Schoemaker D, Zuluaga Y, Viswanathan A, Shrimer M, Torrico-Teave H, Velilla L, Ospina C, Ospina GG, Lopera F, Arboleda-Velasquez JF, Quiroz YT.
The INECO Frontal Screening for the Evaluation of Executive Dysfunction in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease: Evidence from Quantitative MRI in a CADASIL Cohort from Colombia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2020;26(10):1006-1018.
AbstractOBJECTIVES: Executive dysfunction is a predominant cognitive symptom in cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). The Institute of Cognitive Neurology Frontal Screening (IFS) is a well-validated screening tool allowing the rapid assessment of multiple components of executive function in Spanish-speaking individuals. In this study, we examined performance on the IFS in subjects with cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), an inherited condition leading to the early onset of SVD. We further explored associations between performance on the IFS and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers of SVD. METHODS: We recruited 24 asymptomatic CADASIL subjects and 23 noncarriers from Colombia. All subjects underwent a research MRI and a neuropsychological evaluation, including the IFS. Structural MRI markers of SVD were quantified in each subject, together with an SVD Sum Score representing the overall burden of cerebrovascular alterations. General linear model, correlation, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to explore group differences on the IFS and relationships with MRI markers of SVD. RESULTS: CADASIL subjects had a significantly reduced performance on the IFS Total Score. Performance on the IFS correlated with all quantified markers of SVD, except for brain atrophy and perivascular spaces enlargement. Finally, while the IFS Total Score was not able to accurately discriminate between carriers and noncarriers, it showed adequate sensitivity and specificity in detecting the presence of multiple MRI markers of SVD. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the IFS may be a useful screening tool to assess executive function and disease severity in the context of SVD.
Singh RB, Sinha S, Saini C, Elbasiony E, Thakur S, Agarwal A.
Recent advances in the management of non-infectious posterior uveitis. Int Ophthalmol 2020;40(11):3187-3207.
AbstractPURPOSE: To review the current regimens and novel therapeutic modalities in various stages of research and development for the management of non-infectious posterior uveitis (NIPU). METHODS: We performed a thorough review of current literature using PubMed, Google Scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify the published literature about the available therapeutics and novel drugs/therapies in different stages of clinical trials. RESULTS: The current management regimen for non-infectious posterior uveitis includes corticosteroids, immunomodulatory therapies and anti-metabolites. However, NIPU requires long-term management for efficacious remission of the disease and to prevent disease relapse. Long-term safety issues associated with steroids have led to efforts to develop novel therapeutic agents including biological response modulators and immunosuppressants. The current therapeutic agents in various stages of development include calcineurin inhibitors, biologic response modifiers and a more a comprehensive modalities like ocular gene therapy as well as novel drug delivery mechanisms for higher bioavailability to the target tissues, with minimal systemic effects. CONCLUSION: Novel efficacious therapeutic modalities under development will help overcome the challenges associated with the traditional therapeutic agents.
Sobrin L, Yu Y, Susarla G, Chan W, Xia T, Kempen JH, Hubbard RA, VanderBeek BL.
Risk of Noninfectious Uveitis with Female Hormonal Therapy in a Large Healthcare Claims Database. Ophthalmology 2020;127(11):1558-1566.
AbstractPURPOSE: To determine if female hormonal therapy (FHT) increases the incidence of noninfectious uveitis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Women exposed to FHT and matched women unexposed to FHT enrolled in a national insurance plan. METHODS: Estimation of noninfectious uveitis incidence used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. To account for differences between the exposed and unexposed cohorts, a propensity score for being prescribed FHT was created using logistic regression, and inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of noninfectious uveitis. For the primary outcome, incident noninfectious uveitis was defined as a new diagnosis code for noninfectious uveitis followed by a second instance of a noninfectious uveitis code within 120 days. For the alternative outcome definition, a corticosteroid prescription or code for an ocular corticosteroid injection within 120 days of the uveitis diagnosis code was used instead of the second uveitis diagnosis code. RESULTS: There were 217 653 women exposed to FHT and 928 408 women not unexposed to FHT. For the primary outcome, the hazard ratio (HR) for incident noninfectious uveitis was not significantly different between the FHT and unexposed cohorts (HR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.17; P = 0.87). With the alternative outcome definition, the FHT cohort was more likely to develop uveitis (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.41; P = 0.01). When examined by anatomic subtype, for anterior uveitis there was a greater likelihood of incident uveitis in the exposed cohort (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45; P = 0.01) for the alternative outcome definition but not for the primary outcome. With age stratification, women exposed to FHT aged ≥45 years at the time of FHT prescription were more likely to develop uveitis (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47; P = 0.03) for the alternative outcome definition. A similar HR (1.22) was seen for women aged ≤44 years at the time of prescription, but this association did not meet statistical significance (P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to FHT increases the rate of incident noninfectious uveitis when uveitis is defined on the basis of both diagnostic codes and documentation of corticosteroid treatment. However, the risk is modest and FHT is likely safe with regard to noninfectious uveitis risk in the majority of patients exposed to these drugs.
Sohn EH, Mullins RF, Eliott D.
Reply. Retina 2020;40(11):e68-e69.