Low-Dose⁣ Atropine ⁢for Myopia⁣ Control: New Study Raises Questions About⁣ Long-Term Safety

New York, NY – A large, retrospective ⁢study published today in ⁣ JAMA Ophthalmology offers ‌a nuanced look at the ‌safety of low-dose atropine eye drops, ⁣a treatment increasingly used to slow the ‍progression of nearsightedness (myopia)⁢ in children. While the study found no overall difference in common‌ ocular complications like glaucoma and ⁤cataracts between children treated with atropine and those ‌who weren’t,‍ it⁣ did suggest a potential link between longer-term use and increased risk – a ⁤finding⁢ researchers say ‌warrants further investigation.

Myopia is⁣ a⁣ growing global health concern, especially in East Asia, where rates are soaring. ⁣ Left unchecked, increasing myopia isn’t ‌just a matter of needing stronger glasses; it substantially‌ elevates the risk of serious, possibly vision-threatening⁢ conditions like‌ myopic maculopathy,⁤ open-angle glaucoma,⁢ and ⁤retinal detachment.

Atropine drops work by temporarily dilating the pupil and relaxing the focusing muscles of the‍ eye. ‌ Research has indicated that, at low doses, these ⁤drops‍ can⁤ effectively slow⁣ myopia progression​ – leading to​ widespread adoption in⁢ countries like Taiwan, where they’ve been ⁢used for over two decades.

Study ‍Details & ⁤Key Findings

Researchers led ⁣by​ Dr. Tzu-Hsun Tsai of National Taiwan University Hospital analyzed data ⁢from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance program, encompassing nearly ‍600,000‌ children aged 8-15 ‍diagnosed with myopia between‍ 2001 and 2015. Approximately two-thirds of‌ these children were treated ⁢with atropine drops, while⁣ the remaining third were not. The study boasted a significant follow-up period, with over ‍70% of participants tracked for‍ 10 ⁣years ⁢and⁢ 40% for 15 years.

The study ‍focused on ‌the incidence of cataracts, ‍glaucoma, and maculopathy. While children with myopia had ​a roughly⁣ 50%​ greater risk of developing​ these conditions compared to those without myopia (consistent with existing research),the analysis of atropine use yielded mixed results.⁣

Initially, longer-term atropine prescription appeared associated with ⁢a higher‌ risk of ocular complications. However, this association ⁤weakened when researchers accounted for the severity of ‍the children’s ⁢myopia. Crucially,​ the ⁢ cumulative ​dose of atropine ⁢- the ⁣total amount used over time – wasn’t linked to⁣ a greater risk, suggesting duration of use, rather than total exposure, might potentially ‌be ⁢the more significant factor.

What Dose This Mean for Parents?

“This study doesn’t ‌necessarily mean atropine is unsafe,” explains Dr. Michael Lee, Editor-in-Chief‍ at world-today-news.com.⁤ “It highlights the need ‌for‍ careful monitoring and​ a personalized approach to‌ myopia ‍management.The findings suggest that ⁣while atropine appears generally safe,​ clinicians should be mindful of long-term use and consider the ‌individual patient’s myopia severity.”

The researchers themselves acknowledge that the increased risk observed with longer-term‍ use‌ may be⁣ linked⁢ to the underlying severity⁣ of ⁢myopia, rather than ⁢the drops themselves. More research is needed⁣ to definitively clarify this relationship.

Looking Ahead

This ‍study underscores the importance of ongoing research into the long-term effects of myopia control strategies. As the global​ prevalence of myopia continues ‍to rise, understanding the ⁢benefits and‍ risks of⁢ treatments like low-dose atropine is crucial for protecting the vision⁤ of future generations.

Sources:

* Tsai,T. H., et al. ⁣(2024). Association of Atropine Use With Ocular Complications⁣ Among Children With Myopia. JAMA ‌Ophthalmology. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2838641

* JAMA Network: https://jamanetwork.com/

SEO Keywords: ‌myopia, nearsightedness, atropine, eye drops, children, vision, glaucoma, ‌cataracts, ⁢maculopathy, eye health, ophthalmology, myopia control,⁣ vision correction.

Here’s a breakdown of the provided text, focusing on the key information about CAR T-cell therapy for autoimmune diseases:

What is CAR T-cell Therapy?

Type of Immunotherapy: It’s a treatment that uses a patient’s own immune cells.
how it effectively works:
T-cells are extracted from the patient’s blood.
These T-cells are genetically modified in a lab to target specific cells.
The modified T-cells are multiplied.
The modified T-cells are then reinfused into the patient. Original Use: Typically used to treat blood cancers like lymphoma.

The Connection: Both lymphoma and autoimmune diseases affect a patient’s B cells.
In lymphoma, B cells become cancerous. In autoimmune diseases, B cells produce antibodies that attack the body’s own cells.
The Target: The therapy being tested uses CAR T-cells to target the CD19 protein, which is found on the surface of B cells.
The Outcome: Researchers have found that this therapy can eliminate autoimmune antibodies and allow the patient’s B cells to regenerate healthily.
Potential Impact: If trials continue to be positive, it coudl lead to a cure for autoimmune diseases with a single infusion.

Participating Centers: 40 centers in the US and Europe are testing this therapy for autoimmune diseases.
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine (Sylvester Complete Cancer center):
Is testing the therapy on patients with lupus,scleroderma,and polymyositis.
Has already treated a scleroderma patient for neurological side effects. Will soon begin treating another scleroderma patient.
Will soon start a second trial specifically for lupus patients.
Future Interest: Researchers are also interested in using CAR T-cell therapy for neurological autoimmune disorders like multiple sclerosis.

Expert Opinion:

Dr. Damian Green: Highlights that this is a meaningful point where advancements in cancer therapy are translating to othre serious ailments. He emphasizes the “tremendous opportunity” to help patients with life-threatening autoimmune conditions.
Patient Generosity: Dr.Green credits the success of the trials to the generosity of cancer patients who volunteered,understanding that their participation might not directly benefit them but could help a much broader population.

In essence, the article describes a groundbreaking shift in the application of CAR T-cell therapy, moving from cancer treatment to potentially curing autoimmune diseases by targeting and eliminating the problematic B cells responsible for the autoimmune response.

HIV Prevention Funding Cuts Threaten Progress, Experts Warn

Global Health Leaders Advocate for Collaboration Amidst Shifting Financial Landscape

Significant reductions in U.S. funding for HIV prevention research are compelling global health experts to emphasize collaboration and community-inclusive strategies. These discussions, held at the International AIDS Society meeting in Kigali, Rwanda, highlight the urgent need for innovative approaches to maintain momentum in combating the epidemic.

NIH Slashes $200 Million from HIV Prevention Research

The session, co-hosted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gilead, Merck, and the Reproductive Health Institute, zeroed in on adapting to a changing financial environment. A major concern voiced by attendees was the recent termination of 191 HIV-specific grants by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which resulted in over $200 million in funding cuts. These reductions are expected to disrupt early-stage research, behavioral interventions, and vaccine development.

Nyaradzo Mavis Mgodi, MBChB, a specialist in biomedical HIV prevention methods at the University of Zimbabwe Clinical Trials Research Centre, stated, We saw that $99 million was cut from HIV prevention, including the work that I do in HIV, biomedical products, behavioral interventions and access barriers and key populations were not spared. The cuts have adversely affected us all.

Rethinking Trial Design for Efficiency and Inclusivity

Key takeaways from the Future of HIV Prevention Clinical Trials Summit, held in Johannesburg, South Africa, underscored the push for smarter, more agile clinical trials. Speakers stressed the importance of community engagement and innovative trial designs utilizing modeling and artificial intelligence to accelerate development while maintaining rigor and inclusivity.

Grace Kumwenda, regional program manager at AVAC in Malawi, commented, The context for HIV prevention research is rapidly evolving. We are facing shifting epidemiology. Some populations are seeing lower incidence, and others remain quite underserved. At the same time, how do we design and prioritize research?

New Oral PrEP Options Emerge Amidst Research Shifts

Merck has initiated Phase 3 clinical trials for MK-8527, an investigational once-monthly oral HIV PrEP medication. The EXPrESSIVE-11 trial will evaluate its safety and efficacy across 16 countries, beginning enrollment in August 2025. This new compound, a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI), will be compared against generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Rebeca Plank, M.D., senior principal scientist for clinical research at Merck, highlighted the careful consideration of trial comparators. This was done in consultation with various stakeholders from the beginning and even before the protocols really began to be drafted, she noted, explaining the choice to compare MK-8527 with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate before the approval of twice-yearly lenacapavir (Yeztugo).

Vaccines Remain Crucial in HIV Prevention Arsenal

Despite decades of research and challenges in developing an effective HIV vaccine, some promising signals have emerged. The RV144 trial in Thailand, conducted nearly a decade ago, showed a statistically significant decrease in HIV infection, although protective immunity waned. Mgodi argued that vaccines are essential, especially for individuals who struggle with adherence to PrEP or do not perceive themselves at risk, potentially preventing between 8.4 million and 19 million new HIV infections depending on efficacy.

Advances in Passive Immunization with Broadly Neutralizing Antibodies

Research continues into passive immunization using broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs), which can target diverse HIV strains. Organizations like IAVI and the Scripps Consortium for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development (CHAVD) are actively involved. In May 2025, IAVI and Scripps Research released data from two Phase 1 trials demonstrating that a targeted vaccine strategy can successfully activate early immune responses relevant to HIV, with findings published in the journal *Science*.

ViiV Healthcare is also developing bnAbs. In March 2025, data from a Phase 2b study showed that N6LS, a bnAb administered every four months, effectively maintained undetectable viral loads when combined with Apretude (cabotegravir) in adults living with HIV who were stable on treatment. According to UNAIDS, approximately 39 million people were living with HIV globally in 2023. (UNAIDS, 2023).

Steroid Use Linked to Worse Outcomes in Lung Cancer

For individuals with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing immunotherapy, a new study reveals that baseline corticosteroid use correlates with poorer results and less reliable biomarker data, prompting calls to re-evaluate steroid prescriptions.

Study Links Steroids to Diminished Immunotherapy Efficacy

Research featured in Cancer Research Communications indicates that patients with NSCLC who were using corticosteroids at the start of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment experienced significantly lower response rates, plus shorter progression-free and overall survival. The research was headed by **Fumito Ito**, an oncologist at the University of Southern California.

According to the American Cancer Society, NSCLC accounts for approximately 87% of all lung cancers. Survival rates remain low: for patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2021, the five-year survival rate hovered around 32%.

While ICIs like Keytruda and Opdivo have improved outcomes, steroids are often prescribed for symptom management. The new data suggests that such use before or during treatment blunts the effectiveness of immunotherapies.

Key Findings on Steroid Impact

The study found that even discontinuing steroids before ICI therapy led to better results than continuing their use. “The mere use of steroids was a more influential prognostic factor than the presence of brain metastases,” the study authors stated. Moreover, higher steroid doses correlated with worse outcomes.

Additionally, steroid use skewed blood-based immune markers, such as CX3CR1+ CD8+ T cell levels, complicating interpretation. Likewise, the typical association between a low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and better prognosis disappeared in patients on steroids. These findings coincide with reports that nearly 40% of cancer patients are prescribed steroids, often for extended durations (Cureus, 2022).

Mouse Model Confirms Steroid Interference

Experiments involving tumor-bearing mice further validated these concerns. Steroids diminished the therapeutic benefits of anti–PD-L1 therapy and hampered T-cell development, even if steroids were stopped before treatment.

Looking Ahead

While acknowledging the study’s limitations, including a small sample size, the authors advocate for minimizing steroid use prior to ICI treatment. They propose that future research should investigate whether reducing or discontinuing steroids could improve clinical outcomes for these patients.