No abstract

No abstract

Background: Adherence is critical to achieve the benefits of antiretroviral therapy. A smart-pill bottle service that transmits real-time adherence data via cellular networks to a central service and prompts nonadherent patients with phone or text messages may improve adherence. Methods: Adults with HIV taking a tenofovir-containing regimen with suboptimal adherence were randomized to adherence counseling ± a smart-pill bottle service for 12 weeks. Tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) levels by dried blood spot, HIV RNA levels, CD4 cell counts, and self-reported adherence were collected. Results: Sixty-three participants (22% women; 48% black, 25% Latino) were randomized: 30 to the smart-pill bottle (2 of whom were lost to follow-up before the baseline visit), and 33 to control arms. At baseline, 49% of participants had HIV RNA ≤20 copies/mL and 61% reported 100% adherence with ART over 4 days. From baseline to week 12, median TFV-DP levels were +252 and −41 fmol/punch in the bottle and control arms, respectively (P = 0.10). Exploratory exclusion of 3 participants with known or suspected drug–drug interactions found median TFV-DP levels of +278 and −38 fmol/punch, respectively (P = 0.04). There were no differences in study discontinuations, HIV RNA suppression, CD4 cell counts, or self-reported adherence at week 12. Conclusions: In a diverse group of participants with suboptimal adherence to ART, the smart-pill bottle service was associated with higher TFV-DP levels.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Non-causal macular holes (MHs) can occur concurrently with rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRDs). The visual outcomes and surgical approach for these eyes are variable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective review of all primary retinal detachment surgeries from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative metrics were recorded. RESULTS: There were 2,242 eyes that had pars plana vitrectomy for primary RRD, 43 (1.9%) of which had a MH at the time of surgery. The mean postoperative logMAR visual acuity (VA) for the MH cohort was 0.87 ± 0.64 (20/148) and for eyes without a MH was 0.47 ± 0.63 (20/59; P < .0001). The single-surgery re-attachment rate for the MH cohort and no MH cohort was 86.1% and 84.9%, respectively ( P = 1.0000). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with noncausal MHs and RRD had significantly worse VA than patients without a MH. Preoperative counseling is imperative in patients with both RRD and MH. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina . 2020;51:500–505.]

Background/aimsVitrectomy to repair retinal detachment is often performed with either non-contact wide-angle viewing systems or wide-angle contact viewing systems. The purpose of this study is to assess whether the viewing system used is associated with any differences in surgical outcomes of vitrectomy for primary non-complex retinal detachment repair.MethodsThis is a multicenter, interventional, retrospective, comparative study. Eyes that underwent non-complex primary retinal detachment repair by either pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) alone or in combination with scleral buckle/PPV in 2015 were evaluated. The viewing system at the time of the retinal detachment repair was identified and preoperative patient characteristics, intraoperative findings and postoperative outcomes were recorded.ResultsA total of 2256 eyes were included in our analysis. Of those, 1893 surgeries used a non-contact viewing system, while 363 used a contact lens system. There was no statistically significant difference in single surgery anatomic success at 3 months (p=0.72), or final anatomic success (p=0.40). Average postoperative visual acuity for the contact-based cases was logMAR 0.345 (20/44 Snellen equivalent) compared with 0.475 (20/60 Snellen equivalent) for non-contact (p=0.001). After controlling for numerous confounding variables in multivariable analysis, viewing system choice was no longer statistically significant (p=0.097).ConclusionThere was no statistically significant difference in anatomic success achieved for primary retinal detachment repair when comparing non-contact viewing systems to contact lens systems. Postoperative visual acuity was better in the contact-based group but this was not statistically significant when confounding factors were controlled for.