Three-Year, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, DEX implant) 0.7 and 0.35 mg in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).Design: Two randomized, multicenter, masked, sham-controlled, phase III clinical trials with identical protocols were conducted. Data were pooled for analysis.Participants: Patients (n = 1048) with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/50 to 20/200 Snellen equivalent, and central retinal thickness (CRT) of >= 300 mu m by optical coherence tomography.Methods: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, or sham procedure and followed for 3 years (or 39 months for patients treated at month 36) at = 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end. Safety measures included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP).Results: Mean number of treatments received over 3 years was 4.1, 4.4, and 3.3 with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham, respectively. the percentage of patients with >= 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (22.2%) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (18.4%) than sham (12.0%; P <= 0.018). Mean average reduction in CRT from baseline was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (-111.6 mu m) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (-107.9 mu m) than sham (-41.9 mu m; P < 0.001). Rates of cataract-related adverse events in phakic eyes were 67.9%, 64.1%, and 20.4% in the DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham groups, respectively. Increases in IOP were usually controlled with medication or no therapy; only 2 patients (0.6%) in the DEX implant 0.7 mg group and 1 (0.3%) in the DEX implant 0.35 mg group required trabeculectomy.Conclusions: the DEX implant 0.7 mg and 0.35 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint for improvement in BCVA. the safety profile was acceptable and consistent with previous reports. (C) 2014 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.Allergan, Inc.Retina Vitreous Associates Med Grp, Los Angeles, CA 90017 USAUniv Ulsan, Asan Med Ctr, Seoul, South KoreaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Vis Inst, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Vita Salute, Hosp San Raffaele, Milan, ItalyMidwest Eye Inst, Indianapolis, in USAStaedt Klinikum Karlsruhe, Dept Ophthalmol, Karlsruhe, GermanyAllergan Pharmaceut Inc, Irvine, CA USAUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Vis Inst, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Antimicrobial resistance among migrants in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are rising globally and there is concern that increased migration is contributing to the burden of antibiotic resistance in Europe. However, the effect of migration on the burden of AMR in Europe has not yet been comprehensively examined. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data for AMR carriage or infection in migrants to Europe to examine differences in patterns of AMR across migrant groups and in different settings. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus with no language restrictions from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 18, 2017, for primary data from observational studies reporting antibacterial resistance in common bacterial pathogens among migrants to 21 European Union-15 and European Economic Area countries. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report data on carriage or infection with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant organisms in migrant populations. We extracted data from eligible studies and assessed quality using piloted, standardised forms. We did not examine drug resistance in tuberculosis and excluded articles solely reporting on this parameter. We also excluded articles in which migrant status was determined by ethnicity, country of birth of participants' parents, or was not defined, and articles in which data were not disaggregated by migrant status. Outcomes were carriage of or infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms. We used random-effects models to calculate the pooled prevalence of each outcome. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043681. FINDINGS: We identified 2274 articles, of which 23 observational studies reporting on antibiotic resistance in 2319 migrants were included. The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or AMR infection in migrants was 25·4% (95% CI 19·1-31·8; I2 =98%), including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (7·8%, 4·8-10·7; I2 =92%) and antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (27·2%, 17·6-36·8; I2 =94%). The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or infection was higher in refugees and asylum seekers (33·0%, 18·3-47·6; I2 =98%) than in other migrant groups (6·6%, 1·8-11·3; I2 =92%). The pooled prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms was slightly higher in high-migrant community settings (33·1%, 11·1-55·1; I2 =96%) than in migrants in hospitals (24·3%, 16·1-32·6; I2 =98%). We did not find evidence of high rates of transmission of AMR from migrant to host populations. INTERPRETATION: Migrants are exposed to conditions favouring the emergence of drug resistance during transit and in host countries in Europe. Increased antibiotic resistance among refugees and asylum seekers and in high-migrant community settings (such as refugee camps and detention facilities) highlights the need for improved living conditions, access to health care, and initiatives to facilitate detection of and appropriate high-quality treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections during transit and in host countries. Protocols for the prevention and control of infection and for antibiotic surveillance need to be integrated in all aspects of health care, which should be accessible for all migrant groups, and should target determinants of AMR before, during, and after migration. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, the Wellcome Trust, and UK National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimictobial Resistance at Imperial College London

Surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common infections associated with health care, but its importance as a global health priority is not fully understood. We quantified the burden of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in countries in all parts of the world. Methods: This international, prospective, multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection within 2-week time periods at any health-care facility in any country. Countries with participating centres were stratified into high-income, middle-income, and low-income groups according to the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). Data variables from the GlobalSurg 1 study and other studies that have been found to affect the likelihood of SSI were entered into risk adjustment models. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day SSI incidence (defined by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for superficial and deep incisional SSI). Relationships with explanatory variables were examined using Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02662231. Findings: Between Jan 4, 2016, and July 31, 2016, 13 265 records were submitted for analysis. 12 539 patients from 343 hospitals in 66 countries were included. 7339 (58·5%) patient were from high-HDI countries (193 hospitals in 30 countries), 3918 (31·2%) patients were from middle-HDI countries (82 hospitals in 18 countries), and 1282 (10·2%) patients were from low-HDI countries (68 hospitals in 18 countries). In total, 1538 (12·3%) patients had SSI within 30 days of surgery. The incidence of SSI varied between countries with high (691 [9·4%] of 7339 patients), middle (549 [14·0%] of 3918 patients), and low (298 [23·2%] of 1282) HDI (p < 0·001). The highest SSI incidence in each HDI group was after dirty surgery (102 [17·8%] of 574 patients in high-HDI countries; 74 [31·4%] of 236 patients in middle-HDI countries; 72 [39·8%] of 181 patients in low-HDI countries). Following risk factor adjustment, patients in low-HDI countries were at greatest risk of SSI (adjusted odds ratio 1·60, 95% credible interval 1·05–2·37; p=0·030). 132 (21·6%) of 610 patients with an SSI and a microbiology culture result had an infection that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic used. Resistant infections were detected in 49 (16·6%) of 295 patients in high-HDI countries, in 37 (19·8%) of 187 patients in middle-HDI countries, and in 46 (35·9%) of 128 patients in low-HDI countries (p < 0·001). Interpretation: Countries with a low HDI carry a disproportionately greater burden of SSI than countries with a middle or high HDI and might have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. In view of WHO recommendations on SSI prevention that highlight the absence of high-quality interventional research, urgent, pragmatic, randomised trials based in LMICs are needed to assess measures aiming to reduce this preventable complication

Outcomes following three-line vision loss during treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration : subgroup analyses from MARINA and ANCHOR

This study aims to assess the impact of continued ranibizumab treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration on patients from the MARINA and ANCHOR randomised clinical studies who lost ? 3 lines of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at any time during the first year of treatment

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

BackgroundDexamethasone 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.MethodsThree-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) ≥ 300 μm 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 ≥ 15-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.ResultsBaseline 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 ≥ 15-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 μm with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 μm with sham (P &lt;  .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.ConclusionsDEX 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389, registered 12 September 2005

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

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.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) ≥ 300 μm 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 ≥ 15-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.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 ≥ 15-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 μm with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 μm with sham (P &lt;  .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.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.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389, registered 12 September 2005

Natural history of diabetic macular edema and factors predicting outcomes in sham-treated patients (MEAD study)

The MEAD study trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifiers NCT00168337 and NCT00168389. The online version of this article ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04464-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.Purpose: To describe the natural history of diabetic macular edema (DME) with respect to best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) outcomes and to identify baseline patient characteristics and systemic factors associated with improvement or worsening of outcomes in sham-treated patients. Methods: The study population was sham-treated patients (n = 350) in the 3-year MEAD registration study of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of DME. Patients had center-involved DME and received sham intravitreal injections in the study eye at >= 6-month intervals. Potential prognostic factors for outcomes were evaluated using multiple linear regression analysis. Results: Visual and anatomic outcomes were poorer in patients who left the study early (n = 198) than in study completers (n = 152). Mean change in BCVA from baseline at the last visit with available data was + 0.9 letters; 37.5% of patients had no change in BCVA, 23.2% had gained > 10 letters, and 16.0% had lost > 10 letters. Older age and baseline diabetic retinopathy score > 6 were associated with worse BCVA outcomes; thicker baseline CRT and larger number of hypertension medications used were associated with larger reductions in CRT during the study. Conclusions: BCVA and CRT outcomes were variable in this population of DME patients with generally good glycemic control. In DME patients without active treatment, older age and baseline diabetic retinopathy score > 6 were associated with less improvement in BCVA; thicker baseline CRT and a larger number of antihypertensive medications used predicted better improvement in CRT