Dataset Information

Pharmacological agents in development for diabetic macular edema.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the leading cause of visual loss in patients with diabetic retinopathy. There has been a paradigm shift in the treatment of DME since the advent of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy. The safety and efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy has been well established. Although efficacious, currently approved anti-VEGF agents are associated with certain limitations, which include, among others: frequent need for injections, high treatment cost and variable response to treatment. These challenges have led to an active search for more novel agents that may be able to overcome these limitations.

Areas covered

The index review focuses on novel treatment agents that target various pathways in patients with DME. These agents are used either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in the management of DME. Drugs discussed include novel anti-VEGF inhibitors, TIE-2 receptor modulators, integrin peptide inhibitors, rho kinase inhibitors, and future therapies such as neuroprotection and gene therapy.

Conclusions

The future of investigational pharmacological therapy appears promising for patients with DME. Results from early clinical trials indicate that newer agents highlighted in the study may be safe and efficacious treatment options for patients with DME. However, data from large multicenter clinical trials need to be analyzed before these agents can be incorporated into clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Sadiq MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7341631 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacological agents in development for diabetic macular edema.

Sadiq Mohammad Ali MA Halim Muhammad Sohail MS Hassan Muhammad M Onghanseng Neil N Karaca Irmak I Agarwal Aniruddha A Afridi Rubbia R Sepah Yasir J YJ Do Diana V DV Nguyen Quan Dong QD

International journal of retina and vitreous 20200708

<h4>Background</h4>Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the leading cause of visual loss in patients with diabetic retinopathy. There has been a paradigm shift in the treatment of DME since the advent of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy. The safety and efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy has been well established. Although efficacious, currently approved anti-VEGF agents are associated with certain limitations, which include, among others: frequent need for injections, high treat ...[more]

PMID: 32670612

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown.MethodsAt 89 clinical sites, we randomly assigned 660 adults (mean age, 61±10 years) with diabetic macular edema involving the macular center to receive intravitreous aflibercept at a dose of 2.0 mg (224 participants), bevacizumab at a dose of 1.25 mg (218 participants), or ranibizumab at a dose of 0.3 mg (218 participants). The study drugs were administered as often as every 4 weeks, according to a protocol-specified algorithm. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year.ResultsFrom baseline to 1 year, the mean visual-acuity letter score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; a score of 85 is approximately 20/20) improved by 13.3 with aflibercept, by 9.7 with bevacizumab, and by 11.2 with ranibizumab. Although the improvement was greater with aflibercept than with the other two drugs (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab and P=0.03 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab), it was not clinically meaningful, because the difference was driven by the eyes with worse visual acuity at baseline (P<0.001 for interaction). When the initial visual-acuity letter score was 78 to 69 (equivalent to approximately 20/32 to 20/40) (51% of participants), the mean improvement was 8.0 with aflibercept, 7.5 with bevacizumab, and 8.3 with ranibizumab (P>0.50 for each pairwise comparison). When the initial letter score was less than 69 (approximately 20/50 or worse), the mean improvement was 18.9 with aflibercept, 11.8 with bevacizumab, and 14.2 with ranibizumab (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P=0.003 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, and P=0.21 for ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the rates of serious adverse events (P=0.40), hospitalization (P=0.51), death (P=0.72), or major cardiovascular events (P=0.56).ConclusionsIntravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab improved vision in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema, but the relative effect depended on baseline visual acuity. When the initial visual-acuity loss was mild, there were no apparent differences, on average, among study groups. At worse levels of initial visual acuity, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01627249.).

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative safety and efficacy of different doses of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is unclear.ObjectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of different doses of IVTA in this setting.MethodsA systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted on Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to May 2022. Studies that reported on patients with DME or ME secondary to RVO that received treatment with different doses of IVTA were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool 2 was used to assess the risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsFive RCTs reporting on 1,041 eyes at baseline were included in this meta-analysis. In eyes with ME secondary to RVO, high-dose (4 mg) IVTA achieved a significantly better change in best-corrected visual acuity (WMD = -4.75 ETDRS letters, 95% CI = [-7.73, -1.78], p = 0.002) and reduction in retinal thickness (WMD = -93.02 μm, 95% CI = [-153.23, -32.82], p = 0.002) at months 4-6 compared to low-dose (1-2 mg) IVTA. However, high-dose IVTA had a higher risk of intraocular pressure-related adverse events (RR = 2.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 8.50], p = 0.04) and cataract surgery (RR = 5.67, 95% CI = [3.09, 10.41], p < 0.00001) than low-dose IVTA in eyes with ME secondary to RVO. These efficacy and safety differences in high-dose and low-dose IVTA were not observed in DME eyes.ConclusionsThe RCT evidence in this setting is limited. High-dose IVTA achieved greater improvements in visual acuity and reductions in retinal thickness than low-dose IVTA at months 4-6. However, high-dose IVTA had a less favorable safety profile than low-dose IVTA. The significance of these outcomes was based on patients with ME secondary to RVO, but not DME.

Dataset Information

Pharmacological agents in development for diabetic macular edema.

Background

Areas covered

Conclusions

Publications

Pharmacological agents in development for diabetic macular edema.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets