Cholinesterase inhibitors for dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease

Background - Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). The clinical features of DLB and PDD have much in common and are distinguished primarily on the basis of whether or not parkinsonism precedes dementia by more than a year. Patients with both conditions have particularly severe deficits in cortical levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Therefore, blocking its breakdown using cholinesterase inhibitors may lead to clinical improvement. Objectives - To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Parkinson’s disease with dementia (PDD), and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease falling short of dementia (CIND-PD) (considered as separate phenomena and also grouped together as Lewy body disease). Search methods - The trials were identified from a search of ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (on 30 August 2011) using the search terms Lewy, Parkinson, PDD, DLB, LBD. This register consists of records from major healthcare databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL) and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly. Reference lists of relevant studies were searched for additional trials. Selection criteria - Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors in DLB, PDD and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease (CIND-PD). Data collection and analysis - Data were extracted from published reports by one review author (MR). The data for each 'condition' (that is DLB, PDD or CIND-PD) were considered separately and, where possible, also pooled together. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 5.0. Main results - Six trials met the inclusion criteria for this review, in which a total of 1236 participants were randomised. Four of the trials were of a parallel group design and two cross-over trials were included. Four of the trials included participants with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease with dementia (Aarsland 2002a; Dubois 2007; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005), of which Dubois 2007 remains unpublished. Leroi 2004 included patients with cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease (both with and without dementia). Patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were included in only one of the trials (McKeith 2000). For global assessment, three trials comparing cholinesterase inhibitor treatment to placebo in PDD (Aarsland 2002a; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005) reported a difference in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) score of -0.38, favouring the cholinesterase inhibitors (95% CI -0.56 to -0.24, P < 0.0001). For cognitive function, a pooled estimate of the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on cognitive function measures was consistent with the presence of a therapeutic benefit (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.23, P < 0.00001). There was evidence of a positive effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in patients with PDD (WMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.73, P = 0.0008) and in the single PDD and CIND-PD trial (WMD 1.05, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.68, P = 0.01) but not in the single DLB trial. For behavioural disturbance, analysis of the pooled continuous data relating to behavioural disturbance rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.04, P = 0.01). For activities of daily living, combined data for the ADCS and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) activities of daily living rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.02, P = 0.03). For safety and tolerability, those taking a cholinesterase inhibitor were more likely to experience an adverse event (318/452 versus 668/842; odds ratio (OR) 1.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.15, P = 0.0003) and to drop out (128/465 versus 45/279; OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.84, P = 0.0006). Adverse events were more common amongst those taking rivastigmine (357/421 versus 173/240; OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.38, P < 0.0001) but not those taking donepezil (311/421 versus 145/212; OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.80, P = 0.25). Parkinsonian symptoms in particular tremor (64/739 versus 12/352; OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.09, P = 0.002), but not falls (P = 0.39), were reported more commonly in the treatment group but this did not have a significant impact on the UPDRS (total and motor) scores (P = 0.71). Fewer deaths occurred in the treatment group than in the placebo group (4/465 versus 9/279; OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.84, P = 0.03). Authors' conclusions - The currently available evidence supports the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with PDD, with a positive impact on global assessment, cognitive function, behavioural disturbance and activities of daily living rating scales. The effect in DLB remains unclear. There is no current disaggregated evidence to support their use in CIND-PD.

Imaging of the human fundus in the clinical setting:past present and future

The human fundus is a complex structure that can be easily visualized and the world of ophthalmology is going through a golden era of new and exciting fundus imaging techniques; recent advances in technology have allowed a significant improvement in the imaging modalities clinicians have available to formulate a diagnostic and treatment plan for the patient, but there is constant on-going work to improve current technology and create new ideas in order to gather as much information as possible from the human fundus. In this article we shall summarize the imaging techniques available in the standard medical retina clinic (i.e. not limited to the research lab) and delineate the technologies that we believe will have a significant impact on the way clinicians will assess retinal and choroidal pathology in the not too distant future.

One-year outcome of bevacizumab therapy for chronic macular edema in central and branch retinal vein occlusions in real-world clinical practice in the UK

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the 12-month outcome of macular edema secondary to both chronic and new central and branch retinal vein occlusions treated with intravitreal bevacizumab in the real-life clinical setting in the UK. Methods: Retrospective case notes analysis of consecutive patients with retinal vein occlusions treated with bevacizumab in 2010 to 2012. Outcome measures were visual acuity (measured with Snellen, converted into logMAR [logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution] for statistical calculation) and central retinal thickness at baseline, 4 weeks post-loading phase, and at 1 year. Results: There were 56 and 100 patients with central and branch retinal vein occlusions, respectively, of whom 62% had chronic edema and received prior therapies and another 32% required additional laser treatments post-baseline bevacizumab. Baseline median visual acuity was 0.78 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.48–1.22) in the central group and 0.6 (IQR 0.3–0.78) in the branch group. In both groups, visual improvement was statistically significant from baseline compared to post-loading (P,0.001 and P=0.03, respectively), but was not significant by month 12 (P=0.058 and P=0.166, respectively); 30% improved by at least three lines and 44% improved by at least one line by month 12. Baseline median central retinal thickness was 449 μm (IQR 388–553) in the central group and 441 µm (IQR 357–501) in the branch group. However, the mean reduction in thickness was statistically significant at post-loading (P,0.001) and at the 12-month time point (P,0.001) for both groups. The average number of injections in 1 year was 4.2 in the central group and 3.3 in the branch group. Conclusion: Our large real-world cohort results indicate that bevacizumab introduced to patients with either new or chronic edema due to retinal vein occlusion can result in resolution of edema and stabilization of vision in the first year.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia:the ECLIPSE trial

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena(®), Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Clinical utility of the KAMRA corneal inlay

The treatment of presbyopia has been the focus of much scientific and clinical research over recent years, not least due to an increasingly aging population but also the desire for spectacle independence. Many lens and nonlens-based approaches have been investigated, and with advances in biomaterials and improved surgical methods, removable corneal inlays have been developed. One such development is the KAMRA™ inlay where a small entrance pupil is exploited to create a pinhole-type effect that increases the depth of focus and enables improvement in near visual acuity. Short- and long-term clinical studies have all reported significant improvement in near and intermediate vision compared to preoperative measures following monocular implantation (nondominant eye), with a large proportion of patients achieving Jaeger (J) 2 to J1 (~0.00 logMAR to ~0.10 logMAR) at the final follow-up. Although distance acuity is reduced slightly in the treated eye, binocular visual acuity and function remain very good (mean 0.10 logMAR or better). The safety of the inlay is well established and easily removable, and although some patients have developed corneal changes, these are clinically insignificant and the incidence appears to reduce markedly with advancements in KAMRA design, implantation technique, and femtosecond laser technology. This review aims to summarize the currently published peer-reviewed studies on the safety and efficacy of the KAMRA inlay and discusses the surgical and clinical outcomes with respect to the patient’s visual function.