Reading the unique DNA methylation landscape of the brain: Non-CpG methylation,hydroxymethylation, and MeCP2

DNA methylation at CpG dinucleotides is an important epigenetic regulator common to virtually all mammalian cell types, but recent evidence indicates that during early postnatal development neuronal genomes also accumulate uniquely high levels of two alternative forms of methylation, non-CpG methylation and hydroxymethylation. Here we discuss the distinct landscape of DNA methylation in neurons, how it is established, and how it might affect the binding and function of protein readers of DNA methylation. We review studies of one critical reader of DNA methylation in the brain, the Rett syndrome protein methyl CpG-binding protein 2 (MeCP2), and discuss how differential binding affinity of MeCP2 for non-CpG and hydroxymethylation may affect the function of this methyl-binding protein in the nervous system.     

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Benzoyl Peroxide Resembling Impetigo

A 17‐year‐old boy presented with recurring severe dermatitis of the face of 5‐months duration that resembled impetigo. He had been treated with several courses of antibiotics without improvement. Biopsy showed changes consistent with allergic contact dermatitis and patch testing later revealed sensitization to benzoyl peroxide, which the patient had been using for the treatment of acne vulgaris.     

What are the requirements for patient-centered breast imaging? Communication preferences of mammography patients in Turkey

Abstract

We have investigated communication preferences of mammography results in 90 patients through a structured interview approach. About 81% of patients expressed that they wanted to get the results, and 18% expressed that getting the results does not help if they are incomprehensible. In patients who want to get the results, 80% preferred face-to-face interaction with physicians, whereas the others preferred other modes of communication to prevent loss of time. Majority of patients infavor of face-to-face interaction (57%) preferred both the referring physician and the radiologist. Comprehensibility and fast delivery of reports, plus direct communication with radiologists are the requirements in mammography patients while implementing patient-centered radiology.