has led to very sharp cuts in health care expenditure. It is unclear if the necessary substantial reform of the system will happen. Government policy calls for a move toward a patient-centered, primary care-led system, but without very substantial transfers of resources and investment in Information and Communication Technology, this is unlikely to occur. The paper has been published as part of an overall report of Child Health in Europe: Diversity of Child Health Care in Europe: A Study of the European Paediatric Association/Union of National European Paediatric Societies and Associations http://www.jpeds.com/issue/S0022-3476(16)X0010-8 . (J Pediatr 2016;177S:S87-106).