Background: Thyroid eye disease is an autoimmune disorder of the orbital retrobulbar tissue commonly associated with dysthyroid status. The most frequent condition is hyperthyroidism, although it is also present in hypothyroid and euthyroid patients. The prevalence of thyroid conditions in patients with thyroid eye disease had been previously evaluated; however, there is no consensus on a global prevalence. The study aims to estimate the prevalence of hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, and euthyroidism in patients with TED, through a systematic review of literature. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines, in MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE, Science Direct, and LILACS databases. Inclusion criteria were primary studies of patients with a diagnosis of thyroid eye disease made by an ophthalmologist or with diagnosis criteria, with measurement of thyroid function (TSH, T3, and free T4), and diagnosis of the primary thyroid condition. A quality assessment was made through the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality tools. Finally, we extracted relevant details about the design, the results, and the prevalence of thyroid disorders in thyroid eye disease. Results: The initial search revealed 916 studies, of which finally thirteen met inclusion criteria. Six studies were performed in Europe (Germany, Wales, and Spain), five in Asia (Iran, South Korea, Japan, and Singapore), one in North America (USA), and one in Africa (Ghana). The global prevalence, in patients of thyroid eye disease, was 10.36% for hypothyroidism, 7.9% for euthyroidism, and 86.2% for hyperthyroidism. Conclusions: Professionals should be aware that thyroid eye disease can be present in patients with a normal thyroid function. The assessment for these patients is based on orbital images; serum TSH, T3, and free T4; antibody levels as thyrotropin receptor antibodies; and thyroperoxidase levels. Additionally, we want to encourage research in this field in other regions of the world such as Latin America.

Background Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, which leads to visual impairment in a large proportion of patients. Antibiotics and corticosteroids lower the risk of permanent visual loss by controlling infection and inflammation. However, there remains disagreement regarding optimal antibiotic therapy for OT. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the effects and safety of existing antibiotic treatment regimens for OT. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Gray Literature in Europe (“OpenGrey”) were searched for relevant studies; manual searches of reference lists were performed for studies identified by other methods. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared antibiotic schemes known to be effective in OT at any dosage, duration, and administration route were included. Studies comparing antibiotics with placebo were excluded. This review followed standard methodological procedures recommended by the Cochrane group. Results Ten studies were included in the narrative summary, of which four were included for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Interventions were organized into three groups: intravitreal clindamycin versus pyrimethamine + sulfadiazine, trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole versus other antibiotics, and other interventions. The first comparison favored intravitreal clindamycin (Mean difference (MD) = 0.10 logMAR; 95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.22). However, this finding lacks clinical relevance. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. In general, the risk of performance bias was high in evaluated studies, and the quality of the evidence found was low to very low. Conclusions No antibiotic scheme was superior to others, and the selection of a treatment regimen depends on multiple factors; therefore, treatment should be chosen based on safety, sulfa allergies, and availability.

No abstract