Repeated intravitreal injections of antivascular endothelial growth factors and risk of intraocular pressure medication use.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cui QN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6698200 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The number of eye diseases treated with intravitreal injections is increasing. Obviously, an injection of fluid into the eye results in an increase of intraocular pressure (IOP), the main risk factor for glaucoma. However, the effect of these repeated IOP increases on the eye is unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review with meta-analyses. PubMed, Embase and Clinical Trials Registries were searched for articles investigating the relationship between intravitreal injections (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF] or steroids) and either IOP, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL)-thickness and glaucoma. Multiple meta-analyses were performed, combining data on intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF medication and dexamethasone implants. A total of 74 articles were eligible for meta-analyses. The short-term effect of an intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF showed a statistically significant increase in IOP. One day after injection of anti-VEGF, however, IOP was significantly lower than baseline. The long-term time-intervals showed no significant difference in IOP. After intravitreal injection of a dexamethasone implant, IOP was significantly higher than baseline 1 month post-injection. RNFL-thickness was significantly reduced 6 and 12 months post-injection of anti-VEGF, as well as at end of follow up. Caution is advised when using intravitreal medication, especially when treating patients with advanced glaucoma; in these cases, prophylactic IOP-lowering medication may be considered.
| S-EPMC7411061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo study the prevalence of sustained intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation associated with intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.MethodsProspective comparative study. Non-glaucomatous patients scheduled to receive intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF therapy were recruited from an outpatient eye clinic, Songklanagarind Hospital between April 2013 and March 2014. The IOP was measured by Goldmann applanation tonometer before and at 1 hour, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after injection. The IOP was compared using the repeated measures analysis. Sustained IOP elevation was defined as either an IOP > 21 mmHg or an increase from baseline ≥ 5 mmHg on two consecutive visits.ResultsSeventy eyes of 54 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most common diagnosis was diabetic macular edema (48%). The mean IOP ± standard deviation (SD) before treatment was 13.7 ± 2.8 mmHg. The means ± SDs after treatment at 1 hour, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months were 11.3 ± 2.6, 13.7 ± 3.6, 14.1 ± 3.3, 14.0 ± 2.3, and 13.7 ± 2.4 mmHg, respectively. A mean of IOP difference at 1 hour postinjection and at baseline was -2.36 ± 2.5 mmHg (P < 0.001). Four of 70 treated eyes (5.7%) developed sustained IOP elevation (IOP ≥ 5 mmHg from baseline on two consecutive visits). The IOP returned to baseline levels after 1 month, in three eyes. One eye had sustained IOP elevation at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Thereafter, IOP returned to baseline level. There was no need of anti-glaucoma medication.ConclusionsAfter receiving intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agent, a small proportion of non-glaucomatous eyes developed a sustained IOP elevation without requiring IOP-lowering treatment. At 1 hour postinjection, there was a significant reduction of the mean IOP compared with the baseline level.
| S-EPMC4567346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the effect of physician face mask use on rates and outcomes of postinjection endophthalmitis.DesignRetrospective, comparative cohort study.MethodsSetting: Single-center. StudyPopulation: Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections from July 1, 2013, to September 1, 2019.InterventionCases were divided into "Face Mask" group if face masks were worn by the physician during intravitreal injections or "No Talking" group if no face mask was worn but a no-talking policy was observed during intravitreal injections. MainOutcomeMeasures: Rate of endophthalmitis, visual acuity, and microbial spectrum.ResultsOf 483,622 intravitreal injections administered, 168 out of 453,460 (0.0371%) cases of endophthalmitis occurred in the No Talking group, and 9 out of 30,162 (0.0298%) cases occurred in the Face Mask group (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.57; P = .527). Sixteen cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis were found in the No Talking group (1 in 28,341 injections), compared to none in the Face Mask group (P = .302). Mean logMAR visual acuity at presentation in cases that developed culture-positive endophthalmitis was significantly worse in the No Talking group compared to the Face Mask group (17.1 lines lost from baseline acuity vs 13.4 lines lost; P = .031), though no difference was observed at 6 months after treatment (P = .479).ConclusionPhysician face mask use did not influence the risk of postinjection endophthalmitis compared to a no-talking policy. However, no cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis occurred in the Face Mask group. Future studies are warranted to assess the role of face mask use to reduce endophthalmitis risk, particularly attributable to oral flora.
| S-EPMC7462768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeRoutine use of face masks for patients and physicians during intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has increased with the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study evaluates the impact of universal face mask use on rates and outcomes of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE).DesignRetrospective, multicenter, comparative cohort study.ParticipantsEyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from October 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, at 12 centers.MethodsCases were divided into a "no face mask" group if no face masks were worn by the physician or patient during intravitreal injections or a "universal face mask" group if face masks were worn by the physician, ancillary staff, and patient during intravitreal injections.Main outcome measuresRate of endophthalmitis, microbial spectrum, and visual acuity (VA).ResultsOf 505 968 intravitreal injections administered in 110 547 eyes, 85 of 294 514 (0.0289%; 1 in 3464 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the "no face mask" group, and 45 of 211 454 (0.0213%; 1 in 4699) cases occurred in the "universal face mask" group (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.18; P = 0.097). In the "no face mask" group, there were 27 cases (0.0092%; 1 in 10 908 injections) of culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 9 cases (0.004%; 1 in 23 494) in the "universal face mask" group (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; P = 0.041). Three cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis occurred in the "no face mask" group (0.001%; 1 in 98 171 injections) compared with 1 (0.0005%; 1 in 211 454) in the "universal face mask" group (P = 0.645). Patients presented a mean (range) 4.9 (1-30) days after the causative injection, and mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA at endophthalmitis presentation was 2.04 (~20/2200) for "no face mask" group compared with 1.65 (~20/900) for the "universal face mask" group (P = 0.022), although no difference was observed 3 months after treatment (P = 0.764).ConclusionsIn a large, multicenter, retrospective study, physician and patient face mask use during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections did not alter the risk of presumed acute-onset bacterial endophthalmitis, but there was a reduced rate of culture-positive endophthalmitis. Three months after presentation, there was no difference in VA between the groups.
| S-EPMC8130590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo determine the effect of oral acetazolamide on lowering the peak and duration of intraocular pressure (IOP) rise in glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients, following intravitreal injection of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.MethodsThe study was an open-label, parallel, randomised, controlled trial (EudraCT Number: 2010-023037-35). Twenty-four glaucoma or glaucoma suspect patients received either 500 mg acetazolamide or no treatment 60-90 min before 0.5 mg ranibizumab. The primary outcome measure was the difference in IOP immediately after injection (T0) and 5, 10, and 30 min following injection. ANCOVA was used to compare groups, adjusting for baseline IOP. The study was powered to detect a 9-mm Hg difference at T0.ResultsThe IOP at T0 was 2.3 mm Hg higher in the non-treated group (mean 44.5 mm Hg, range (19-86 mm Hg)) compared with the treated group (mean 42.2 mm Hg, range (25-58 mm Hg)), but was not statistically significant after adjusting for baseline IOP (P=0.440). At 30 min, IOP was 4.9 mm Hg higher in the non-treated group (mean 20.6 mm Hg, range (11-46 mm Hg)) compared with the treated group (mean 15.7 mm Hg, range (8-21 mm Hg)). This was statistically significant after adjusting for baseline IOP (P=0.013).ConclusionsAlthough the primary end points were not reached, 500 mg oral acetazolamide, 60-90 min before intravitreal injection, results in a statistically significant reduction in IOP at 3O min post injection. Prophylactic treatment may be considered as an option to minimise neuro-retinal rim damage in high-risk glaucoma patients who are most vulnerable to IOP spikes and undergoing repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab.
| S-EPMC4194342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine the effect of preinjection ocular decompression by cotton swabs on the immediate rise in intraocular pressure (IOP) after intravitreal injections.Forty-eight patients receiving 0.05 mL ranibizumab injections in a retina clinic were randomized to 2 anesthetic methods in each eye on the same day (if bilateral disease) or on consecutive visits (if unilateral disease). One method utilized cotton swabs soaked in 4% lidocaine applied to the globe with moderate pressure and the other 3.5% lidocaine gel applied without pressure. IOPs were recorded at baseline (before injection) and at 0, 5, 10, and 15 minutes after the injection until the IOP was ?30 mm Hg. The IOP elevations from baseline were compared after the 2 anesthetic methods.The preinjection mean IOP (SD, mm Hg) was 15.5 (3.3) before the cotton swabs and 15.9 (3.0) before the gel (P=0.28). Mean IOP (SD, mm Hg) change immediately after injection was 25.7 (9.2) after the cotton swabs and 30.9 (9.9) after the gel (P=0.001). Thirty-five percent of gel eyes had IOP?50 mm Hg compared with only 10% of cotton swab eyes immediately after the injection (P<0.001).Decompressing the eye with cotton swabs during anesthetic preparation before an intravitreal injection produces a significantly lower IOP spike after the injection.
| S-EPMC3769433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite the unquestionable effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (VEGF), there is ongoing controversy about potential systemic adverse effects. Besides the direct adverse effects of anti-VEGF agents, other factors associated with the injection itself, such as perioperative blood pressure fluctuations, may contribute to adverse events.ObjectiveTo determine blood pressure fluctuations during intravitreal injections.Design, setting, and participantsProspective observational study at a tertiary referral center (Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland). Consecutive patients scheduled for intravitreal injections were recruited. Data were analyzed between October 2017 and January 2018.Main outcomes and measuresSystolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded before, during, and after the intravitreal injection. An anxiety questionnaire was completed by all participants. Multivariate regression analysis was used to investigate potential factors associated with blood pressure rise during injections.ResultsTwo hundred one patients (92 women and 109 men) were included in this study, with a mean age of 68 years (range, 18-93 years). Mean (SD) systolic blood pressure increased from a baseline of 150 (20) mm Hg to 162 (24) mm Hg following the preparation procedure to 168 (24) mm Hg during the injection (P < .001). Mean (SD) diastolic blood pressure increased from 78 (14) mm Hg to 83 (37) mm Hg to 83 (16) mm Hg, respectively (P = .009). Mean (SD) pulse frequency increased from 76 (13) bpm to 80 (13) bpm (P = .005). In total, 23 patients (11%) had a systolic blood pressure greater than 200 mm Hg. This subgroup of patients had a mean (SD) perioperative systolic blood pressure increase from 182 (19) mm Hg to 214 (12) mm Hg, resulting in an increase of 32 (20) mm Hg (P < .001). Age and anxiety were to be next associated with systolic blood pressure rise.Conclusions and relevanceThe intravitreal injection process is associated with a transient increase in blood pressure. Most of the increase occurs following the preparation before the injection itself. This may constitute a risk factor for cardiovascular or cerebrovascular complications during treatment and could be of particular relevance in patients at high risk for such events and those receiving frequent injections. Future work may be needed to determine whether, in patients at risk for cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, perioperative blood pressure monitoring or antihypertensive therapy needs to be considered.
| S-EPMC6439777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to assess whether repetitive intravitreal injections (IVI) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) cause sustained elevation of intraocular pressure (SE-IOP). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing 1428 subjects and 17 non-RCTs evaluating 8358 cases. In the RCTs, an increased risk of SE-IOP was found in the anti-VEGF group (summary risk ratio [RR]?=?3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63-5.53) compared with the sham injection or laser group. The increased risk of SE-IOP was correlated with follow-up duration (RR?=?2.14, 95% CI 0.69-6.57 at 6 months; RR?=?3.15, 95% CI 0.99-10.09 at 12 months; RR?=?3.48, 95% CI 1.38-8.78 at 23 months). The risk of SE-IOP after non-exclusion of pre-existing glaucoma patients (RR?=?3.48, 95% CI 1.38-8.78) was higher than that obtained after excluding pre-existing glaucoma patients (RR?=?2.6, 95% CI 1.16-5.81). In non-RCTs, the pooled prevalence of SE-IOP was 4.7% (95% CI 3.7-5.8) regardless of diagnosis criteria. In conclusion, repeated intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents cause a 2-fold elevation in SE-IOP risk.
| S-EPMC5175276 | 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
Project description:For the management of retinal disease, the use of intravitreous injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor has increased. Recent reports have suggested that this therapy may cause sustained elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP) and may potentially increase the risk of glaucoma for patients with retinal disease.To assess the risk of sustained IOP elevation or the need for IOP-lowering treatments for eyes with diabetic macular edema following repeated intravitreous injections of ranibizumab.An exploratory analysis was conducted within a Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network randomized clinical trial. Study enrollment dates were from March 20, 2007, to December 17, 2008. Of 582 eyes (of 486 participants) with center-involved diabetic macular edema and no preexisting open-angle glaucoma, 260 were randomly assigned to receive a sham injection plus focal/grid laser treatment, and 322 were randomly assigned to receive ranibizumab plus deferred or prompt focal/grid laser treatment.The cumulative probability of sustained IOP elevation, defined as IOP of at least 22 mm Hg and an increase of at least 6 mm Hg from baseline at 2 consecutive visits, or the initiation or augmentation of ocular hypotensive therapy, through 3 years of follow-up.The mean (SD) baseline IOP in both treatment groups was 16 (3) mm Hg (range, 5-24 mm Hg). The cumulative probability of sustained IOP elevation or of initiation or augmentation of ocular hypotensive therapy by 3 years, after repeated ranibizumab injections, was 9.5% for the participants who received ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred focal/grid laser treatment vs 3.4% for the participants who received a sham injection plus focal/grid laser treatment (difference, 6.1% [99% CI, -0.2% to 12.3%]; hazard ratio, 2.9 [99% CI, 1.0-7.9]; P =?.01). The distribution of IOP and the change in IOP from baseline at each visit through 3 years were similar in each group.In eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema and no prior open-angle glaucoma, repeated intravitreous injections of ranibizumab may increase the risk of sustained IOP elevation or the need for ocular hypotensive treatment. Clinicians should be aware of this risk and should consider this information when following up with patients who have received intravitreous injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.
| S-EPMC4496789 | biostudies-literature