To review all phakic intraocular lenses (pIOLs) available in the United States for the correction of myopia or myopic astigmatism and offer a clinical approach to their proper use, postoperative follow-up, and analysis of visual and adverse outcomes.
In March 2022, the FDA approved the EVO/EVO+ Visian ICL for widespread use, adding this lens to the two others available (Verisyse, Visian ICL). Cataract formation, endothelial cell loss (ECL) and surgical reintervention remain the most common adverse events. There are discrepancies between studies on ECL following implantation with pIOLs, although trends can be deduced with meta-analysis. Posterior Chamber-pIOLs (PC-pIOLs), especially the EVO/EVO+, have an overall lower mean adverse effect and subjective patient symptom profile when compared to Iris Fixated-pIOLS (IF-pIOLs). Advancements in PC-pIOL sizing have provided a noticeable difference in visual and safety outcomes.
All pIOLs available in the United States provide high-quality visual correction of moderate to high myopia and/or myopia with astigmatism. Proper follow-up for ECL and cataract formation is warranted.

Phakic intraocular lenses: an update and review for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism in the United States.

Urinary kidney injury molecule 1 (uKIM-1) is a proximal tubular injury biomarker for predicting acute kidney injury (AKI); its prognostic value varies depending on the clinical and population characteristics. However, the predictive value of uKIM-1 for diagnosis of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) remains unclear.
Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to identify relevant studies from their inception to November 31, 2019. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Relevant data were extracted to obtain pooled sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPE), summary receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), and area under the ROC (AUC or AUROC). A bivariate mixed-effects regression model was used for data analysis.
A total of 946 patients from 8 eligible studies were included. Across all the studies, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for uKIM-1 level to predict CI-AKI was 19 (95% CI 10-39), with SEN and SPE of 0.84 and 0.78, respectively. The AUROC for uKIM-1 in predicting CI-AKI was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.90). There was a substantial heterogeneity across the studies (
Urinary KIM-1 has a high predictive value for diagnosis of CI-AKI in patients who have undergone cardiac catheterization.

The Predictive Value of Urinary Kidney Injury Molecular 1 for the Diagnosis of Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury after Cardiac Catheterization: A Meta-Analysis.

Cardiometabolic parameters are established risk factors for COVID-19 severity. The identification of causal or protective biomarkers for COVID-19 severity may facilitate the development of novel therapies.
To identify protein biomarkers that promote or reduce COVID-19 severity and that mediate the association of cardiometabolic risk factors with COVID-19 severity.
This genetic association study using 2-sample mendelian randomization (MR) was conducted in 2022 to investigate associations among cardiometabolic risk factors, circulating biomarkers, and COVID-19 hospitalization. Inputs for MR included genetic and proteomic data from 4147 participants with dysglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors collected through the Outcome Reduction With Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial. Genome-wide association study summary statistics were obtained from (1) 3 additional independent plasma proteome studies, (2) genetic consortia for selected cardiometabolic risk factors (including body mass index [BMI], type 2 diabetes, type 1 diabetes, and systolic blood pressure; all n >10 000), and (3) the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (n = 5773 hospitalized and 15 497 nonhospitalized case participants with COVID-19). Data analysis was performed in July 2022.
Genetically determined concentrations of 235 circulating proteins assayed with a multiplex biomarker panel from the ORIGIN trial for the initial analysis.
Hospitalization status of individuals from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative with a positive COVID-19 test result.
Among 235 biomarkers tested in samples totaling 22 101 individuals, MR analysis showed that higher kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) levels reduced the likelihood of COVID-19 hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] per SD increase in KIM-1 levels, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.93]). A meta-analysis validated the protective association with no observed directional pleiotropy (OR per SD increase in KIM-1 levels, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.88-0.95]). Of the cardiometabolic risk factors studied, only BMI was associated with KIM-1 levels (0.17 SD increase in biomarker level per 1 kg/m2 [95% CI, 0.08-0.26]) and COVID-19 hospitalization (OR per 1-SD biomarker level, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.18-1.50]). Multivariable MR analysis also revealed that KIM-1 partially mitigated the association of BMI with COVID-19 hospitalization, reducing it by 10 percentage points (OR adjusted for KIM-1 level per 1 kg/m2, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.06-1.43]).
In this genetic association study, KIM-1 was identified as a potential mitigator of COVID-19 severity, possibly attenuating the increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalization among individuals with high BMI. Further studies are required to better understand the underlying biological mechanisms.

Biomarkers Associated With Severe COVID-19 Among Populations With High Cardiometabolic Risk: A 2-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.

With the development of new techniques, blood and other humoral biomarkers have become increasingly important in the diagnosis of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (AKI). We aimed to review and summarize the biomarkers associated with the diagnosis of sepsis-associated AKI.
We performed a systematic review in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane and CNKI literature databases. Chinese and English articles published before January 30, 2021. We extracted information on the sensitivity and specificity of biomarkers to diagnose sepsis-associated AKI, the sample size of individuals with sepsis-associated AKI, the demographic variables, the diagnostic criteria and the sample acquisition protocol. Revman 5.3 software was used to analyze data. The sources of heterogeneity of included studies main were different diagnostic criteria for sepsis and AKI, time of sample collection and Patients came from different departments. We defined the inclusion of related studies by using PICOs (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) criteria, in particular the design of studies to be included. P: Patients of sepsis. I: Patients of sepsis-associated AKI. C: Patients without sepsis-associated AKI. O: Diagnosis of sepsis associated kidney injury.
A total of 1,227 articles, including 42 studies, were identified. Increases in urine and serum neutrophil gelatinase-related lipid carrier protein (NGAL), urinary interleukin-18, urinary Kim-1, urinary Netrin-1, urinary sCD163, serum estradiol levels, and serum soluble thrombolytic regulatory protein were most strongly correlated with the diagnosis of sepsis-associated AKI. The SROC of urinary KIM-1 ranked first, followed by the other biomarkers: urinary KIM-1 > urinary NGAL > blood NGAL > urinary IL-18. According to the sample size, the SROC values of urinary NGAL, blood NGAL, urinary IL-18 and urinary KIM-1 were 0.907, 0.857, 0.861 and 0.931, respectively. The sequence was still urinary KIM-1 > urinary NGAL > blood NGAL > urinary IL-18.
According to the SROC curve area, the diagnostic sequence of sepsis-associated AKI biomarkers was urinary Kim-1 > urinary NGAL > blood NGAL > urinary IL-18. This meta-analysis provided diagnostic features of blood and urine biomarkers based on their association with the diagnosis of sepsis-associated AKI.

Biomarkers for the diagnosis of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.
To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence.
We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone.
For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.
El glioblastoma (GBM) es un tumor cerebral altamente maligno que casi inevitablemente progresa o recidiva después de un tratamiento de primera línea. No hay consenso sobre el mejor o los mejores tratamientos que se pueden ofrecer a las personas que presentan progresión o recidiva de la enfermedad. A los efectos de la presente revisión, la progresión y la recidiva se consideran como una sola entidad.
Evaluar la efectividad de los tratamientos adicionales para la primera y subsiguiente progresión o recidiva del glioblastoma (GBM) entre las personas que han recibido atención estándar (protocolo Stupp) para el tratamiento primario de la enfermedad, así como preparar un breve comentario económico sobre la evidencia disponible. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos electrónicas de MEDLINE y Embase desde 2005 hasta diciembre de 2019 y en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (CENTRAL, en la Cochrane Library; Número 12, 2019). Las búsquedas económicas incluyeron la National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) hasta 2015 (cierre de la base de datos) y MEDLINE y Embase desde 2015 hasta diciembre de 2019. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y estudios comparativos no aleatorizados (no ECA) que evaluaron la efectividad de los tratamientos para el GBM progresivo/recidivante. Los estudios elegibles incluyeron personas con GBM progresivo o recidivante que habían recibido radioterapia de primera línea con temozolomida (TMZ) concomitante y adyuvante. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión de forma independiente seleccionaron los estudios y extrajeron los datos en un formulario de extracción de datos prediseñado. Se realizaron metanálisis en red (MAR) y los tratamientos se clasificaron según la efectividad de cada desenlace, mediante el modelo de efectos aleatorios y el software Stata (versión 15). La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante los criterios GRADE.
Se incluyeron 42 estudios, que comprendieron 34 ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y ocho estudios no aleatorizados (no ECA), con 5236 participantes. Se consideró que la mayoría de los ECA tuvieron bajo riesgo de sesgo y que los no ECA tuvieron alto riesgo de sesgo. Las intervenciones incluyeron quimioterapia, reoperación, reirradiación y tratamientos nuevos, ya sea utilizadas solos o en combinación. Para la primera recidiva se incluyeron 11 intervenciones en el metanálisis en red (MAR) para la supervivencia general (SG), y ocho para la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP). La lomustina (LOM; también conocida como CCNU) fue el comparador más frecuente y se utilizó como tratamiento de referencia. Ningún estudio en el MAR evaluó la cirugía, la reirradiación, la PCV (procarbazina, lomustina, vincristina), la reexposición a TMZ o el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. No fue posible realizar un MAR para una segunda o posterior recidiva debido a que los datos no fueron suficientes. Los datos de calidad de vida fueron escasos. Primera recidiva (hallazgos del MAR) La mediana de la SG en los estudios incluidos en el MAR varió entre 5,5 y 12,6 meses y la mediana de la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP) varió entre 1,5 y 4,2 meses. No se encontró evidencia de certeza alta de que los tratamientos probados fueran mejores que la lomustina. Estos tratamientos incluyeron los siguientes. Bevacizumab más lomustina: La evidencia indicó probablemente poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG entre el bevacizumab (BEV) combinado con lomustina (LOM) y la monoterapia con LOM (cociente de riesgos instantáneo [CRI] 0,91; 0,75 a 1,10; evidencia de certeza moderada), aunque BEV + LOM puede mejorar la SSP (CRI 0,57; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,44 a 0,74; evidencia de certeza baja). Monoterapia con bevacizumab: La evidencia de certeza baja indicó que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 1,22; IC del 95%: 0,84 a 1,76) y la SSP (CRI 0,90; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 1,38; evidencia de certeza baja) entre las monoterapias con BEV y LOM; se necesita más evidencia sobre el BEV. Regorafenib (REG): El REG puede mejorar la SG en comparación con la LOM (CRI 0,50; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,76; evidencia de certeza baja). La evidencia sobre la SSP fue de certeza muy baja y se necesita más evidencia sobre el REG. Temozolomida (TMZ) más Depatux‐M (ABT414): En cuanto a la SG, evidencia de certeza baja indicó que TMZ más ABT414 puede ser más efectiva que LOM (CRI 0,66; IC del 95%: 0,47 a 0,92) y puede ser más efectiva que BEV (CRI 0,54; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,89; evidencia de certeza baja). Lo anterior se puede deber solamente al componente de TMZ, y se necesita más evidencia. Fotemustina (FOM): FOM y LOM pueden tener efectos similares sobre la SG (CRI 0,89; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 1,57, evidencia de certeza baja). Bevacizumab e irinotecan (IRI): La evidencia sobre BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM para la SG y la SSP no está clara y probablemente hay poca o ninguna diferencia entre BEV + IRI versus la monoterapia con BEV (SG: CRI 0,95; IC del 95%: 0,70 a 1,30; evidencia de certeza moderada). Cuando los tratamientos se clasificaron según la SG, FOM se clasificó primero, BEV + LOM segundo, LOM tercero, BEV + IRI cuarto, y BEV quinto. La clasificación no tiene en cuenta la certeza de la evidencia, lo que también indica que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia entre FOM y LOM. Otros tratamientos Tres estudios evaluaron la reoperación versus ninguna reoperación, con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia, e indicaron posibles ventajas en la supervivencia con la reoperación, en el contexto de poder seleccionar candidatos adecuados para esta intervención. Un tratamiento con cannabinoides en las primeras etapas de evaluación, en combinación con TMZ, merece evaluación adicional. Segunda o posterior recidiva La evidencia limitada de tres estudios heterogéneos indicó que la radioterapia con o sin BEV puede tener un efecto beneficioso sobre la supervivencia, pero se necesita más evidencia. La evidencia no fue suficiente para establecer conclusiones sobre la mejor dosis de radioterapia. Otra evidencia indicó que puede haber poca diferencia en la supervivencia con los campos de tratamiento del tumor en comparación con la mejor opción de tratamiento del médico. No se encontró evidencia fiable sobre el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. Eventos adversos graves (EAG) La combinación BEV + LOM se asoció con un riesgo significativamente mayor de EAG que la monoterapia con LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,72 a 3,66; evidencia de certeza alta), y se clasificó peor junto con cediranib + LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,29 a 4,90; evidencia de certeza alta). LOM se clasificó como el mejor y REG como el segundo mejor. Agregar nuevos tratamientos al BEV se asoció generalmente con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves, en comparación con BEV solo.
Para el tratamiento de la primera recidiva del GBM en personas tratadas previamente con cirugía y quimiorradioterapia estándar, los tratamientos combinados evaluados no mejoraron la supervivencia general en comparación con la monoterapia con LOM, y a menudo se asociaron con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves. Hay evidencia limitada que indica que la reoperación con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia puede ser adecuada para candidatos seleccionados. La evidencia sobre la segunda recidiva es escasa. La reirradiación con o sin bevacizumab puede ser de valor en determinados individuos, pero se necesita más evidencia.

Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.

Anterior segment dysgenesis (ASD) encompasses a wide spectrum of developmental abnormalities of the anterior ocular segment, including congenital cataract, iris hypoplasia, aniridia, iridocorneal synechiae, as well as Peters, Axenfeld, and Rieger anomalies. Here, we report a large five-generation Caucasian family exhibiting atypical syndromic ASD segregating with a novel truncating variant of 

Variable Anterior Segment Dysgenesis and Cardiac Anomalies Caused by a Novel Truncating Variant of FOXC1.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against pregnant women is a recognized global public health problem affecting all spheres of women and unborn infants. In Ethiopia, although inconsistent, individual studies avail; there is a dearth of systematic reviews and meta-analysis about the prevalence and associated factors of intimate partner violence. Thus, the present study was aimed at determining the pooled prevalence of IPV and its determinant factors during pregnancy.
The report of meta-analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 20 guideline (PRISMA 20). Databases including PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS, HINARI (research4life), AJOL, IRIS, and AIM were searched. Heterogeneity test was assessed by the Cochrane chi-square (
A total of 26 studies, including data from 13, 912 participants, were included in the analysis. The prevalence of IPV ranged from 7% to 81% with overall estimated pooled prevalence of 37% (30% -44%, 
More than one-third of pregnant women experienced IPV. The most prevalent form of IPV was psychological violence followed by physical and sexual violence. The identified risk for IPV including victim, pregnancy, and perpetrator-related factors indicated the need of a holistic approach in the promotion, prevention, and treatment of IPV. The finding of this study suggests the need of strengthening women empowerments (capacity building) against traditional beliefs, attitudes, and practices. This study also suggests the need of evaluation and strengthening the collaborative work among different sectors such as policy-makers, service providers, administrative personnel, and community leaders, including the engagement of men partners.

Papers