Improving event-based progression analysis in glaucomatous visual fields

Glaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy with characteristic changes to the optic nerve head and the visual field (VF). Detecting progression of VF damage with Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) is of paramount importance for clinical care. One common approach to detecting progression is to compare each new VF test to a baseline SAP test (event analysis). This comparison is made difficult by the test-retest variability of SAP, which increases with the level of VF damage, and the limited range of measurement, meaning that damage cannot be assessed below a certain level. We performed a prospective international multi-centre data collection of SAP data on 90 eyes from 90 people with glaucoma and different levels of VF damage over a short period of time (6 tests in 60 days). Data were collected using a fundus tracked perimeter (Compass, CenterVue). We used these data (minus the first test) to develop an improved event analysis that accounts for both the change in variability with damage and the lower bound on the measurement imposed by SAP. Using simulations, we show that our approach is more sensitive compared to previously developed methods, especially in the case of advanced glaucoma, while retaining similar specificity

Phase II Randomized, Double-Masked, Vehicle-Controlled Trial of Recombinant Human Nerve Growth Factor for Neurotrophic Keratitis

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical recombinant human nerve growth factor (rhNGF) for treating moderate-to-severe neurotrophic keratitis (NK), a rare degenerative corneal disease resulting from impaired corneal innervation. Design: Phase II multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled trial. Participants: Patients with stage 2 (moderate) or stage 3 (severe) NK in 1 eye. Methods: The REPARO phase II study assessed safety and efficacy in 156 patients randomized 1:1:1 to rhNGF 10 \u3bcg/ml, 20 \u3bcg/ml, or vehicle. Treatment was administered 6 drops per day for 8 weeks. Patients then entered a 48- or 56-week follow-up period. Safety was assessed in all patients who received study treatment, whereas efficacy was by intention to treat. Main Outcome Measures: Corneal healing (defined as <0.5-mm maximum diameter of fluorescein staining in the lesion area) was assessed by masked central readers at week 4 (primary efficacy end point) and week 8 (key secondary end point) of controlled treatment. Corneal healing was reassessed post hoc by masked central readers using a more conservative measure (0-mm staining in the lesion area and no other persistent staining). Results: At week 4 (primary end point), 19.6% of vehicle-treated patients achieved corneal healing (<0.5-mm lesion staining) versus 54.9% receiving rhNGF 10 \u3bcg/ml (+35.3%; 97.06% confidence interval [CI], 15.88\u201354.71; P < 0.001) and 58.0% receiving rhNGF 20 \u3bcg/ml (+38.4%; 97.06% CI, 18.96\u201357.83; P < 0.001). At week 8 (key secondary end point), 43.1% of vehicle-treated patients achieved less than 0.5-mm lesion staining versus 74.5% receiving rhNGF 10 \u3bcg/ml (+31.4%; 97.06% CI, 11.25\u201351.49; P = 0.001) and 74.0% receiving rhNGF 20 \u3bcg/ml (+30.9%; 97.06% CI, 10.60\u201351.13; P = 0.002). Post hoc analysis of corneal healing by the more conservative measure (0-mm lesion staining and no other persistent staining) maintained statistically significant differences between rhNGF and vehicle at weeks 4 and 8. More than 96% of patients who healed after controlled rhNGF treatment remained recurrence free during follow-up. Treatment with rhNGF was well tolerated; adverse effects were mostly local, mild, and transient. Conclusions: Topical rhNGF is safe and more effective than vehicle in promoting healing of moderate-to-severe NK

Implications of early respiratory support strategies on disease progression in critical COVID-19: a matched subanalysis of the prospective RISC-19-ICU cohort.

Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is widespread. While the risks and benefits of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefits of different respiratory support strategies, employed in intensive care units during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclassified into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV), and early IMV, according to the respiratory support strategy employed at the day of admission to ICU. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure comparability between groups. Initially, 1421 patients were assessed for possible study inclusion. Of these, 351 patients (85 SOT, 87 HFNC, 87 NIV, and 92 IMV) remained eligible for full analysis after propensity score matching. 55% of patients initially receiving noninvasive respiratory support required IMV. The intubation rate was lower in patients initially ventilated with HFNC and NIV compared to those who received SOT (SOT: 64%, HFNC: 52%, NIV: 49%, p = 0.025). Compared to the other respiratory support strategies, NIV was associated with a higher overall ICU mortality (SOT: 18%, HFNC: 20%, NIV: 37%, IMV: 25%, p = 0.016). In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, a trial of HFNC appeared to be the most balanced initial respiratory support strategy, given the reduced intubation rate and comparable ICU mortality rate. Nonetheless, considering the uncertainty and stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, SOT and early IMV represented safe initial respiratory support strategies. The presented findings, in agreement with classic ARDS literature, suggest that NIV should be avoided whenever possible due to the elevated ICU mortality risk