Use of aclidinium did not increase the risk of death in a noninterventional cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Aclidinium bromide is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). Although the initial potential increased cardiovascular and mortality risk among users of tiotropium has been ruled out by several observational studies, and clinical trials, there are still concerns related to the use of newer LAMA medications. The current study aimed to evaluate the risk of death among users of aclidinium and other LAMAs. METHODS: We conducted a cohort and nested case-control study among patients with COPD aged 40 years or older to compare the risk of all-cause mortality among users of aclidinium and other COPD medications with the risk among users of long-acting ß2 agonists (LABA), in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in the United Kingdom (2012-2017). RESULTS: Mortality rates per 1,000 person-years were 32.9 for aclidinium, 43.8 for tiotropium, 38.0 for other LAMA, 47.1 for LABA/ICS, and 38.1 for LABA. The RR of death compared with current use of LABA was 0.54 (confidence interval [95% CI], 0.40-0.72) for aclidinium, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.76-1.21) for tiotropium, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-0.99) for other LAMA, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.90-1.31) for LABA/ICS. Decreased risk for death observed among users of aclidinium was driven by overall current single use (RR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79), which corresponded to 26% of the aclidinium users (<15 cases) and not by multiple use (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.71-1.48). CONCLUSION: Use of aclidinium, tiotropium, other LAMA, or LABA/ICS was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality as compared with the use of LABAs.

Diagnosis accuracy of two vision screeners for visual health surveillance of workers who use video display terminals.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of two vision screeners by a visual examination performed by an optometrist (gold standard) and to evaluate the concordance between both screeners and between each screener and the gold standard. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that included computer workers who attended a routine yearly health examination. The study included administrative office workers (n=91) aged 50.2±7.9 years (mean±standard deviation), 69.2% of whom were women and 68.1% of whom used video display terminals (VDT) for >4 h/day. The routine visual examination included monocular and binocular distance visual acuity (VA), distance and near lateral phoria (LP), stereo acuity (SA), and color vision. Tests were repeated with Optec 6500 (by Stereo Optical) and Visiotest (by Essilor) screeners. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and false positive and negative rates were calculated. Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to measure the concordance of the screeners and the gold standard. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for monocular VA were over 80% for both vision screeners; PPV was below 25%. Sensitivity and specificity were lower for SA (55%-70%), PPV was 50%, and NPV was 75% for both screeners. For distance LP, sensitivity and PPV were <10% in both cases. The screeners differed in their values for near LP: Optec 6500 had higher sensitivity (43.5%), PPV (37.0%), and NPV (79.7%); whereas the Visiotest had higher specificity (83.8%). For color vision, Visiotest showed low sensitivity, low PPV, and high specificity. Visiotest obtained false positive rates that were lower or similar to Optec 6500, and both screeners obtained false negative rates below 50%. Both screeners showed poor concordance (κ<0.40). CONCLUSIONS: A high value for NPV would qualify both screeners as acceptable alternatives for visual health surveillance when used as a screening tool; patients with positive test results should be referred to a specialist.

[Ocular and visual alterations in computer workers contact lens wearers: scoping review]. / Alteraciones oculares y visuales en personas que trabajan con ordenador y son usuarias de lentes de contacto: una revisión bibliográfica.

BACKGROUND: The high number of computer workers wearing contact lenses raises the question whether the sum of these two risk factors for eye health may cause a worsening of Computer Vision Syndrome. The aim of this review is to synthesize the knowledge about ocular and visual alterations related with computer use in contact lens wearers. METHODS: International review of scientific papers (2003-2013) in Spanish and English, using Scoping Review method, in Medline through PubMed and in Scopus. RESULTS: The initial search provided 114 references, after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria six of them were included. All of them reveal that symptoms when using computer are more prevalent in contact lens wearers, with values of symptoms presentation prevalence ranging from 95.0% to 16.9% in wearers and from 57.5% to 9.9% in non-wearers, and four times more likely to develop dry eye [OR: 4.07 (95% CI: 3.52 to 4.71)]. CONCLUSION: Computer workers suffer more ocular and visual disturbances if they also are contact lens users, but studies are few and non conclusive. Likewise, further research regarding contact lens type and their conditions of use, both in symptoms and tear quality and ocular surface are needed. Silicone hydrogel lenses are associated with more comfort.