| 1. |
- Andreasson, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Parkinson's disease with restless legs syndrome-an in vivo corneal confocal microscopy study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: npj Parkinson's Disease. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2373-8057. ; 7:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) has been suggested as a trigger of restless legs syndrome (RLS). An increased prevalence of peripheral neuropathy has been demonstrated in Parkinson's disease (PD). We aimed to investigate, in a cross-sectional manner, whether SFN is overrepresented in PD patients with concurrent RLS relative to PD patients without RLS, using in vivo corneal confocal microscopy (IVCCM) and quantitative sensory testing (QST) as part of small fiber assessment. Study participants comprised of age- and sex-matched PD patients with (n = 21) and without RLS (n = 21), and controls (n = 13). Diagnosis of RLS was consolidated with the sensory suggested immobilization test. Assessments included nerve conduction studies (NCS), Utah Early Neuropathy Scale (UENS), QST, and IVCCM, with automated determination of corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) and branch density (CNBD) from wide-area mosaics of the subbasal nerve plexus. Plasma neurofilament light (p-NfL) was determined as a measure of axonal degeneration. No significant differences were found between groups when comparing CNFL (p = 0.81), CNBD (p = 0.92), NCS (p = 0.82), and QST (minimum p = 0.54). UENS scores, however, differed significantly (p = 0.001), with post-hoc pairwise testing revealing higher scores in both PD groups relative to controls (p = 0.018 and p = 0.001). Analysis of all PD patients (n = 42) revealed a correlation between the duration of l-dopa therapy and CNBD (rho = -0.36, p = 0.022), and p-NfL correlated with UENS (rho = 0.35, p = 0.026) and NCS (rho = -0.51, p = 0.001). Small and large fiber neuropathy do not appear to be associated with RLS in PD. Whether peripheral small and/or large fiber pathology associates with central neurodegeneration in PD merits further longitudinal studies.
|
|
| 2. |
- Vernhardsdottir, R.R., et al.
(författare)
-
Antibiotic treatment for dry eye disease related to meibomian gland dysfunction and blepharitis – A review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ocular Surface. - : Elsevier Inc.. - 1542-0124. ; 26, s. 211-221
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Dry eye disease (DED) is among the most prevalent ophthalmic conditions but is often underdiagnosed and mistreated. Antibiotics are regularly used to treat DED caused by meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) or blepharitis, but their use has been questioned. Objective: To critically evaluate the use of oral and topical antibiotics in DED management. Methods: A literature search was conducted on November 15th, 2021, in the PubMed database. The search terms were: (antibiotics OR azithromycin OR doxycycline OR minocycline) AND (dry eye disease OR meibomian gland OR blepharitis anterior OR blepharitis posterior OR chronic blepharitis). All relevant original articles with English full-text were included. Case reports and review articles were excluded. Results: The search provided 619 articles, of which 22 met the inclusion criteria. Oral and topical antibiotics appeared to have short-term positive effects on signs and symptoms of blepharitis- or MGD-related DED. However, these improvements often reverted upon cessation of treatment. The need for repeated treatments and mild adverse events were common. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that patients with blepharitis- or MGD-related DED experience short-term benefits of antibiotics. However, evidence for lasting improvement after completed treatment was lacking. Given the unclear long-term benefits, common side effects, and increasing antibiotic resistance seen globally, the existing literature is not sufficient to conclude that antibiotics are useful in long-term MGD management. A survival-analysis of a single round of antibiotics, in addition to the effects of repeated rounds of treatment, on DED parameters could provide useful insights. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.
|
|
