Search

There is a need to understand existing disparities in glaucoma surgery and to create strategies to eliminate these disparities. Disparities can exist in several aspects of glaucoma surgical management, including patient selection and timing of surgery, type of surgery performed, intra-operative and postoperative surgical complications, follow-up surgical care, and long-term surgical outcomes. Additionally, multiple types of disparities can exist within each of these realms, including disparities by race and ethnicity, age, gender, insurance type, people with disabilities, and other social, economic, and demographic factors. Disparities in glaucoma surgery have been examined in large scale datasets, retrospective clinical studies, and clinical trials, and several studies have identified likely racial and ethnic disparities in glaucoma surgical incidence and outcomes. We present existing literature on disparities in glaucoma surgery, analyze the advantages and limitations of various study designs for the investigation of these disparities, and propose directions for future research and interventions to identify and eliminate disparities in surgical glaucoma care.

BackgroundEndophthalmitis refers to severe infection within the eye that involves the aqueous humor or vitreous humor, or both, and that threatens vision. Most cases of endophthalmitis are exogenous (i.e. due to inoculation of organisms from an outside source), and most exogenous endophthalmitis is acute and occurs after an intraocular procedure. The mainstay of treatment is emergent administration of broad-spectrum intravitreous antibiotics. Due to their anti-inflammatory effects, steroids in conjunction with antibiotics have been proposed as being beneficial in endophthalmitis management.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of antibiotics combined with steroids versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of acute endophthalmitis following intraocular surgery or intravitreous injection.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to August 2021), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database) (1982 to August 2021), the ISRCTN registry; searched August 2021, ClinicalTrials.gov; searched August 2021, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; searched August 2021. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of adjunctive steroids with antibiotics alone in the management of acute, clinically diagnosed endophthalmitis following intraocular surgery or intravitreous injection. We excluded trials with participants with endogenous endophthalmitis unless outcomes were reported by source of infection. We imposed no restrictions on the method or order of administration, dose, frequency, or duration of antibiotics and steroids.Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane methodology, and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for six outcomes using the GRADE classification.Main resultsWe included four RCTs with a total of 264 eyes of 264 participants in this review update. The studies were conducted in South Africa, India, and the Netherlands. All studies used intravitreous dexamethasone for adjunctive steroid therapy and a combination of two intravitreous antibiotics that provided gram-positive and gram-negative coverage for the antibiotic therapy. We judged two trials to be at overall low risk of bias, and the other two studies to be at overall unclear risk of bias due to lack of reporting of study methods. Only one study was registered in a clinical trial register.  While none of the included studies reported the primary outcome of complete resolution of endophthalmitis as defined in our protocol, one study reported combined anatomical and functional success (i.e. proportion of participants with intraocular pressure of at least 5 mmHg and visual acuity of at least 6/120). Very low certainty evidence suggested no difference in combined success when comparing adjunctive steroid to antibiotics alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.45; 32 participants). Low certainty evidence from two studies suggested that adjunctive dexamethasone may result in having a good visual outcome (Snellen visual acuity 6/6 to 6/18) at 3 months compared with antibiotics alone (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.60; 60 participants); however, the evidence was less conclusive at 12 months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.37; 2 studies; 195 participants; low certainty evidence). Investigators of one study reported improvement in visual acuity, but we could not estimate the effect of adjunctive steroid therapy because the study investigators did not provide any estimates of precision. Only one study examined intraocular pressure (IOP). The evidence suggests that adjunctive dexamethasone may reduce IOP slightly after 12 months of interventions (mean difference -1.90, 95% CI -3.78 to 0.07; 1 study; 167 participants; low certainty evidence). Three studies reported adverse events (retinal detachment, hypotony, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, seclusion of pupil, floaters, and pucker). The total numbers of adverse events were 14 out of 111 (12.6%) for those who received dexamethasone versus 12 out of 116 (10.3%) for those who did not. We could only perform a pooled analysis for the occurrence of retinal detachment: any difference between the two treatment groups was uncertain (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.74; 227 participants; low certainty evidence). No study reported cost-related outcomes.Authors' conclusionsThe currently available evidence on the effectiveness of adjunctive steroid therapy versus antibiotics alone in the management of acute endophthalmitis after intraocular surgery is inadequate. We found no studies that had enrolled cases of acute endophthalmitis following intravitreous injection. A combined analysis of two studies suggests that use of adjunctive steroids may provide a higher chance of having a good visual outcome at three months than not using adjunctive steroids. However, considering that most of the confidence intervals crossed the null, and that this review was limited in scope and applicability to clinical practice, it is not possible to conclude whether the use of adjunctive steroids is effective at this time. Any future trials should examine whether adjunctive steroids may be useful in certain clinical settings such as type of causative organism or etiology. These studies should include outcomes that take patients' symptoms and clinical examination into account; report outcomes in a uniform and consistent manner; and follow up at short- and long-term intervals.

BackgroundSyphilis infection has recently resurfaced as a significant public health problem. Although there has been a tremendous amount of research on the epidemiology of syphilis, there has been limited work done to synthesize the extensive body of research and systematically estimate patterns of disease within high-risk groups in the Americas. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to (1) summarize recent patterns of syphilis infection in North and South America among four high-risk groups (MSM, transgender women, sex workers, and incarcerated individuals) from 1980 to 2016, (2) identify and differentiate regional geographic epidemiologic characteristics, and (3) compare the epidemics of the economically developed countries of North America from the developing countries and public health systems of Latin America and the Caribbean.Methods/designPrimary studies reporting syphilis prevalence and/or incidence in at least one of the four high-risk groups will be identified from Medline/PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, SciELO, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL, Clase, and Periódica, as well as "gray" literature sources (conference abstracts, country reports, etc.). Studies published from 1980 through 2016 will be included. Data will be extracted from studies meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria and a random effects meta-analysis of prevalence and incidence estimates will be conducted. Heterogeneity, risk of bias, and publication bias will be assessed. Pooled prevalence and incidence estimates will be calculated for comparisons based on geographic region, risk factors, and time period.DiscussionOur systematic review and meta-analysis aims to contribute to an improved understanding of global epidemiologic patterns of syphilis infection in most-at-risk populations. Through systematic classification of the existing literature, and comparison of disease patterns across regional, temporal and socio-behavioral differences, we hope to improve public health surveillance and improve efforts to control the spread of disease across the Americas.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016047306.