SETTING: Departments of Ophthalmology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind study performed at two centers, 51 patients received an HSM PMMA lens and 48, an unmodified PMMA IOL. Cell and pigment deposits were evaluated by slitlamp at 1 to 6 days, 2 to 3 weeks, and 3 to 6 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Significantly more eyes with unmodified IOLs had inflammatory cell deposits than those with HSM IOLs at 3 to 6 months (P < .001) and 12 to 14 months (P = .018) postoperatively. The HSM group also had significantly fewer cell deposits per patient at these two follow-ups. Significantly more eyes in the non-HSM group had pigment deposits 3 to 6 months after surgery (P = .049). One year postoperatively, about 85% of patients in both groups had a best corrected visual acuity of 0.5 or better.
CONCLUSION: Heparin surface modification significantly reduced the inflammatory response to PMMA IOLs in an Asian population for at least 12 to 14 months.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality.
CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.