The equations of ametropia: Predicting myopia

Why myopia develops, why it is reaching epidemic proportions and what is its cause are questions that puzzle many people. There is an answer to these questions and it is a simple one. This paper makes the connection between ametropic and in particular myopic development and theory to come with a summary of what we know about myopia and its governing equation. Key experiments, involving myopia and the effect of lenses in humans and animals have been done with unmistakable results. The observed effect of lenses implies a feedback mechanism. Feedback theory explains those results with mathematical precision. Disruption of emmetropization, is the mechanism behind ametropia and particularly myopia. Feedback theory for emmetropization was derived by observation of the input and output of the emmetropization feedback system in many patients. We show that it has the same equation as it is derived here independently from simple homeostasis principles. Classical observations and recent clinical studies have shown the association of many variables with myopia. They include near work, atropine, lenses, blur and outdoors versus indoors activities. We propose that human refractive development is controlled by homeostasis and based on that alone we derive the equation for the calculation of refraction for any patient and the effect of lenses. We provide software to calculate the refraction of any individual at any time. The editor of this journal makes the following statement: "This manuscript is intended for scientific discussion rather than clinical application. The present work does not intend to promote clinical under correction or no correction of myopia. Instead, clinicians should follow current clinical myopia management guidelines."

Cost evolution of biological agents for the treatment of spondyloarthritis in a tertiary hospital: influential factors in price

Background Spending on biological agents has risen dramatically due to the high cost of the drugs and the increased prevalence of spondyloarthritis. Objective To evaluate the annual cost per patient and cost for each biological drug for treating patients with spondyloarthritis from 2009 to 2016, and to calculate factors that affect treatment cost, such as optimizing therapies by monitoring drug serum levels, the use of biosimilar-TNF inhibitors, and official discounts or negotiated rebates in biologicals acquired by the pharmacy department. Method Retrospective, observational study in a Spanish tertiary hospital. Main outcome Annual cost per patient and per drug. Factors that influenced the costs and socio-demographic parameters and disease activity. Results A total of 129, 215, and 224 patients were treated in 2009, 2013, and 2016, respectively. The annual cost per patient decreased: EUR11,604 in 2009, EUR8513 in 2013, and EUR7464 in 2016. The introduction of new drugs drives economic competition, leading to total savings per drug, with discounts reaching 5.8, 12.4, 16.7, 17.7, 13.7, and 24.8% for original infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, ertolizumab, golimumab, and secukinumab, respectively, while rebates for biosimilar infliximab reached 31.90% in 2016. The number of patients with optimized therapies reached 47.5% in 2016, which led to cost savings of EUR798,614, in addition to savings from official discounts and rebates of EUR252,706 and savings from optimized therapies of EUR545,908 in 2016. Conclusion The cost of biological treatments declined after official discounts, negotiated rebates, and optimized therapies, leading to a significant decrease in the annual cost per patient. The greatest contribution to economic savings in biological therapy according to our study was biological therapy optimization.

Neurocognitive impairment in patients treated with protease inhibitor monotherapy or triple drug antiretroviral therapy

Background

In patients who remain virologically suppressed in plasma with triple-drug ART a switch to protease inhibitor monotherapy maintains high rates of suppression; however it is unknown if protease inhibitor monotherapy is associated to a higher rate of neurocognitive impairment.

Methods

In this observational, cross-sectional study we included patients with plasma virological suppression (≥1 year) without concomitant major neurocognitive confounders, currently receiving for ≥1 year boosted lopinavir or darunavir as monotherapy or as triple ART. Neurocognitive impairment was defined as per the 2007 consensus of the American Association of Neurology. The association between neurocognitive impairment and protease inhibitor monotherapy, adjusted by significant confounders, was analysed.

Results

Of the 191 included patients - triple therapy: 96, 1–2 years of monotherapy: 40 and >2 years of monotherapy: 55 - proportions (95% CI) with neurocognitive impairment were: overall, 27.2% (20.9–33.6); triple therapy, 31.6% (22.1–41.0); short-term monotherapy, 25.0% (11.3–38.7); long-term monotherapy: 21.4% (10.5–32.3); p = 0.38. In all groups, neurocognitive impairment was mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic by self-report. There were not significant differences in Global Deficit Score by group. In the regression model confounding variables for neurocognitive impairment were years on ART, ethnicity, years of education, transmission category and the HOMA index. Adjusted by these variables the Odds Ratio (95% CI) for neurocognitive impairment of patients receiving short-term monotherapy was 0.85 (0.29–2.50) and for long-term monotherapy 0.40 (0.14–1.15).

Conclusions

Compared to triple drug antiretroviral therapy, monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir in patients with adequate plasma suppression was not associated with a higher rate of asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment than triple drug ART.

Lopinavir/ritonavir as single-drug therapy for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression: 48-week results of a randomized, controlled, open-label, proof-of-concept pilot clinical trial (OK Study)

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated maintenance with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy vs. continuing lopinavir/ritonavir and 2 nucleosides in HIV-infected patients with suppressed HIV replication.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, pilot clinical trial.

METHODS

Adult patients were eligible if they had no history of virologic failure while receiving a protease inhibitor, were receiving 2 nucleosides + lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg b.i.d.) for >1 month and had maintained serum HIV RNA <50 copies/mL for >6 months prior to enrollment.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to continue or stop the nucleosides. At baseline there were no significant differences between groups in median CD4 cells/muL (baseline or nadir), pre-HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) HIV log10 viremia, or time with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL prior to enrollment. After 48 weeks of follow-up, percentage of patients remaining at <50 HIV RNA copies/mL (intention to treat, M = F) was 81% for the monotherapy group (95% CI: 64% to 98%) vs. 95% for the triple-therapy group (95% CI: 86% to 100%); P = 0.34. Patients in whom monotherapy failed had significantly worse adherence than patients who remained virally suppressed on monotherapy. Monotherapy failures did not show primary resistance mutations in the protease gene and were successfully reinduced with prerandomization nucleosides. Mean change in CD4 cells/microL: +70 (monotherapy) and +8 (triple) (P = 0.27). Mean serum fasting lipids remained stable in both groups. No serious adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

Most of the patients maintained with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy remain with undetectable viral load after 48 weeks. Failures of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy were not associated with the development of primary resistance mutations in the protease gene and could be successfully reinduced adding back prior nucleosides.

Value of clinical analysis in epidemiological research: the Spanish registry experience

Using data from the Spanish Collaborative Study of Congenital Malformations (ECEMC), a hospital-based, case-control study and surveillance program, we investigated the potential value of registry systems in the identification of causes of congenital defects when their methodology includes (1) detailed reporting and coding of all anomalies present in each child, whether major or minor, (2) clinical analysis and coding of the global pattern of anomalies present in each infant, and (3) classification of all children studied according to their clinical presentation. These approaches provide great specificity and flexibility in the retrieval and analysis of data. Not only do they permit the study of specific anomalies, but also the analysis of children with MCA patterns, as well as the study of the relationship of specific defects with the rest of the anomalies present in a child. To illustrate this point, we present general data on 15,307 malformed children and more specific information on 153 cases of anal atresia/stenosis identified among the 753,410 live-births surveyed by the ECEMC between April 1976 and September 1989.