Effects of intravitreal bevacizumab in Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative models of ocular inflammation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exogenous endophthalmitis is a potential complication of intraocular surgery and frequently results in visual impairment. Current treatment involves administration of intravitreal (IVT) antibiotics with or without vitrectomy surgery. Evidence for the use of adjunctive anti-inflammatory agents is conflicting. We set out to determine if bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody targeted against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), has anti-inflammatory properties in experimental models of Gram-positive and Gram-negative inflammation. METHODS: BALB/c mice were subjected to lipopolysaccharide- (LPS) or peptidoglycan- (PGN) induced ocular inflammation and treated with IVT bevacizumab. Iris microvasculature was imaged 6 hours following irritant/treatment using intravital microscopy (IVM) before the mice were euthanized and the eyes were enucleated immediately post-mortem. Following enucleation, levels of VEGF and 23 cytokines and chemokines (IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-12 (p40), IL-12 (p70), IL-13, IL-17, TNF, KC, G-CSF, GM-CSF, Eotaxin, INF-γ, MCP-1, MIP-1α, MIP-1β, RANTES) were quantified using a multiplex assay. RESULTS: Levels of VEGF were significantly increased during the inflammatory response, triggered by either PGN or LPS. Both the adherence of leukocytes to the iris vascular endothelium and the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines were significantly increased following administration of either irritant. Treatment with bevacizumab decreased levels of leukocyte adherence in LPS-treated eyes, however, not in PGN-treated eyes. Conversely, bevacizumab treatment decreased levels of cytokines and chemokines (TNF, IL-6, MCP-1, MIP-1α, MIP-1β, RANTES, KC) in PGN-treated eyes, however, not in LPS-treated eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Within a 6-hour window bevacizumab had anti-inflammatory actions that were distinct in both Gram-positive (PIU) and Gram-negative (EIU) models, respectively. Given our findings, this would suggest that bevacizumab may have utility as an adjunctive therapy to IVT antibiotics and vitrectomy in the management of exogenous endophthalmitis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".