RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous of some patients. This situation derives from the lack of approved syringes for intraocular use in the Spanish market. The aim of this work is to review the use of syringes for intraocular administration, as well as to search for alternatives that meet the legal requirements for these unmet needs. METHOD: A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines by searching PubMed with the descriptors: (silicone) AND (syringes) AND ((intraocular) OR (intravitreal)) and filtering all existing publications from January 2006 to December 2023, including all those articles dealing with silicone oil release in intravitreal injections and analysing the possible consequences. RESULTS: Sixty-eight results were found, 23 of which were excluded because they did not deal with the subject under study, leaving a total of 45 articles for the systematic review. These were classified according to the conclusions obtained in 4 groups: the adverse reactions produced by silicone; the administration technique; the physicochemical aspects of silicone release; and the characteristics of the medical device. After reviewing the current manufacturers and technical data sheets of commercialised syringes, the existing syringes for this use have been collected, finding 2 that will probably be commercialised in Spain at the beginning of 2024: Zero Residual™ 0.2â¯ml SiO-free and VitreJect® Ophthalmic. CONCLUSIONS: From the results obtained, it can be interpreted that the use of syringes and needles with silicone for intravitreal use is a concern for health professionals due to the implications and consequences that may arise in patients, the most important being adverse reactions, so it is necessary to have silicone-free syringes on the market that are specific for intraocular use. Safety and legality in the use of intraocular syringes and needles is essential to guarantee ocular integrity and patient health.
Assuntos
Injeções Intravítreas , Óleos de Silicone , Seringas , Humanos , Uso Off-Label , EspanhaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous of some patients. This situation derives from the lack of approved syringes for intraocular use in the Spanish market. The aim of this work is to review the use of syringes for intraocular administration, as well as to search for alternatives that meet the legal requirements for these unmet needs. METHOD: A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines by searching PubMed with the descriptors: "silicone" AND "syringes" AND ("intraocular" OR "intravitreal") and filtering all existing publications from January 2006 to December 2023, including all those articles dealing with silicone oil release in intravitreal injections and analysing the possible consequences. RESULTS: Sixty-eight results were found, 23 of which were excluded because they did not deal with the subject under study, leaving a total of 45 articles for the systematic review. These were classified according to the conclusions obtained in 4 groups: the adverse reactions produced by silicone, the administration technique, the physicochemical aspects of silicone release, and the characteristics of the medical device. After reviewing the current manufacturers and technical data sheets of commercialized syringes, the existing syringes for this use have been collected, finding two that will probably be commercialized in Spain at the beginning of 2024: Zero Residual™ 0.2 ml SiO-free and VitreJect® Ophthalmic. CONCLUSIONS: From the results obtained, it can be interpreted that the use of syringes and needles with silicone for intravitreal use is a concern for health professionals due to the implications and consequences that may arise in patients, the most important being adverse reactions, so it is necessary to have silicone-free syringes on the market that are specific for intraocular use. Safety and legality in the use of intraocular syringes and needles is essential to guarantee ocular integrity and patient health.
Assuntos
Injeções Intravítreas , Óleos de Silicone , Seringas , Humanos , Uso Off-Label , EspanhaRESUMO
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE?: Erenumab and galcanezumab have shown great results for migraine prevention. However, strict inclusion criteria, absence of concomitant medication and selective outcome report of clinical trials may sometimes be barely representative of the real-world daily practice. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of these two monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide in real-world patients. METHODS: This observational, retrospective study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of erenumab 140 mg and galcanezumab 120 mg in 142 real-world patients who had previously not responded to three well-established pharmacological alternatives for migraine prevention. To do so, a combination of objective parameters (monthly headache days and acute migraine-specific medication days) and subjective measurements (Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire, Headache Impact Test and Visual Analogue Scale), validated for clinical research in migraine, were assessed during clinical interview. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Findings here reported show that erenumab and galcanezumab reduced monthly headache days, acute migraine specific medication days per month, Headache Impact Test score, Migraine Disability Assessment Test score and Visual Analogue Scale score after 3 and 6 doses (p < 0.01). Additionally, more than 25% of the patients enrolled in the study experienced a reduction by a half in monthly headache days, and more than 50% of the patients also reported a reduction by a half in the number of migraine specific medication days. Both treatments exhibited a great safety profile, rarely leading to discontinuation because of poor tolerance. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS?: Altogether, these results support previous real-life studies regarding effectiveness and safety and provide an interesting insight in how these preventive therapies are also effective in patients diagnosed with difficult to treat migraine who have previously failed, at least, three different drug classes stablished by current neurology guidelines for migraine prevention. Moreover, these data may suggest that erenumab and galcanezumab are able to not only diminish frequency, but also migraine intensity, and that it should be also considered as an effectiveness measure in line with other authors suggestion.