RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare neonatal eye screening using the red reflex test (RRT) versus the wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) system. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Newborns (n = 380, 760 eyes) in the Maternity Ward of Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo hospital from May to July 2014 underwent RRT by a paediatrician and WFDI performed by the authors. Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) images were analysed by the authors. Validity of the paediatrician's RRT was assessed by unweighted kappa [κ] statistic, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: While WFDI showed abnormalities in 130 eyes (17.1%), RRT was only abnormal in 13 eyes (1.7%). Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) detected treatable retina pathology that RRT missed including hyphema, CMV retinitis, FEVR and a vitreous haemorrhage. The sensitivity of the paediatrician's RRT to detect abnormalities was poor at 0.77% (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.02%-4.21%) with a PPV of only 7.69% (95% CI, 1.08%-38.85%). Overall, there was no agreement between screening modalities (κ = -0.02, 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.01). The number needed to screen to detect ocular abnormalities using WFDI was 5.9 newborns and to detect treatable abnormalities was 76 newborns. CONCLUSION: While RRT detects gross abnormalities that preclude visualization of the retina (i.e. media opacities and very large tumours), only WFDI consistently detects subtle treatable retina and optic nerve pathology. With a higher sensitivity than the current gold standard, universal WFDI allows for early detection and management of potentially blinding ophthalmic disease missed by RRT.
Assuntos
Oftalmopatias/diagnóstico , Triagem Neonatal/métodos , Nervo Óptico/diagnóstico por imagem , Reflexo/fisiologia , Retina/diagnóstico por imagem , Brasil/epidemiologia , Oftalmopatias/epidemiologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Incidência , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Oftalmoscopia/métodos , Nervo Óptico/fisiopatologia , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Estudos Prospectivos , Retina/fisiopatologiaRESUMO
AIM: To test efficacy and durability of a polyphenol-based prebiotic treatment for acute gastroenteritis in a 300 patient double-blinded clinical study. METHODS: A two-arm randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical study was conducted at two public health centers in Managua, Nicaragua. Potential subjects who qualified based on inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms. Two thirds of the subjects (n = 200) received a single titrated 0.5-2 ounce liquid dose of a novel polyphenol-based prebiotic (Aliva(TM)) diluted with 2 to eight ounces of oral rehydration solution (ORS). One third of the subjects (n = 100) were randomized to receive two liquid ounces of a taste and color-matched placebo diluted in eight ounces of ORS. The outcome variables measured included stool consistency, stomach discomfort, gas and bloating, and heartburn/indigestion. The study subjects ranked their stool consistency and the severity of their subjective symptoms at specified intervals from immediately prior to treatment, to five days post treatment. All subjects recorded their symptoms in a study diary. The study subjects also recorded the time and consistencies of all stools in their study diary. Stool consistency was compared to the picture and descriptions on the Bristol Stool Chart, and any stool rated greater than Type 4 was considered unformed. The clinical study team reviewed the study diaries with subjects during daily follow-up calls and close-out visits, and recorded the data in case report forms. RESULTS: After receiving a single dose, Aliva treated subjects reported shorter median time to their last unformed stool (1 h 50 min) than placebo treated subjects (67 h 50 min.), a statistically significant difference [95%CI: -3178-(-2018), P = 0.000]. Aliva treated subjects also reported shorter median their time to last unformed stool (TTLUS) (1 hrs 50 min) than placebo treated subjects (67 h 50 min), which was also a statistically significant difference (P = 0.000).The percentage of subjects recording TTLUS was greater for those who received Aliva vs placebo at 30 min (P = 0.027), 2 h (P = 0.000), 24 h (P = 0.000), 48 h (P = 0.000), 72 h (P = 0.000), and 5 d (P = 0.000) post dose. There were 146 study subjects 14 years old or older, which was the criteria set for reliable self-reporting of subjective symptoms. Of those 146 subjects, 142 reported stomach pain and discomfort during screening. From 90 minutes [95%CI: -1.8-(-0.01), P = 0.048] through 5 d [95%CI: -3.4-(-1.9), P = 0.000), the subjects treated with Aliva experienced significantly less stomach pain and discomfort than those who received placebo. Of those same 146 participants, 114 subjects reported gas and bloating during screening. Similarly, subjects who received Aliva experienced significantly less gas and bloating from 2 h [95%CI: -1.7-(-0.39), P = 0.030] through 5 d (95%CI: -2.0-0.42, P = 0.005) compared with the placebo arm. CONCLUSION: In this double-blind, randomized clinical study, subjects with acute gastroenteritis receiving Aliva prebiotic showed significant and sustained improvement of multiple symptoms vs those receiving placebo.