Retinal imaging for the assessment of stroke risk: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Retinal imaging allows non-invasive assessment of the microvasculature. Consequently, retinal imaging is a technology which is garnering increasing attention as a means of assessing cardiovascular health and stroke risk. METHODS: A biomedical literature search was performed to identify prospective studies that assess the role of retinal imaging derived biomarkers as indicators of stroke risk. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in this systematic review. The available evidence suggests that wider retinal venules, lower fractal dimension, increased arteriolar tortuosity, presence of retinopathy, and presence of retinal emboli are associated with increased likelihood of stroke. There is weaker evidence to suggest that narrower arterioles and the presence of individual retinopathy traits such as microaneurysms and arteriovenous nicking indicate increased stroke risk. Our review identified three models utilizing artificial intelligence algorithms for the analysis of retinal images to predict stroke. Two of these focused on fundus photographs, whilst one also utilized optical coherence tomography (OCT) technology images. The constructed models performed similarly to conventional risk scores but did not significantly exceed their performance. Only two studies identified in this review used OCT imaging, despite the higher dimensionality of this data. CONCLUSION: Whilst there is strong evidence that retinal imaging features can be used to indicate stroke risk, there is currently no predictive model which significantly outperforms conventional risk scores. To develop clinically useful tools, future research should focus on utilization of deep learning algorithms, validation in external cohorts, and analysis of OCT images.

Infliximab for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of patients with Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn's disease. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 August, 2021 and 23 June, 2023, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which infliximab was compared to placebo or another active comparator for maintenance, remission, or response in patients with Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes were loss of clinical response, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawal due to serious and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 1257 participants were included. They were conducted between 1999 and 2022; seven RCTs included biologically-naive patients, and the remaining two included a mix of naive/not naive patients. Three studies included patients in clinical remission, five included patients with a mix of activity scores, and one study included biologic responders with active disease at baseline. All studies allowed some form of concomitant medication during their duration. One study exclusively included patients with fistulating disease. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 69 years old. All but one single-centre RCT were multicentre RCTs. Four studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, two had a mix of commercial and public funding, and two had public funding. Infliximab is probably superior to placebo in preventing clinical relapse in patients who have mixed levels of clinical disease activity at baseline, and are not naive to biologics (56% vs 75%, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84, NNTB = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on loss of clinical response (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19), or serious adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.00) because the evidence is very low certainty. Infliximab combined with purine analogues is probably superior to purine analogues for clinical relapse (12% vs 59%, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, NNTB = 2, moderate-certainty evidence), for patients in remission, and who are not naive to biologics. We cannot draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49), and serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.64) because the evidence is very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of infliximab on serious adverse events compared to purine analogues (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.68) for a population in remission at baseline because the evidence is very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcomes of clinical relapse, loss of clinical response, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for clinical relapse (47% vs 40% RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.69), and it may be slightly less effective in averting loss of clinical response (49% vs 32%, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.23, low-certainty evidence), for a population with mixed/low disease activity at baseline. Infliximab may be less effective than biosimilar in averting withdrawals due to adverse events (27% vs 0%, RR 20.73, 95% CI 2.86 to 150.33, low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for serious adverse events (10% vs 10%, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.50, low-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of subcutaneous biosimilar compared with intravenous biosimilar on clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.57), loss of clinical response (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.97) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab compared to adalimumab on loss of clinical response (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.72), serious adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.54) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcome of clinical relapse. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab is probably more effective in preventing clinical relapse than placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective in preventing clinical and endoscopic relapse than purine analogues alone (moderate-certainty evidence). No conclusions can be drawn regarding prevention of loss of clinical response, occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events, or total adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence for both of these comparisons. There may be little or no difference in prevention of clinical relapse, withdrawal due to adverse events or total adverse events between infliximab and a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may lead to more loss of clinical response than a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about other comparisons and outcomes related to missing data or very low-certainty evidence due to serious concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Further research should focus on comparisons with other active therapies for maintaining remission, as well as ensuring adequate power calculations and reporting of methods.

Changes in attachment and metabolic activity of rat neonatal cardiomyocytes and nonmyocytes caused by Macrovipera lebetina obtusa venom.

The Caucasian viper Macrovipera lebetina obtusa (MLO) is one of the most prevalent and venomous snakes in the Caucasus and the surrounding regions, yet the effects of MLO venom on cardiac function remain largely unknown. We examined the influence of MLO venom (crude and with inhibited metalloproteinases and phospholipase A2) on attachment and metabolic activity of rat neonatal cardiomyocytes (CM) and nonmyocytes (nCM), assessed at 1 and 24 h. After exposing both CM and nCM to varying concentrations of MLO venom, we observed immediate cytotoxic effects at a concentration of 100 µg/ml, causing detachment from the culture substrate. At lower MLO venom concentrations both cell types detached in a dose-dependent manner. Inhibition of MLO venom metalloproteinases significantly improved CM and nCM attachment after 1-hour exposure. At 24-hour exposure to metalloproteinases inhibited venom statistically significant enhancement was observed only in nCM attachment. However, metabolic activity of CM and nCM did not decrease upon exposure to the lower dose of the venom. Moreover, we demonstrated that metalloproteinases and phospholipases A2 are not the components of the MLO venom that change metabolic activity of both CM and nCM. These results provide a valuable platform to study the impact of MLO venom on prey cardiac function. They also call for further exploration of individual venom components for pharmaceutical purposes.

Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts. METHODS: We undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care. RESULTS: The ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges. Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility. During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care.

Companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis of national and organisational responses and perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To explore stakeholders' and national organisational perspectives on companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19, as part of the Achieving Safe and Personalised maternity care In Response to Epidemics (ASPIRE) COVID-19 UK study. SETTING: Maternity care provision in England. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were held with 26 national governmental, professional and service-user organisation leads (July-December 2020). Other data included public-facing outputs logged from 25 maternity Trusts (September/October 2020) and data extracted from 78 documents from eight key governmental, professional and service-user organisations that informed national maternity care guidance and policy (February-December 2020). RESULTS: Six themes emerged: 'Postcode lottery of care' highlights variations in companionship and visiting practices between trusts/locations, 'Confusion and stress around 'rules'' relates to a lack of and variable information concerning companionship/visiting, 'Unintended consequences' concerns the negative impacts of restricted companionship or visiting on women/birthing people and staff, 'Need for flexibility' highlights concerns about applying companionship and visiting policies irrespective of need, ''Acceptable' time for support' highlights variations in when and if companionship was 'allowed' antenatally and intrapartum and 'Loss of human rights for gain in infection control' emphasises how a predominant focus on infection control was at a cost to psychological safety and human rights. CONCLUSIONS: Policies concerning companionship and visiting have been inconsistently applied within English maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In some cases, policies were not justified by the level of risk, and were applied indiscriminately regardless of need. There is an urgent need to determine how to sensitively and flexibly balance risks and benefits and optimise outcomes during the current and future crisis situations.