Search

Cat-scratch disease (CSD) is a self-limited disease caused by Bartonella henselae, a fastidious gram-negative intracellular bacillus bacterium. Neuroretinitis, a form of optic neuropathy characterised clinically by optic disc swelling and a macular star, is an uncommon manifestation of CSD occurring in approximately 1–2% of cases. We report a case of a 14-year-old female who presented to the emergency department with a chief complaint of acute painless vision loss described as a large black spot in the centre of her right eye vision 2 weeks after being scratched by cats. Fundus examination revealed Frisen grade 5 disc oedema with an atypically diffuse disc and peripapillary haemorrhages with associated subretinal fluid and a macular star in the right eye. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the macula and retinal nerve fibre layer showed subretinal fluid involving the fovea, a serous retinal detachment of the nasal macula, and significant optic disc oedema in the right eye. The patient was admitted and treated with doxycycline, rifampin, and prednisone taper. After completing the treatment course, the patient's vision improved, fundus examination showed significantly improved disc oedema and haemorrhages, and OCT demonstrated resolution of the subretinal fluid in the right eye. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document provides an update on the management of Central Serous Chorioretinopathy (CSCR), a retinal disease characterized by fluid accumulation in the macula. The article discusses various treatment options, including photodynamic therapy (PDT) and laser therapy, with varying degrees of success. Other treatments such as mineralocorticoid antagonists and intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs have been explored but have limited evidence. The document also mentions potential treatments such as oral medications and topical therapies, but emphasizes the need for further research and individualized treatment recommendations. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses therapies for geographic atrophy (GA), an advanced form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) that causes progressive and irreversible blindness. The prevalence of AMD is increasing globally, with approximately 196 million people affected in 2020. Diagnosis is made through fundus examination and imaging techniques like fundus photography, fundus autofluorescence (FAF), and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Currently, there is no clear standard of care treatment for GA, and ophthalmologists rely on vitamins and visual rehabilitation to manage the condition. Several clinical trials investigating potential therapies have shown mixed results. One therapy, pegcetacoplan, has shown promising results in reducing GA growth rate in phase 2 and 3 trials. Another therapy, avacincaptad pegol, has also demonstrated significant reductions in GA growth rate. However, both therapies have been associated with an increased risk of developing choroidal neovascularization (CNV). Other investigational agents targeting oxidative stress, inflammation, and the complement pathway are also being studied. The most promising treatment option for GA is complement inhibition, which has shown to slow down the progression of the disease. Other therapies being pursued include gene therapy, regenerative and cell therapies. However, currently available treatments are unable to restore visual function and carry the risk of adverse events. Continued research and development of new drugs may lead to more effective treatments in the future. The document provides a list of references related to therapies for GA secondary [Extracted from the article]

The authors of this response article address concerns raised by Nichol et al. regarding their recent publication on the effectiveness of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) compared to vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for generalized epilepsy. Nichol et al. argue that statistical assumptions made in the analysis biased the results against VNS. The authors defend their analysis, explaining their rationale for using mean and median measures and addressing concerns about the wide standard deviations and potential skewness of one study. They also perform a sensitivity analysis that confirms the robustness of their conclusions. The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study and emphasize the importance of considering these limitations when interpreting the results. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: To determine the association between gene-expression profiling (GEP), next-generation sequencing (NGS), preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) features, and metastatic risk in patients with uveal melanoma (UM)., Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients with UM treated by brachytherapy or enucleation by a single ocular oncologist was conducted from November 2020 and July 2022. Clinicopathologic features, patient outcomes, GEP classification, NGS, and PRAME results were recorded., Results: Comprehensive GEP, PRAME, and NGS testing was performed on 135 UMs. The presence of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A, X-chromosomal and splicing factor 3B subunit 1 mutations was significantly associated with GEP class 1A and GEP class 1B, respectively. The presence of BRCA- associated protein-1 mutation was significantly associated with GEP class 2. The average largest basal diameter for tumors with eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A, X-chromosomal mutations was significantly smaller than those with splicing factor 3B subunit 1 mutations and BRCA1-associated protein-1 mutations. Class 2 tumors metastasized sooner than GEP class 1 tumors. Tumors with splicing factor 3B subunit 1 and/or BRCA1-associated protein-1 mutations metastasized sooner compared with tumors that had either no driver mutation or no mutations at all. Tumors with splicing factor 3B subunit 1 did not have a significantly different time to metastasis compared with tumors with BRCA1-associated protein-1 (P value = 0.97). Forty tumors (30%) were PRAME positive, and the remaining 95 tumors (70%) were PRAME negative. Tumors with PRAME-positive status did not have a significantly different time to metastasis compared with tumors without PRAME-positive status (P value = 0.11)., Conclusion: GEP, NGS, and PRAME expression analysis help determine different levels of metastatic risk in UM. Although other prognostic tests exist, the following study reports on the use of NGS for metastatic prognostication in UM. However, limitations of NGS exist, especially with small lesions that are technically difficult to biopsy.

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.