Search

Purpose: To assess the influence of factors related to migration and acculturation on myopia in migrant Indians in Singapore. Design: Population-based cross-sectional study. Methods: A total of 3400 Singaporean Indians (75.6% response rate) aged over 40 years participated in this study. Information regarding country of birth, migration age, and language of interview were collected from interviews. Indians born outside of Singapore were defined as “first-generation” immigrants, while Indians born in Singapore were defined as “second-generation (or higher)” immigrants. Refraction was determined by autorefraction and refined by subjective refraction. Ocular biometry including axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and corneal radius (CR) were measured by partial coherence interferometry. Myopia and high myopia were defined as spherical equivalents (SE) of less than −0.5 diopter (D) for myopia, and < −5 D for high myopia, respectively. Results: The prevalence of myopia (30.2% vs 23.4 %) and high myopia (4.8% vs 2.5%) were higher in second-generation immigrants compared with first-generation immigrants. Second-generation immigrants had longer AL (23.50 mm vs 23.37 mm, P = .004) than first-generation immigrants after multivariate adjustment. The excess prevalence of myopia was reduced by 37.5% but remained statistically significant (P = .02) after further controlling for educational level. Among first-generation immigrants, those migrating to Singapore before the age of 21 had significantly higher prevalence of myopia (odds ratio [OR]: 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32, 2.59) and longer AL (regression coefficient: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.43) than those migrating after 21 years of age. Also, first-generation immigrants interviewed in English had higher prevalence of myopia (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.17) than their non-English-interviewed counterparts. Conclusions: The prevalence of myopia among second-generation (or higher) Indian immigrants in Singapore is higher than first-generation immigrants. Country-specific environmental factors may be important for the increasing prevalence of myopia in Asia. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We aimed to determine whether treatment effect size differed between randomised controlled phase II trials and subsequent phase III trials and examine potential predictor of positive phase III trials. We searched MEDLINE for randomised controlled phase II studies published from January 2006 to December 2015. Matched phase III trials that investigated same intervention in the same setting of the same cancer were identified through Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and conference proceedings. For each pair of phase II and phase III trials, we extracted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and evaluated the differences by ratio of HRs (rHRs): the HR for phase II trial to that for phase III trial. A summary rHR was obtained through a random-effect meta-analysis. Univariable analyses were conducted to identify predictors of positive phase III trials. We identified 57 pairs of phase II and phase III trials. Compared with phase III trials, treatment effect sizes of PFS were, on average, 26% larger in phase II trials (rHR = 0.74, P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.68–0.80). Treatment effect sizes of OS were 27% greater in phase II trials than in phase III trials (rHR = 0.73, P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.66–0.79). Fifteen (26.3%) phase III trials were positive, and the only predictor of positive phase III trials was positive phase II trials Treatment effects in randomised controlled phase II trials were greater than those in matched phase III trials. Caution must be taken when interpreting promising results from randomised controlled phase II trials. • Progression-free survival benefit was 26% larger in phase II than phase III trial. • Overall survival benefits was 27% larger in phase II than phase III trial. • The only predictor of positive phase III trials was positive phase II trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]