This large case series study showed favorable 3-year outcomes when using Ozurdex to treat diabetic macular edema. Intravitreal Ozurdex provides substantial long-term benefits in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in real-life.
Episodes of ocular hypertension after Ozurdex implant were generally transient and successfully managed with topical treatment. An analysis of the risk factors may help to determine the risk-benefit ratio for individual patients treated with dexamethasone implants.
The significant gain in BCVA from baseline achieved at month 6 was maintained at month 12 after intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant. Naïve status seems to be a good predictive factor of treatment response.
Purpose To report the effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) in French clinical practice. Methods APOLLON (NCT02924311) was a prospective, observational cohort study of patients with DME. Effectiveness was evaluated by change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 months in treatment-naïve patients (i.e., had not received any anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF] agent, laser, or steroid at IVT-AFL treatment start) and previously treated patients (i.e., previously treated with anti-VEGF agents other than IVT-AFL, laser, or steroids at IVT-AFL treatment start). Secondary endpoints included change in central retinal thickness (CRT) over 12 months, frequency of injections, and proportion of patients with safety events. Results Of the 147 patients followed for at least 12 months and included in the effectiveness analysis, 52.4% (n = 77) were treatment-naïve and 47.6% (n = 70) were previously treated. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) BCVA score at baseline was 62.7 (14.3) Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in treatment-naïve patients and 60.0 (13.7) ETDRS letters in previously treated patients. At month 12, mean (SD) change in BCVA was + 7.8 (12.3) letters in treatment-naïve patients and + 5.0 (11.3) letters in previously treated patients. Mean CRT decreased in both patient cohorts. The mean (SD) number of IVT-AFL injections at month 12 was 7.6 (2.5) for treatment-naïve patients and 7.6 (2.3) for previously treated patients. Of 388 patients included in the safety analysis, ocular treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 54.1% (n = 210) of patients. Conclusion IVT-AFL treatment was associated with improvements in functional and anatomic outcomes in both treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with DME in France.
Purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate pressure increases after intravitreal injections (IVI) and the interest in using prophylactic pressure-lowering medications. Methods. This was a prospective study of 250 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor IVI (ranibizumab) divided into 5 groups of 50 IVI (group 1: no intraocular pressure [IOP]-lowering medication; group 2: apraclonidine 1%; group 3: acetazolamide; group 4: fixed association brimonidine + timolol; group 5: fixed association dorzolamide + timolol). The IOP was measured before, immediately after (T1), 15 minutes after (T15), and 45 minutes after (T45) the IVI using a tonometer. The data were analyzed by analysis of variance followed by a Bonferroni as post hoc test if necessary. Results. The mean IOP peak in group 1 was 46.4±10 mmHg at T1, 21.7±10.2 mmHg at T15, and 15.4±8.6 mmHg at T45. It was not correlated with axial length (r=0.04, p=0.81) or lens status (phakic vs pseudophakic: p=0.88). A mild but significant correlation was found with age (r=0.36, p=0.006). Topical medications produced a significant reduction of IOP at every time point, of around 9 mmHg at T1. The reduction in IOP obtained with acetazolamide was not significant at T1 (-1.6 mmHg, p=0.12), but became significant at T15 and T45 (p=0.011 and p=0.015). Conclusions. Intraocular pressure spike was high but transient. Topical medications, however, produced a significant reduction in IOP spike as well as in the duration of the increased pressure. It would be advisable to prevent this IOP spike, especially when procedures are repeated, notably in patients with glaucoma.
PurposePeripheral exudative haemorrhagic chorioretinopathy (PEHCR) is a rare disorder that is often misdiagnosed. The aim of this study was to better characterise PEHCR and to assess treatment options.Material and methodsRetrospective multicentric chart review.ResultsOf 84 eyes (69 patients) with PEHCR referred between 2005 and 2017, the most common referral diagnosis was choroidal melanoma (41.3%). Bilateral involvement was found in 21.7% of cases. Haemorrhagic retinal pigment epithelium detachment was the most common peripheral lesion (53.6%). Maculopathy was associated with peripheral lesions in 65.8% of cases. PEHCR lesions were mostly heterogeneous (58.8%) on B-scan ultrasonography. Choroidal neovascularisation was found in 10 eyes (26.3%) out of 38 eyes that underwent fluorescein angiography. Polyps were observed in 14 eyes (58.3%) out of 24 eyes that underwent indocyanine green angiography. Fifty-one eyes were treated (62.2%). Intravitreal injections (IVTI) of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were the most used treatment (36.6%) before laser photocoagulation, photodynamic therapy, vitrectomy and cryotherapy. Only vitrectomy improved visual acuity. Most lesions (65.6%) regressed at the last follow-up visit.ConclusionIn case of PEHCR, multimodal imaging is useful to avoid misdiagnosis, to characterise PEHCR lesions and to guide treatment strategies. Regression of PEHCR lesions was observed in two-thirds of the patients. Vitrectomy improved visual acuity. More than a third of patients underwent anti-VEGF IVTI. Further studies are needed to assess IVTI’s efficacy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.