Comparative study of 2-year outcomes for Hydrus or iStent inject microinvasive glaucoma surgery implants with cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: To compare real-world 24-month outcomes of phacoemulsification combined with either iStent inject or Hydrus Microstent. METHODS: Analysis of data from the Fight Glaucoma Blindness (FGB) international registry. Anonymized data from 344 eyes with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma, normal-tension glaucoma or ocular hypertension that underwent phacoemulsification combined with either iStent inject (224) or Hydrus Microstent (120) were included. Data were adjusted for baseline characteristics using linear regression and propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a comparison of mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at 24 months. RESULTS: At 24 months, there was no significant difference in IOP reduction between the two groups, consistent across all analyses. The matched cohort showed iStent inject achieved 3.1 mmHg reduction and Hydrus a 2.3 mmHg reduction (p = 0.530) and a mean medication reduction of 1.0 for iStent inject versus 0.5 for Hydrus (p = 0.081). 5.4% of eyes in the iStent inject group and 7.5% of eyes in the Hydrus group required subsequent procedures to improve IOP control within 24 months. Complications were rare with no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-four-month outcomes showed sustained IOP reduction with a good safety profile for both groups. There was no significant difference in IOP outcomes between the groups. There may be a small additional reduction in glaucoma medication usage following cataract surgery with iStent inject compared to Hydrus.

Diabetic retinopathy management by Australian optometrists.

BACKGROUND: To survey the current diabetic retinopathy screening and management practices of Australian optometrists following the release of the 1997 National Health Medical Research Council Diabetic Retinopathy Management Guidelines. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey, primary care setting. PARTICIPANTS: 1000 Australian optometrists across different states. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was sent to 1000 optometrists across all states during 2007/2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of retinal camera, screening practices/attitudes and behaviour in diabetic retinopathy management. RESULTS: 568 optometrists (57%) responded to the survey. Patients' unpreparedness to drive post dilation (51%) and the fear of angle closure glaucoma (13%) were the two main barriers to optometrists not performing dilated ophthalmoscopy. Those who had strong desire to screen for diabetic retinopathy were more likely to use a retinal camera (p<0.005). Use of a retinal camera was significantly associated with an increased confidence in detecting clinical signs of diabetic retinopathy including macular oedema (P<0.001). Optometrists who read the guidelines at least once were 2.5-times (P<0.001) more likely to have confidence in detecting macular oedema than those who had never read the guidelines. Although they may be confident in diagnosis, and may use retinal cameras for screening, nearly 60% of optometrists would not refer patients with macular oedema to an ophthalmologist. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their self-reported desire for involvement in diabetic retinopathy, the management of macular oedema by Australian optometrists needs improvement. The use of retinal cameras and promotion of the 2008 NHMRC guidelines should be encouraged to improve overall optometric diabetic retinopathy management, particularly with macular oedema.

Diabetic retinopathy--screening and management by Australian GPs.

AIM: To describe current diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening and management practices among Australian general practitioners. METHODS: A self administered questionnaire on DR management was mailed to 2000 rural and urban GPs across Australia in 2007-2008. RESULTS: Only 29% of the GP respondents had read the National Health and Research Council guidelines at least once and 41% had a 'moderate' to 'strong' desire to screen for DR. A majority of GPs (74%) reported not routinely examining their diabetic patients for DR. Lack of confidence in detecting DR changes (86.4%) and time constraints (73.4%) were the two major barriers to GPs performing dilated fundoscopy on diabetic patients. DISCUSSION: Given that access to optometry is not evenly distributed across the country, and that ophthalmology is underresourced, GPs are the healthcare providers most able to manage and screen for DR in the community.

Semi-synthetic analogues of thiostrepton delimit the critical nature of tail region modifications in the control of protein biosynthesis and antibacterial activity.

We report the successful production of selectively-modified tail analogues of the natural product antibiotic thiostrepton, which have been used to evaluate the critical nature of this section of the antibiotic to its inhibition of protein synthesis. This work highlights the tail region as a critical area for future semi-synthetic or synthetically bioengineered thiostrepton derivatives.

Further survey of Australian ophthalmologist's diabetic retinopathy management: did practice adhere to National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines?

BACKGROUND: To compare the self-reported management of diabetic retinopathy by Australian ophthalmologists with the 1997 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines. METHODS: Self-reported cross-sectional survey of patterns of practice. Questionnaires were sent to all Australian ophthalmologists, comprising questions regarding professional details, diabetic retinopathy screening attitudes/practices and specific hypothetical management scenarios. Data were analysed using Chi-squared and adjusted logistic regression. RESULT: 480 of the 751 (64%) eligible Australian ophthalmologists participated. The majority (80%, n = 376) reported they consistently reviewed patient's glycaemic control, but only 55% and 41% regularly reviewed blood pressure and serum cholesterol control, respectively. Ophthalmologists generally adhered to NHMRC-recommended screening intervals, although only 38% agreed with the guidelines relating to screening of pre-pubertal diabetic patients. Fluorescein angiogram was used more than recommended, especially for mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy where 45% of respondents used this investigation. Practice duration >15 years was associated with more regular fluorescein angiogram use (OR = 3.74; 95% CI: 2.53-5.53, P < 0.001). In the clinical scenarios where clinically significant macular oedema was concurrently present with cataract or proliferative diabetic retinopathy, >26% referred to retinal subspecialists for management; 85% of the remaining ophthalmologists performed macular laser first. Respondents with practice duration >15 years were 7.8 times (P = 0.001) more likely to perform cataract surgery first. CONCLUSION: Diabetic retinopathy management guidelines were generally well followed by Australian ophthalmologists. However, areas of practice variation existed including frequent use of fluorescein angiogram. Significant proportion of practitioners referred diabetic patients to retinal subspecialists, who were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations. Ophthalmologists with greater experience (>15 years) were more likely to employ practices differing from NHMRC recommendations.

NETosing Neutrophils Activate Complement Both on Their Own NETs and Bacteria via Alternative and Non-alternative Pathways.

Neutrophils deposit antimicrobial proteins, such as myeloperoxidase and proteases on chromatin, which they release as neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). Neutrophils also carry key components of the complement alternative pathway (AP) such as properdin or complement factor P (CFP), complement factor B (CFB), and C3. However, the contribution of these complement components and complement activation during NET formation in the presence and absence of bacteria is poorly understood. We studied complement activation on NETs and a Gram-negative opportunistic bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA01, PAKwt, and PAKgfp). Here, we show that anaphylatoxin C5a, formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine (fMLP) and phorbol myristate acetate (PMA), which activates NADPH oxidase, induce the release of CFP, CFB, and C3 from neutrophils. In response to PMA or P. aeruginosa, neutrophils secrete CFP, deposit it on NETs and bacteria, and induce the formation of terminal complement complexes (C5b-9). A blocking anti-CFP antibody inhibited AP-mediated but not non-AP-mediated complement activation on NETs and P. aeruginosa. Therefore, NET-mediated complement activation occurs via both AP- and non AP-based mechanisms, and AP-mediated complement activation during NETosis is dependent on CFP. These findings suggest that neutrophils could use their "AP tool kit" to readily activate complement on NETs and Gram-negative bacteria, such as P. aeruginosa, whereas additional components present in the serum help to fix non-AP-mediated complement both on NETs and bacteria. This unique mechanism may play important roles in host defense and help to explain specific roles of complement activation in NET-related diseases.

Comparison of visual function following implantation of Acrysof Natural intraocular lenses with conventional intraocular lenses.

BACKGROUND: Recently an intraocular lens (IOL) has been introduced which blocks blue light. As blocking blue light may be to the patient's detriment, this study was designed to evaluate visual function following implantation of a blue-blocking (Acrysof Natural) IOL. METHODS: Patients were recruited for this non-randomized controlled interventional study, from those attending a private rural ophthalmology clinic for cataract surgery (n = 93). Only those who had previously had a conventional IOL implanted into one eye were offered an Acrysof Natural IOL for the second eye. Postoperatively patients underwent refracted Snellen visual acuity, contrast sensitivity using a CSV-1000E instrument and colour vision testing using a Farnsworth D-15 test, with a subset (n = 20) undergoing a Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue test. Results were then compared between eyes. Finally, a subset (n = 63) completed a survey designed to assess the subjective impact of the Acrysof Natural IOL. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between eyes implanted with conventional IOLs compared with Acrysof Natural IOLs for visual acuity (t = 0.57; P = 0.57), contrast sensitivity (t = 0.43; P = 0.67 for 3 cycles per degree [cpd], t = 0.56; P = 0.58 for 6 cpd, t = 0.09; P = 0.93 for 12 cpd and t = 0.16; P = 0.87 for 18 cpd) or colour vision with the Farnsworth D-15 (Chi(2) = 0.38; P = 0.55) or the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue test t = 0.34; P = 0.74). Most subjects reported that they could not tell a difference between the two IOLs subjectively or that any difference experienced was not significant. CONCLUSION: Our sample did not show any significant differences between eyes implanted with conventional IOLs and the Acrysof Natural IOL. We would suggest that the Acrysof Natural IOL may be used without any significant difference in visual function.