Emerging Viral Infections Causing Anterior Uveitis

Purpose: To review the systemic and ocular manifestations of specific emergent viral infectious diseases relevant to the ophthalmologist with particular emphasis on anterior uveitis

Methods: Review of literature.

Results: Arboviral diseases are among the most important emergent and resurgent human infections, occurring mostly in tropical and subtropical zones, but appearing in virtually all regions of the world as a result of climate change, travel, and globalization. Arboviral infections are transmitted to humans by the bite of hematophagous arthropods, mainly mosquitoes. Systemic disease may range from asymptomatic to life-threatening. A wide variety of ocular manifestations, including uveitis, has been reported in association with these emerging viral diseases. Numerous viruses other than arboviruses also have been recently recognized as a potential cause of uveitis.

Conclusions: Proper clinical diagnosis of any emerging infectious disease is based on epidemiological data, history, systemic symptoms and signs, and the pattern of ocular involvement. The diagnosis is usually confirmed by detection of virus-specific DNA or antivirus antibodies in serum.     

An overview of existing mesothelioma registries worldwide,and the need for a US Registry

The association between asbestos exposure, mainly in occupational settings, and malignant mesothelioma has been well established; this has prompted several countries to establish mesothelioma epidemiologic surveillance programs often at the request of national agencies. This review compares currently existing mesothelioma registries worldwide to develop a concept model for a US real-time case capture mesothelioma registry. Five countries were identified with a mesothelioma specific registry, including Italy, France, UK, Australia, and South Korea. All, except the UK, used interviews to collect exposure data. Linkage with the national death index was available or was in future plans for all registries. The registries have limited information on treatment, quality of life, and other patient-centered outcomes such as symptoms and pain management. To thoroughly collect exposure data, “real-time” enrollment is preferable; to maximize the capture of mesothelioma cases, optimal coverage, and a simplified consent process are needed.     

Use of a Checklist During Observation of a Simulated Cardiac Arrest Scenario Does Not Improve Time to CPR and Defibrillation Over Observation Alone for Subsequent Scenarios

Theory: Immersive simulation is a common mode of education for medical students. Observation of clinical simulations prior to participation is believed to be beneficial, though this is often a passive process. Active observation may be more beneficial. Hypotheses: The hypothesis tested in this study was that the active use of a simple checklist during observation of an immersive simulation would result in better participant performance in a subsequent scenario compared with passive observation alone. Methods: Medical students were randomized to either passive or active (with checklist) observation of an immersive simulation involving cardiac arrest prior to participating in their own simulation. Performance measures included time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and time to defibrillation and were compared between first and second scenarios as well as between passive and active observers. Results: Seventy-nine simulations involving 232 students were conducted. Mean time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for those using the checklist and 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = 6 seconds), t(35) = 1.46, p =.153. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for those using the checklist and 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = –2 seconds), t(38) =.21, p =.837. Time to CPR was 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for passive observers and 31 seconds (SD = 21.0; M difference = 7 seconds), t(35) = 1.13, p =.265, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for active observers and 36 seconds (SD = 26.2; M difference = 18 seconds), t(24) = 2.81, p =.010, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for passive observers and 125 seconds (SD = 32.2; M difference = 33 seconds), t(33) = 3.63, p =.001, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for the active observers and 132 seconds (SD = 52.9; M difference = 38 seconds), t(28) =.46, p =.008, for their first scenario counterparts. Conclusions: Observation alone leads to improved performance in the management of a simulated cardiac arrest. The active use of a simple skills-based checklist during observation did not appear to improve performance over passive observation alone.