Visual acuity standards for driving

This paper reviews the current visual acuity standards for UK drivers. These standards have changed in recent years such that car drivers (Group 1) now have two standards to meet: reading a number plate at 20m, and achieving an acuity of 6/12. In the light of these changes, research investigating the effect of uncorrected refractive error and simulated cataract on the ability to meet the visual standards is reviewed, as is the effect of reduced contrast sensitivity on driving. On the basis of these findings, recommendations are made for optometrists regarding how to assess acuity in drivers, and how to use this information when advising patients on their visual fitness to drive

Advising patients on visual fitness to drive: implications of revised DVLA regulations

Aim: To examine the relationship between the two UK vision standards for driving: the ability to read a number-plate at 20 m and achieving 6/12 (+0.30 logMAR). Methods: 120 participants were assessed without refractive correction in this cross-sectional study. Vision was assessed with a Snellen chart, Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) style logMAR letter chart and logMAR chart using Landolt rings. Ability to read a post-2001 number-plate was assessed outdoors. Results: For all charts, there was an ‘overlap zone’ of visions within which it was uncertain whether participants would pass the number-plate test. Within this zone, sensitivity and specificity of the 6/12 cut-off for predicting number-plate performance were reasonable for Snellen and ETDRS style charts, but poor for Landolt. All participants with 6/7.5 Snellen (+0.10 logMAR ETDRS) or better could read a number-plate. Some participants (2–6%) with vision between this level and 6/12 could not read a number-plate, and 14%–15% could read a number-plate but not achieve 6/12. Conclusions: To best predict drivers’ ability to read a number-plate, vision should be assessed using a logMAR letter chart or a Snellen chart scored by full line. Drivers with 6/7.5 (+0.10 logMAR) or better vision can be advised that they meet the driving standard. Drivers with acuity between 6/9 and 6/12 (+0.12—+0.30 logMAR) should be advised to check their ability to read a number-plate, as some may not be able to. Clinicians will see patients who can read a number-plate, but do not achieve 6/12, who will need improved vision to meet visual requirements for driving

The effect of HIV infection and HCV viremia on Inflammatory Mediators and Hepatic Injury-The Women\u27s Interagency HIV Study.

Hepatitis C virus infection induces inflammation and while it is believed that HIV co-infection enhances this response, HIV control may reduce inflammation and liver fibrosis in resolved or viremic HCV infection. Measurement of systemic biomarkers in co-infection could help define the mechanism of inflammation on fibrosis and determine if HIV control reduces liver pathology. A nested case-control study was performed to explore the relationship of systemic biomarkers of inflammation with liver fibrosis in HCV viremic and/or seropositive women with and without HIV infection. Serum cytokines, chemokines, growth factors and cell adhesion molecules were measured in HIV uninfected (HIV-, n = 18), ART-treated HIV-controlled (ARTc, n = 20), uncontrolled on anti-retroviral therapy (ARTuc, n = 21) and elite HIV controllers (Elite, n = 20). All were HCV seroreactive and had either resolved (HCV RNA-; \u3c50IU/mL) or had chronic HCV infection (HCV RNA+). In HCV and HIV groups, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio (APRI) was measured and compared to serum cytokines, chemokines, growth factors and cell adhesion molecules. APRI correlated with sVCAM, sICAM, IL-10, and IP-10 levels and inversely correlated with EGF, IL-17, TGF-α and MMP-9 levels. Collectively, all HCV RNA+ subjects had higher sVCAM, sICAM and IP-10 compared to HCV RNA-. In the ART-treated HCV RNA+ groups, TNF-α, GRO, IP-10, MCP-1 and MDC were higher than HIV-, Elite or both. In ARTuc, FGF-2, MPO, soluble E-selectin, MMP-9, IL-17, GM-CSF and TGF-α are lower than HIV-, Elite or both. Differential expression of soluble markers may reveal mechanisms of pathogenesis or possibly reduction of fibrosis in HCV/HIV co-infection

Pairwise maximum entropy models for studying large biological systems: when they can and when they can't work

One of the most critical problems we face in the study of biological systems is building accurate statistical descriptions of them. This problem has been particularly challenging because biological systems typically contain large numbers of interacting elements, which precludes the use of standard brute force approaches. Recently, though, several groups have reported that there may be an alternate strategy. The reports show that reliable statistical models can be built without knowledge of all the interactions in a system; instead, pairwise interactions can suffice. These findings, however, are based on the analysis of small subsystems. Here we ask whether the observations will generalize to systems of realistic size, that is, whether pairwise models will provide reliable descriptions of true biological systems. Our results show that, in most cases, they will not. The reason is that there is a crossover in the predictive power of pairwise models: If the size of the subsystem is below the crossover point, then the results have no predictive power for large systems. If the size is above the crossover point, the results do have predictive power. This work thus provides a general framework for determining the extent to which pairwise models can be used to predict the behavior of whole biological systems. Applied to neural data, the size of most systems studied so far is below the crossover point

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570