Corticosteroidi per via Intravitreale per il Trattamento Dell'edema Maculare: Revisione e Valutazione Della Qualità Dell'evidenza:

Intravitreal corticosteroids for the treatment of macular edema: review and assessment of quality of the evidenceIntroductionTreatment options for macular edema include intravitreal corticosteroids. Traditionally, an injectable suspension of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) had been employed off-label; in recent years, authorities have approved sustained-release drug delivery systems (DDSs) for corticosteroids. This review aims to compare the quality of the evidence on efficacy and safety of three different formulations of intravitreal corticosteroids: the dexamethasone (DEX) implant, the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, and the preservative-free injectable suspensions of TA, in the management of two retinal pathologies: diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).MethodsA search of clinical trials on MEDLINE from 01/01/2000 to 12/16/2015 was performed. Studies were included in the analysis if they met the following criteria: i) related to at least one of the preparations of interest in patients with DME or macular edema secondary to RVO; ii) included a control group treated with placebo, observation, sham procedures or conventional treatments; and iii) included visual acuity, retinal thickness and/or safety parameters as outcomes. Results were summarized in a narrative manner.ResultsTwenty-five publications from 19 RCTs were included. We observed increased attention of researchers towards TA compared to DEX and FA; however, studies for TA are less robust. Scientific publications related to DEX and FA implants are of higher quality, especially in terms of randomization and masking procedures.DiscussionAlthough trials on TA are numerous, evidence on DEX and FA implants is more robust. Since their introduction, these relatively new DDSs have been included in the main guidelines for the management of macular edema

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. Findings: 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, −3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; −9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. Funding: Grifols

Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study an international prospective cohort study

We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care. We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care