RESUMO
A rabbit and a mouse model of herpes simplex eye disease have been used to evaluate a sub-unit herpes simplex vaccine. Various immunization schedules were investigated. The vaccine was found to stimulate humoral and cellular immune responses and to offer protection against corneal infection with liver herpes simplex virus.
Assuntos
Modelos Animais de Doenças , Ceratite Dendrítica/prevenção & controle , Simplexvirus/imunologia , Vacinas Virais/imunologia , Animais , Córnea/microbiologia , Esquemas de Imunização , Imunoglobulina G/análise , Ceratite Dendrítica/microbiologia , Camundongos , Coelhos , Fatores de Tempo , Nervo Trigêmeo/microbiologia , Vacinas Virais/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
The role of the non-mydriatic fundus camera in detection of diabetic retinopathy was evaluated as part of a comprehensive screening programme for diabetic complications offered to all diabetic patients in a rural town. Retinopathy was demonstrated in 124/358 (35%) of patients screened. Forty-eight patients (13%) were judged to have sight-threatening retinopathy, of whom 29 patients (8% of the total) were not already under the care of an ophthalmologist. However, in only 66% of patients were photographs of both eyes of adequate quality to assess for retinopathy. The percentage of poor quality photographs increased with age in those aged greater than 50 years. It is concluded that the non-mydriatic camera can increase the detection of sight-threatening retinopathy in the community. Although this method of screening is not perfect, because of the number of poor quality photographs, it may be as good as or better than existing screening practices in unselected diabetic populations.
Assuntos
Retinopatia Diabética/diagnóstico , Programas de Rastreamento , Fotografação/instrumentação , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Criança , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Midríase , Projetos Piloto , Índice de Gravidade de DoençaRESUMO
Diabetic retinopathy is still regarded as a relative contraindication to the use of thrombolysis for myocardial infarction because of a perceived risk of intraocular haemorrhage. However, this complication has rarely been reported and the risk may be too small to justify withholding thrombolysis. A questionnaire survey was therefore conducted of members of the Medical and Scientific Section of the British Diabetic Association (BDA), to ascertain the exclusion criteria applied to the use of thrombolysis in patients with diabetic retinopathy in the UK and to identify any related ocular haemorrhagic complications. Replies were received from 128 physicians in 107 centres. Exclusion criteria applied were: any retinopathy 7 (5%), proliferative retinopathy and recent vitreous or pre-retinal haemorrhage 74 (58%), recent vitreous haemorrhage only 25 (20%), thrombolysis given regardless of retinopathy 22 (17%). No cases of intraocular haemorrhage following thrombolysis in diabetic myocardial infarction patients were identified. The risks of this complication appear to be very small and probably do not justify withholding thrombolytic therapy from diabetic patients with most forms of retinopathy, including proliferative.