Benzyl alcohol at concentrations modestly higher than what is present in commercial Kenalog is toxic to the rabbit eye. This has been shown in other organ systems. If commercial preserved Kenalog is to be used clinically, decanting the supernatant or using other means to remove the benzyl alcohol may be considered, especially if a volume of >0.1 mL of solution is used. We hypothesize that the noninfectious inflammation seen clinically after Kenalog injection is due to the presence of a toxic preservative at unsafe concentrations.
Both FA and high-resolution OCT are highly sensitive techniques and correlate well in detection of ME. However, there is a small chance that when performed alone they might miss existing subtle ME.
Behaviors of patients with psychiatric illness who are hospitalized on nonbehavioral health units can be difficult to address by staff members. Instituting a rapid response team to proactively de-escalate potential volatile situations on nonpsychiatric units in a hospital allows earlier treatment of behavioral issues with these patients. The behavioral emergency response team (BERT) consists of staff members (registered nurses, social workers) from behavioral health services who have experience in caring for patients with acute psychiatric disorders as well as competence in management of assaultive behavior. BERT services were trialed on a medical pulmonary unit; gradual housewide implementation occurred over 2 years. Tools developed for BERT include an activation algorithm, educational cue cards for staff, and a staff survey. Results of a performance improvement survey reveal that staff nurses have had positive experiences with BERT but that many nurses are still not comfortable caring for psychiatric patients on their units.
We appreciate the interest of Uparkar et al in our recent study. 1 We agree with them that standardized visual acuity measurements with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts are important in evaluating any vision changes after treatment. This is particularly true in the low-vision range of patients with age-related macular degeneration, for whom Snellen charts are inaccurate.We are asked to provide additional information on our patients and to explain why the secondary bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) group had a mean number of injections of 4.2 (range, 2-7). Uparkar et al have misread our report. The group with the mean number of injections of 4.2 (range, 2-7) was the eyes initially treated with pegaptanib (Macugen; Eyetech Pharmaceuticals, New York, NY). These data relate to the number of pegaptanib injections, not the number of bevacizumab injections. This appears to be clearly stated in paragraph 4 under Methods and Participants. We wish to point out that both the eyes in the primary bevacizumab group and the eyes treated with bevacizumab after failing to respond to pegaptanib had similar bevacizumab treatment courses (mean number of injections: secondary bevacizumab [salvage therapy] group, 3.8; primary bevacizumab group, 3.6). Despite the similar regimen, only the eyes in the primary bevacizumab group improved. This suggests that salvage therapy with bevacizumab for eyes failing to improve after pegaptanib injections may not be possible.The questions of Uparkar et al also seem to imply that this was a controlled study of two similar groups. This was not the case. Obviously, eyes that did not respond to pegaptanib treatment are not the same as treatment-naive eyes. The question, however, as to whether eyes that fail to respond to pegaptanib will respond to bevacizumab (or Lucentis [ranibizumab]; Genentech, Inc.) is highly relevant because there are many patients who did not have improved vision after pegaptanib therapy. Indeed, such patients are the rule rather than the exception. We attempted to answer the question as to whether such eyes might have visual improvement after bevacizumab treatment. Unfortunately, it appears that attempts at salvage therapy with bevacizumab are not successful in improving vision despite the fact that there is a reduction in retinal thickness after changing treatment from pegaptanib to bevacizumab.Clinical trials have already demonstrated that vision improvement after pan-vascular endothelial growth factor blockade such as is seen with bevacizumab or ranibizumab is superior to that after partial vascular endothelial growth factor blockade that is seen with pegaptanib. Indeed, vision improvement is not usually seen with pegaptanib treatment, although it is the rule after either bevacizumab or ranibizumab injection. The only purpose of our study was to determine whether the more superior drugs, which block all isoforms of vascular endothelial NIH Public Access
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.