Objective: To compare efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab augmented with Panretinal photocoagulation versus Panretinal photocoagulation alone in high risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Methods: This is Randomized clinical control trial study conducted at ISRA University Hospital, Hyderabad from July 2018 to December 2018. A total of 76 eyes were randomized into two groups, 38 eyes undergone PRP plus intravitreal bevacizumab, while 38 eyes had PRP alone. Status of neovessels was assessed before and after treatment with the help of fundus fluorescein angiography. Neovessels at disc (NVD’s) and neovessels elsewhere (NVE’s) were assessed with the disc surface diameter. Results: Seventy-six eyes were enrolled in this randomized clinical trial into two groups consecutively, that all completed the six months follow-up. In the PRP group mean BCVA (logMAR) worsened significantly from mean 0.30±0.07 to mean 0.40±0.04 at a 30th day and mean 0.40±0.04 at day 90. While BCVA become improved from 0.30±0.05 to 0.1±0.03 at week four and 0.1±0.02 at week 12 in PRP-Plus group. There was significant change in regression of NVES in PRP only group at week 4 is 2.25±0.75 (p=0.00004) and at 12 weeks 2.00±0.50 (p=0.00002), while in PRP + intravitreal bevacizumab group at 4th week was 1±0.5 (p =0.0001) and at 12th week was 0.75±0.25 (p=0.0001). Conclusion: Intravitreal Bevacizumab augmented with PRP is more effective in early regression of neovessels in high risk PDR patients. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.1.3141 How to cite this:Rebecca, Shaikh FF, Jatoi SM. Comparison of efficacy of combination therapy of an Intravitreal injection of bevacizumab and photocoagulation versus Pan Retinal Photocoagulation alone in High risk Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(1):157-161. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.1.3141 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Introduction: Standardization of data items collected in paediatric clinical trials is an important but challenging issue. The Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) data standards are well understood by the pharmaceutical industry but lack the implementation of some paediatric specific concepts. When a paediatric concept is absent within CDISC standards, companies and research institutions take multiple approaches in the collection of paediatric data, leading to different implementations of standards and potentially limited utility for reuse. Objective: To overcome these challenges, the conect4children consortium has developed a cross-cutting paediatric data dictionary (CCPDD). Methods: The dictionary was built over three phases – scoping (including a survey sent out to ten industrial and 34 academic partners to gauge interest), creation of a longlist and consensus building for the final set of terms. The dictionary was finalized during a workshop with attendees from academia, hospitals, industry and CDISC. The attendees held detailed discussions on each data item and participated in the final vote on the inclusion of the item in the CCPDD.Results: Nine industrial and 34 academic partners responded to the survey, which showed overall interest in the development of the CCPDD. Following the final vote on 27 data items, three were rejected, six were deferred to the next version and a final opinion was sought from CDISC. The first version of the CCPDD with 25 data items was released in August 2019.Discussion and Conclusion: The continued use of the dictionary has the potential to ensure the collection of standardized data that is interoperable and can later be pooled and reused for other applications. The dictionary is already being used for case report form creation in three clinical trials. The CCPDD will also serve as one of the inputs to the Paediatric User Guide, which is being developed by CDISC.
Objective: To observe efficacy of Timolol maleate 0.5% by topical and surface application in infantile superficial capillary hemangioma of eyelid. Methods: This multi-centered clinical case series was carried out at Ophthalmology Department of Bilawal Medical College and Institute of Ophthalmology, LUMHS, Jamshoro from November 2019 to May 2020. We included 14 subjects. All the patients were subjected to detailed clinical examination. Before starting the topical beta blockers, the enrolled subjects had obtained the expert opinion by pediatrician to rule out any preexisting developmental cardio vascular disease. Topical beta blockers 0.5% drops were thus started with, against the ongoing finding of superficial capillary hemangioma of eyelid. Results: There was significant regression in size of infantile hemangioma after treating with topical timolol maleate 0.5%. We included 14 subjects in this study. Mean±SD age of patients was 4.94. Complete regression was seen in 08 subjects at the end of 12 weeks (64%) while 03 were completely cured at 08 weeks (21%) and 01 patient lost follow up with us. No significant ocular and systemic side effects were noted. Conclusion: Topical timolol maleate 0.5% can be the first-line treatment modality for superficial capillary hemangiomas due to its better safety and efficacy. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.7.4317 How to cite this:Junejo MS, Rebecca, Memon MN, Shaikh SP. Role of topical beta blockers in regression of infantile capillary hemangioma. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(7):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.7.4317 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
No abstract
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.