Life After Traumatic Brain Injury: Effects on the Lifestyle and Quality of Life of Community-Dwelling Patients.

Persons who have experienced traumatic brain injury (TBI) may encounter a range of changes in their physical, mental, and cognitive functions as well as high fatigue levels. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by persons after TBI, we conducted multi-domain assessments among community-dwelling persons with a history of TBI and compared them with age- and sex-matched controls from the Northeastern Taiwan Community Medicine Research Cohort between 2019 and 2021. A total of 168 persons with TBI and 672 non-TBI controls were not different in terms of demographics, comorbidities, and physiological features. However, compared with the non-TBI group, the TBI group had a distinct lifestyle that involved increased reliance on analgesics (6.9% vs. 15.0%, respectively; p = 0.001) and sleep aids (p = 0.008), which negatively affected their quality of life. Moreover, they consumed more coffee (p < 0.001), tea (p < 0.001), cigarettes (p = 0.002), and betel nuts (p = 0.032) than did the non-TBI group. Notably, the use of coffee had a positive effect on the quality of life of the TBI group (F = 4.034; p = 0.045). Further, compared with the non-TBI group, the TBI group had increased risks of sarcopenia (p = 0.003), malnutrition (p = 0.003), and anxiety (p = 0.029) and reduced blood levels of vitamin D (29.83 ± 10.39 vs. 24.20 ± 6.59 ng/mL, respectively; p < 0.001). Overall, the TBI group had a reduced health-related quality of life, with significant challenges related to physical health, mental well-being, social interactions, pain management, and fatigue levels. Moreover, the TBI group experienced poorer sleep quality and efficiency than did the non-TBI group. In conclusion, persons who have sustained brain injuries that require comprehensive and holistic care that includes lifestyle modification, mental and physical healthcare plans, and increased long-term support from their communities. ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04839796).

The Risks of Corneal Surface Damage in Aqueous-Deficient Dry Eye Disease: A 17-Year Population-Based Study in Taiwan.

PURPOSE: To investigate the epidemiologic characteristics and risk of corneal surface damage in patients with aqueous-deficient dry eye disease (DED) in Taiwan. DESIGN: Retrospective, population-based cohort study. METHODS: We used claims data in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from 1997 to 2013 of patients with DED, defined according to diagnoses, drug codes, and clinical follow-up. A comparison cohort without DED was selected through propensity score matching. The main outcome measures were corneal surface damage, including corneal erosion, corneal ulcers, or corneal scars. RESULTS: Patients with DED had a significantly higher rate of corneal surface damage (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.38-3.06, P < .001), especially higher in patients aged <18 years (HR 6.66; 95% CI 3.58-12.41) than in older patients and in women (HR 2.98; 95% CI 2.57-3.46) than in men (HR 2.22; 95% CI 1.78-2.77), compared to those in the non-DED cohort. DED with diabetes mellitus (P = .002), rheumatoid arthritis (P = .029), or systemic lupus erythematosus (P = .005) was positively associated with corneal surface damage. The overall prevalence of DED was 7.85%, higher among women (10.49%) than men (4.92%), and increased with age (0.53%, 3.94%, 10.08%, and 20.72% for ages <18, 18-39, 40-64, and >65 years, respectively). The prevalence increased gradually during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The younger age group (<18 years) had the highest risk of corneal surface damage in aqueous-deficient DED. Other predisposing factors included female sex, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases. To improve clinical care, special attention is required for patients with DED with these risk factors.

Effect of parenteral selenium supplementation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear whether parenteral selenium supplementation should be recommended in the management of critically ill patients. Here we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of parenteral selenium supplementation on clinical outcomes. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Randomized trials investigating parenteral selenium supplementation administered in addition to standard of care to critically ill patients were included. CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, and CINAHL were searched with complementary manual searches. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Trials published in any language were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. A third author was consulted to resolve disagreements and for quality assurance. Twelve trials were included and meta-analysis was performed on nine trials that recruited critically ill septic patients. These comprised 965 participants in total. Of these, 148 patients (30.7%) in the treatment groups, and 180 patients (37.3%) in control groups died. Parenteral selenium treatment significantly reduced all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis (relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99, p = 0.04, I(2) = 0%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the administration schedule employing longer duration (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.94, p = 0.01, I(2) = 0%), loading boluses (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.94, p = 0.01, I(2) = 0%) or high-dose selenium treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.99, p = 0.04, I(2) = 0%) might be associated with a lower mortality risk. There was no evidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Parenteral selenium supplementation reduces risk of mortality among critically ill patients with sepsis. Owing to the varied methodological quality of the studies, future high-quality randomized trials that directly focus on the effect of adequate-duration of parenteral selenium supplementation for severe septic patients are needed to confirm our results. Clinicians should consider these findings when treating this high-risk population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2011; CRD42011001768.