Consensus and controversies in the science of endophthalmitis management: Basic research and clinical perspectives

Infectious endophthalmitis is a severe intraocular infection caused by bacteria, or less commonly by fungi. It can occur after penetrating eye procedures, trauma, or the spread of infection from contiguous structures or via emboli from distant organs. Because of the time-critical nature of the treatment, endophthalmitis is treated with the clinical diagnosis and modified by the microbiological report of the intraocular contents. The current strategy for managing endophthalmitis relies on pre-clinical literature, case series, and one large multi-center randomized clinical trial on post-cataract surgery endophthalmitis. Culture-susceptibility of the microorganisms from undiluted vitreous guides the definitive treatment in non-responsive cases. Strategies to reduce the incidence of endophthalmitis after penetrating eye procedures have been developed concurrently with refined means of treatment. Despite these advances, outcomes remain poor for many patients. Although consensus articles have been published on managing endophthalmitis, treatment patterns vary, and controversies remain. These include (1) the use of newer methods for early and precise microbiological diagnosis; (2) the choice of intravitreal antibiotics; (3) the need for systemic therapy; (4) early and complete vitrectomy. Here, we review the current consensus and address controversies in diagnosing and managing endophthalmitis. This review is intended to familiarize physicians and ophthalmologists with different aspects of endophthalmitis management to make informed decisions.

Prospective randomized clinical studies involving reirradiation: update of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Reirradiation is a potentially useful option for many patients with recurrent cancer, aiming at cure or symptom palliation, depending on disease/recurrence type and stage. The purpose of this follow-up study to a previous review from 2016 was to summarize all recently published randomized trials. Points of interest again included identifcation of methodological strengths and weaknesses, practice-changing results, and open questions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic review of trials published between 2015 and February 2023.

RESULTS

We reviewed 7 additional trials, most of which addressed reirradiation of head and neck or brain tumours. The median number of patients was 60. Mirroring the previous review, trial design, primary endpoints and statistical hypotheses varied widely. The updated results only impact on decision making for reirradiation of nasopharynx cancer and glioma. Patients with one of these diseases, as well as other head and neck cancers, may benefit from reirradiation-induced local control, e.g. in terms of progression-free survival. For the first time, hyperfractionated radiotherapy emerged as preferred option for recurrent, inoperable nasopharynx cancer. Despite better therapeutic ratio with hyperfractionation, serious toxicity remains a concern after high cumulative total doses. Randomized trials are still lacking for prostate cancer and other sites.

CONCLUSION

Multicentric randomized trials on reirradiation are feasible and continue to refine the current standard of care for recurrent disease after previous radiotherapy. Ongoing prospective studies such as the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (ESTRO-EORTC) observational cohort ReCare (NCT: NCT03818503) will further shape the clinical practice of reirradiation.

Case studies to explore the optimal use of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses that use GRADE

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance.

RESULTS

Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

Major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving vitamin K antagonists: a systematic review of randomized and observational studies

AIMS

Clinical trials have shown that anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), e.g. warfarin, decreases the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, increased bleeding risk is one of the safety concerns. The primary objective was to conduct a systematic review of the published literature, assessing the risk of major bleeding and mortality in patients with AF treated with VKAs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Online searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Library were performed to a pre-specified protocol from 1960 to March 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and from January 1990 to March 2012 for observational studies. A total of 47 studies (16 RCTs and 31 observational studies) were included. Cumulative follow-up was 61,563 patient-years for RCTs and 484 241 patient-years for observational studies. The overall median incidence of major bleeding was 2.1 per 100 patient-years (range, 0.9-3.4 per 100 patient-years) for RCTs and 2.0 per 100 patient-years (range, 0.2-7.6 per 100 patient-years) for observational studies. With study year as a proxy for changing management patterns, some evidence of bleeding rates and/or their reporting increasing over time was noted. Mortality rates from observational studies were inadequately reported to allow comparison with those from RCT data.

CONCLUSION

The median rate of major bleeding in observational studies and RCTs is similar. The larger heterogeneity in bleeding rates observed in a real-life setting could reflect a high variability in standard of care of patients on VKAs and/or methodological differences between observational studies and/or variability in data sources.