Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mehta H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6494419 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6481463 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6517135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of cataract surgery combined with either anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (anti-VEGF) therapy or dexamethasone implant (DEX) in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO).MethodsPubmed and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes of diabetic cataract surgery combined with either anti-VEGF or DEX, with a follow-up ≥3 months. The primary outcome was the mean change in central macular thickness (CMT). Mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was considered as a secondary outcome. The mean difference between baseline and post-treatment values (MD) with 95%-Confidence Interval (95%CI) was calculated and meta-analyses were performed.ResultsNine-teen studies were included, 8 in the DEX group and 11 in the anti-VEGF group. A significant reduction of macular thickness was shown in the DEX group at 3 months (MD = -98.35 µm; 95% CI, -147.15/-49.54), while mean CMT change was non-significant in the anti-VEGF group (MD = -21.61 µm; 95% CI, -59.46/16.24; test of group differences, P < 0.001). At 3 months, no difference in visual gain was found between the two groups (P = 0.13).ConclusionsIn DMO patients, cataract surgery combined with DEX seems to provide better anatomical outcomes compared with cataract surgery combined with anti-VEGF therapy. However, our evidence was limited by significant heterogeneity. Randomised trials comparing these two different combined approaches are warranted.
| S-EPMC9674685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate retinal thickness fluctuations in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections.MethodsVisual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) were collected at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Retinal thickness fluctuation was quantified by standard deviation (SD) of CST across 12 months. A mixed effects regression model evaluated the relationship between CST SD and VA at 12 months. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to investigate predictors of CST SD.ResultsMean baseline and 12-month VAs were 63.5 ± 15.7 and 69.0 ± 13.8 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (change = +5.1 ± 16.1 letters, p < 0.001). Mean baseline and 12-month CSTs were 396.9 ± 109.7 and 337.7 ± 100.7 μm (change = -59.2 ± 114.8 μm, p < 0.001). Retinal thickness variability across the first 12 months was 59.4 ± 43.6 μm. Stratification of patient eyes by CST SD demonstrated 9.7 letters difference in 12-month VA between first and fourth quartiles. Significant predictors of CST SD include baseline CST, injection type, laser treatment, and DR stage.ConclusionsLarger retinal thickness fluctuations are associated with poorer visual outcomes in eyes with DMO treated with anti-VEGF injections. Retinal thickness variability may be an important prognostic biomarker for DMO patients.
| S-EPMC9232615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This retrospective study evaluated the association of hyperreflective foci (HRF) with treatment response in diabetic macular oedema (DME) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. The medical records, including of ophthalmologic examinations and optical coherence tomography (OCT) images, of 106 patients with DME treated with either intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept were reviewed. The correlations between best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes and HRF along with other OCT biomarkers were analysed. The mean logMAR BCVA improved from 0.696 to 0.461 after an average of 6.2 injections in 1 year under real-world conditions. Greater visual-acuity gain was noted in patients with a greater number of HRF in the outer retina at baseline (p = 0.037), along with other factors such as poor baseline vision (p < 0.001), absence of epiretinal membrane (p = 0.048), and presence of subretinal fluid at baseline (p = 0.001). The number of HRF after treatment was correlated with the presence of hard exudate (p < 0.001) and baseline haemoglobin A1C (p = 0.001). Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy had greater HRF reduction after treatment (p = 0.018). The number of HRF in the outer retina, in addition to other baseline OCT biomarkers, could be used to predict the treatment response in DME after anti-VEGF treatment.
| S-EPMC7930178 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7388176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diabetes mellitus is a serious health problem that affects over 350 million individuals worldwide. Diabetic retinopathy (DR), which is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes, is the leading cause of new cases of blindness in working-aged adults. Diabetic macular edema (DME) is an advanced, vision-limiting complication of DR that affects nearly 30% of patients who have had diabetes for at least 20 years and is responsible for much of the vision loss due to DR. The historic standard of care for DME has been macular laser photocoagulation, which has been shown to stabilize vision and reduce the rate of further vision loss by 50%; however, macular laser leads to significant vision recovery in only 15% of treated patients. Mechanisms contributing to the microvascular damage in DR and DME include the direct toxic effects of hyperglycemia, sustained alterations in cell signaling pathways, and chronic microvascular inflammation with leukocyte-mediated injury. Chronic retinal microvascular damage results in elevation of intraocular levels of vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF), a potent, diffusible, endothelial-specific mitogen that mediates many important physiologic processes, including but not limited to the development and permeability of the vasculature. The identification of VEGF as an important pathophysiologic mediator of DME suggested that anti-VEGF therapy delivered to the eye might lead to improved visual outcomes in this disease. To date, four different inhibitors of VEGF, each administered by intraocular injection, have been tested in prospective, randomized phase II or phase III clinical trials in patients with DME. The results from these trials demonstrate that treatment with anti-VEGF agents results in substantially improved visual and anatomic outcomes compared with laser photocoagulation, and avoid the ocular side effects associated with laser treatment. Thus, anti-VEGF therapy has become the preferred treatment option for the management of DME in many patients.
| S-EPMC3855829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME).The PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov website and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing DEX implant with anti-VEGF in patients with DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 for Mac was used to analyze the data and GRADE profiler were used to access the quality of outcomes.Based on four randomized clinical trials assessing a total of 521 eyes, the DEX implant can achieve visual acuity improvement for DME at rates similar to those achieved via anti-VEGF treatment (mean difference [MD]?=?-?0.43, P?=?0.35), with superior anatomic outcomes at 6 months (MD?=?-?86.71 ?m, P?=?0.02), while requiring fewer injections, in comparison to anti-VEGF treatment. Although the mean reduction in CST did not showed significant difference at 12 months (MD?=?-?33.77 ?m, P?=?0.21), the significant in BCVA from baseline to 12 months supported the anti-VEGF treatment (MD?=?-?3.26, P?<?0.00001). No statistically significant differences in terms of the serious adverse events. However, use of the DEX implant has higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract than anti-VEGF treatment.Compared with anti-VEGF, DEX implant improved anatomical outcomes significantly. However, this did not translate to improved visual acuity, which may be due to the progression of cataract. Therefore, the DEX implant may be recommended as a first chioce for select cases, such as for pseudophakic eyes, anti-VEGF-resistant eyes, or patients reluctant to receive intravitreal injections frequently.
| S-EPMC5963018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesThis meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IVI) compared to combination laser photocoagulation and IVI (LPC-IVI) in treating macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).Subjects/methodsA literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from inception until March 2021. Randomized controlled trials that reported relevant efficacy and/or safety parameters following LPC-IVI relative to IVI were included. Meta-analysis was conducted with a random effects model. The primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), while secondary outcomes were central macular thickness (CMT), central retinal thickness (CRT), central subfield thickness (CST), number of IVIs received, and incidence of adverse events.ResultsA total of 10 studies were included, for which 362 eyes were randomized to LPC-IVI and 365 to IVI. In comparing macular laser photocoagulation with IVI (MLP-IVI) in BRVO patients, no significant differences were seen in final BCVA (p = 0.78) or change in BCVA (p = 0.09) after treatment. Similarly, no significant differences were seen in final CMT (p = 0.54), change in CMT (p = 0.33), final CRT (p = 0.90), change in CRT (p = 0.97), or number of injections required (p = 0.78). The same results were seen in subgroup analyses for macular laser without peripheral laser in BRVO and CRVO patients. Consistent results were observed when considering peripheral LPC-IVI to IVI in BRVO and CRVO.ConclusionsNo significant differences were seen between combination MLP-IVI or peripheral LPC-IVI relative to IVI monotherapy for final BCVA or OCT parameters in macular oedema secondary to RVO.
| S-EPMC9674600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections are the standard of care for diabetic macular edema (DME), a common complication of diabetes. This study aimed to identify factors influencing DME intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment outcomes in real-world practice.MethodsThis was a multi-center retrospective observational study using medical chart review of participants receiving anti-VEGF injections for DME (N = 248). Demographic and clinical variables were assessed for association with best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) outcomes using regression models.ResultsThere was a significant improvement in BCVA (p < 0.001) and CMT (p < 0.001) after 12 months of treatment, although 21% of participants had decreased BCVA, and 41% had a < 10% CMT reduction at 12 months. Higher baseline BCVA (p = 0.022, OR=-0.024, 95% CI=-0.046,-0.004) and longer duration of diabetic retinopathy (p = 0.048, OR=-0.064, 95% CI=-0.129,-0.001) were negative predictors for BCVA response, whereas Aflibercept treatment (p = 0.017, OR = 1.107, 95% CI = 0.220,2.051) compared with other drugs and a positive "early functional response" (p < 0.001, OR=-1.393, 95% CI=-1.946,-0.857) were positive predictors. A higher baseline CMT (p < 0.001, OR = 0.019, 95% CI = 0.012,0.0261) and an "early anatomical response", (p < 0.001, OR=-1.677, 95% CI=-2.456, -0.943) were predictors for greater reduction in CMT. Overall, the variables could predict only 23% of BCVA and 52% of CMT response.ConclusionsThe study shows a significant proportion of DME patients do not respond to anti-VEGF therapy and identifies several clinical predictors for treatment outcomes.Trial registrationThe study was approved through the Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Tasmania (approval number H0012902), and the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 86 - 067).
| S-EPMC10074667 | biostudies-literature