Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients have been considered a higher-risk population for COVID-19 due to the high prevalence of disability and disease-modifying therapy use; however, there is little data identifying clinical characteristics of MS associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study looking at the outcomes of 40 MS patients with confirmed COVID-19. Severity of COVID-19 infection was based on hospital course, where a mild course was defined as the patient not requiring hospital admission, moderate severity was defined as the patient requiring hospital admission to the general floor, and most severe was defined as requiring intensive care unit admission and/or death. 19/40(47.5%) had mild courses, 15/40(37.5%) had moderate courses, and 6/40(15%) had severe courses. Patients with moderate and severe courses were significantly older than those with a mild course (57[50-63] years old and 66[58.8-69.5] years old vs 48[40-51.5] years old, P = 0.0121, P = 0.0373). There was differing prevalence of progressive MS phenotype in those with more severe courses (severe:2/6[33.3%]primary-progressing and 0/6[0%]secondaryprogressing, moderate:1/14[7.14%] and 5/14[35.7%] vs mild:0/19[0%] and 1/19[5.26%], P = 0.0075, 1 unknown). Significant disability was found in 1/19(5.26%) mild course-patients, but was in 9/15(60%, P = 0.00435) of moderate course-patients and 2/6(33.3%, P = 0.200) of severe course-patients. Diseasemodifying therapy prevalence did not differ among courses (mild:17/19[89.5%], moderate:12/15[80%] and severe:3/6[50%], P = 0.123). MS patients with more severe COVID-19 courses tended to be older, were more likely to suffer from progressive phenotype, and had a higher degree of disability. However, disease-modifying therapy use was not different among courses.

Noncoding RNAs are emerging biomarkers for many diseases including diabetic retinopathy (DR). This study aimed to measure the expression levels of serum miR‐20b, miR‐17‐3p, HOTAIR, and MALAT1 in DR patients. A total of 80 patients diagnosed as type 2 diabetes (T2D) and 81 healthy subjects were recruited in this study. T2D patients were divided into three groups: nondiabetic retinopathy (NDR) group (30 patients), nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) group (30 patients), and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) group (20 patients). Quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to assess the expression of serum miR‐20b, miR‐17‐3p, HOTAIR, and MALAT1. We found a significant decrease in serum miR‐20b and a significant increase in serum HOTAIR and MALAT1 in NDR patients compared to healthy subjects. Also, we revealed a significant decrease in serum miR‐20b and miR‐17‐3p and a significant increase in serum HOTAIR and MALAT1 in each of NPDR and PDR groups when compared with healthy subjects. Furthermore, we reported a significant decrease in miR‐20b and miR‐17‐3p and a significant increase in HOTAIR and MALAT1in DR as well as in PDR patients when compared with NDR patients. However, on comparing NPDR with NDR patients, no significant difference was observed regarding the expression levels of miR‐20b and miR‐17‐3p, in contrast, significant elevation of serum HOTAIR and MALAT1 was found in NPDR. Moreover, we observed a significant decrease in serum miR‐20b and miR‐17‐3p and a significant increase in serum HOTAIR and MALAT1 in PDR group relative to NPDR group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used for evaluating the diagnostic value of the examined serum noncoding RNAs as novel biochemical indicators detecting severity of DR. Our analyses suggested that the examined serum noncoding RNAs may discriminate DR (PDR and NPDR) from NDR. Furthermore, these noncoding RNAs (less importantly miR‐17) can be used as promising novel biomarkers for prediction DR severity, distinguishing PDR from NPDR patients. We can conclude that serum miR‐20b, miR‐17‐3p, HOTAIR, and MALAT1 may be used as noninvasive biomarkers for screening of DR and early diagnosis of PDR. © 2018 IUBMB Life, 71(3):310–320, 2019

Purpose. To assess the visual, ocular, extraocular, and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) outcomes of computer vision syndrome (CVS) among medical students. Methods. This study was designed as a cross-sectional case-control study that included 733 medical students. All students completed a specially designed and validated CVS questionnaire survey (CVS-F3). Students from the control (No-CVS) and CVS groups underwent comprehensive ophthalmic examinations including the mfERG examinations. Our main outcome measures included uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA, resp.) measurements, subjective and cycloplegic refractions, slit-lamp examination, intraocular pressure measurement, pupillary reflexes tests, ocular movements’ tests, dry eye disease tests, and fundus and mfERG examinations. Results. The CVS-F3 identified that 87.9% of students had complaints that might be related to CVS. We documented a 76% prevalence rate in students undergoing an ophthalmologic exam. The most common ocular and extraocular complaints included visual blur and headache (40.9% and 46.8%, resp.). Statistical logistic and linear regression analyses showed that refractive errors, prolonged screen-hours, close eye-screen distance, improper gaze angle, poor screen-resolution, and screen-glare were risk factors for developing CVS and influencing its severity. In the mfERG subgroup, 42.5% demonstrated reduced amplitudes of mfERG rings and quadrants, indicating reduced foveal responses. Conclusion. Surveys cannot yield an accurate CVS prevalence. However, they help to identify subjects at risk who should be comprehensively assessed to confirm or exclude CVS diagnosis. Smartphone misuse primarily caused CVS among users. Our mfERG findings might be a sign of potential CVS visual sequelae; however, future studies are warranted. Clinicians need to understand these sequelae to appropriately identify and treat CVS.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy, safety and stability of standard epithelium-off cross-linking (SCXL) versus accelerated epithelium-off cross-linking (ACXL) and transepithelial epithelium-on cross-linking (TCXL) in the treatment of progressive keratoconus (KC) in children. Methods: This prospective multicentre controlled trial included 271 eyes (136 children) with grade 1-3 progressive KC who were randomized to undergo SCXL (n = 91, as a control group), ACXL (n = 92) or TCXL (n = 88). Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity, subjective refraction, pachymetry, keratometry and corneal topography measurements were recorded preoperatively and 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Results: At 1 year, there was no significant difference in uncorrected distance visual acuity, refractive sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent or Kmax between the ACXL and SCXL groups; however, during year 2, ACXL regressed while SCXL continued to improve. After 2 years, there were significant differences in all visual, refractive and keratometric components between SCXL and both ACXL and TCXL (p < 0.0001) and between ACXL and TCXL (p < 0.0001). KC progressed in 5.4% of patients who had ACXL and 28.4% of those who had TCXL but in none of those who had SCXL. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis was documented in 43.3% of eyes that progressed postoperatively. Conclusion: SCXL was more effective for paediatric KC and achieved greater stability than either ACXL or TCXL, and ACXL was superior to TCXL. SCXL also achieved marked improvement in both myopia and spherical equivalent; however, these refractive outcomes were unpredictable and uncontrollable. TCXL had a 28.4% failure rate within 2 years. SCXL is preferable for management of paediatric KC.

Importance: Multiple sclerosis patients have been considered a higher-risk population for COVID-19 due to the high prevalence of disability and disease-modifying therapy use; however, no study has identified clinical characteristics of multiple sclerosis associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the clinical characteristics of multiple sclerosis, including staging, degree of disability, and disease-modifying therapy use that are associated with worse outcomes from COVID-19. Design: Prospective cohort study looking at the outcomes of multiple sclerosis patients with COVID-19 between March 1st and May 18th, 2020. Setting: This is a multicenter study of three distinct hospital systems within the U.S. Participants: The study included 40 consecutive patients with nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection. Exposures: Multiple sclerosis staging, severe disability (based on baseline-extended disability status scale equal to or greater than 6.0) and disease-modifying therapy. Main Outcomes and Measure: Severity of COVID-19 infection was based on hospital course, where a mild course was defined as the patient not requiring hospital admission, moderate severity was defined as the patient requiring hospital admission to the general floor only, and most severe was defined as requiring intensive care unit admission and/or death. Results: For the 40 patients, the median age was 52(45.5-61) years, 16/40(40%) were male, and 21/40(52.5%) were African American. 19/40(47.5%) had mild courses, 15/40(37.5%) had moderate courses, and 6/40(15%) had severe courses. Patients with moderate and severe courses were significantly older than those with a mild course (57[50-63] years old and 66[58.8-69.5] years old vs 48[40-51.5] years old, P=0.0121, P=0.0373). There was differing prevalence of progressive multiple sclerosis staging in those with more severe courses (severe:2/6[33.3%]primary-progressing and 0/6[0%]secondary-progressing, moderate:1/14[7.14%] and 5/14[35.7%] vs mild:0/19[0%] and 1/19[5.26%], P=0.0075, 1 unknown). Significant disability was found in 1/19(5.26%) mild course-patients, but was in 9/15(60%, P=0.00435) of moderate course-patients and 2/6(33.3%, P=0.200) of severe course-patients. Disease-modifying therapy prevalence did not differ among courses (mild:17/19[89.5%], moderate:12/15[80%] and severe:3/6[50%], P=0.123). Conclusions and Relevance: Multiple sclerosis patients with more severe COVID-19 courses tended to be older, were more likely to suffer from progressive staging, and had a higher degree of disability. However, disease-modifying therapy use was not different among courses.