Diabetic macular edema with pachychoroid features
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kang K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7532553 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeThe Diabetic Macular Edema Treated with Ozurdex (DMEO) Trial measured aqueous pro-permeability factors (PPFs) in diabetic macular edema (DME) patients before and after injection of dexamethasone implant or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-neutralizing protein and correlated changes in levels with changes in excess foveal thickness (EFT) to identify potential PPFs contributing to DME.DesignProspective, randomized crossover clinical trial.MethodsTwenty DME patients randomized to dexamethasone implant or VEGF-neutralizing protein had aqueous taps and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT) at baseline and every 4 weeks for 28 weeks. Aqueous levels of 55 vasoactive proteins were measured with protein array. Crossover at week 16 provided changes in protein levels after each intervention in all 20 patients.ResultsAfter dexamethasone implant there was significant correlation between changes in levels of 13 vasoactive proteins with changes in EFT, including 3 known PPFs: angiopoietin-2 (r = 0.40, P = .001), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF; r = 0.31, P = .02), and endocrine gland-VEGF (EG-VEGF, r = 0.43, P < .001). Reduction of prolactin, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3, and matrix metalloproteinase-9 correlated with edema reduction after injection of a VEGF-neutralizing protein as well as dexamethasone implant, suggesting their modulation is likely secondary to changes in edema rather than causative.ConclusionsCorrelation of edema reduction with reduction in the PPFs angiopoietin-2, HGF, and EG-VEGF provides potential insight into the multifactorial molecular mechanism by which dexamethasone implants reduce edema and suggest that additional study is needed to investigate the contributions of these 3 factors to chronic DME.
| S-EPMC5482180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeStimulation of nicotinic acetylcholine (nACh) receptors on vascular endothelial cells promotes angiogenesis and vascular permeability in animal models. The safety and bioactivity of topical mecamylamine, an antagonist of nACh receptors, was tested in patients with diabetic macular edema.DesignA multicenter phase I/II clinical trial.MethodsTwenty-three patients with chronic diabetic macular edema received 1% mecamylamine topically twice daily for 12 weeks, the primary end point. Patients underwent safety assessments, measurement of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and measurement of foveal thickness using optical coherence tomography at baseline, 1, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks.ResultsMecamylamine drops were well tolerated and there were no drug-related safety problems. Mean improvement in BCVA at 1, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks was 2.8, 1.9, 2.4, 0.8, and 3.1 letters, respectively. There was little change in mean excess foveal thickness. There was substantial heterogeneity in response, because 8 patients showed convincing improvement in BCVA, foveal thickness, or both, 9 patients showed equivocal or no substantial changes, and 4 patients showed worsening. Five patients showed a substantial improvement in BCVA, foveal thickness, or both between their last visit while receiving mecamylamine and 1 month after stopping mecamylamine.ConclusionsThis study suggested that administration of topical mecamylamine, a nonspecific nACh receptor blocker, may have heterogeneous effects in patients with diabetic macular edema. Variable expression of nACh receptor subtypes on endothelial cells that have different effects on permeability would provide an explanation for these results and should be investigated, because more specific nACh receptor blockers may dissociate antipermeability and propermeability effects.
| S-EPMC3143041 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The treatment of diabetic macular edema is rapidly evolving. The era of laser therapy is being quickly replaced by an era of pharmacotherapy. Several pharmacotherapies have been recently developed for the treatment of retinal vascular diseases such as diabetic macular edema. Several intravitreal injections or sustained delivery devices have undergone phase 3 testing while others are currently being evaluated. The results of clinical trials have shown the superiority of some of these agents to laser therapy. However, with the availability of several of these newer agents, it may be difficult to individualize treatment options especially those patients respond differently to various therapies. As such, more effort is still needed in order to determine the best treatment regimen for a given patient. In this article, we briefly summarize the major new therapeutic additions for the treatment of diabetic macular edema and allude to some future promising therapies.
| S-EPMC3874493 | biostudies-other
Project description:Diabetic macular edema is the most common cause of visual impairment in patients with diabetes mellitus. The pathogenesis of macular edema is complex and multifactorial. For many years, laser photocoagulation has been considered the standard therapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema; however, few patients achieve significant improvements in visual acuity. Today the intravitreal administration of anti-inflammatory or anti-angiogenic agents together with the use of laser photocoagulation represents the standard of care for the treatment of this complication. The intravitreal route of administration minimizes the systemic side effects of corticosteroids. Steroid-related ocular side effects are elevated intraocular pressure and cataract, while injection-related complications include endophthalmitis, vitreous hemorrhage, and retinal detachment. In order to reduce the risks and complications, intravitreal implants have been developed recently to provide sustained release of corticosteroids and reduce repeated injections for the management of diabetic macular edema. In this review, the efficacy, safety, and therapeutic potential of intravitreal corticosteroids in diabetic macular edema are discussed with a review of recent literature.
| S-EPMC5468529 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeTo determine the effect of vitrectomy for center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME).MethodsThis was a retrospective study of 53 eyes of 45 patients who had vitrectomy for CI-DME and were followed up for at least 12 months. Charts were reviewed for visual acuity (VA), central subfield mean thickness measured by optical coherence tomography, presurgical and postsurgical interventions for CI-DME, and number of office visits in the first 12 months after surgery. Preoperative spectral domain optical coherence tomography was performed on 38 patients, and they were graded for ellipsoid zone (EZ) intactness by three independent graders with assessment of agreement between graders using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis.ResultsThe median VA improved from 20/100 (interquartile range [IQR], 20/63-20/200) at baseline to 20/63 (IQR, 20/32-20/125) at 12 months. The median central subfield mean thickness improved from 505 μm (IQR, 389-597 μm) at baseline to 279 μm (IQR, 246-339 μm) at 12 months. Intergrader agreement for EZ intactness was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.4294-0.6356). There was no relationship between preoperative intactness of the EZ and the 12-month change in VA.ConclusionVitrectomy consistently thins the macula in CI-DME and, on average, leads to clinically significant improvement in VA comparable in size to that reported with serial intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. A large, comparative, prospective, randomized clinical trial of these two treatments is needed to determine which is more effective and cost-effective.
| S-EPMC4854422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diabetic macular edema is a leading cause of vision impairment among people within the working- age population. This review discusses the pathogenesis of diabetic macular edema and the treatment options currently available for the treatment of diabetic macular edema, including for focal/grid photocoagulation, intravitreal corticosteroids and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. The biologic rationale for novel therapeutic agents, many of which are currently being evaluated in clinical trials, also is reviewed.
| S-EPMC3277023 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDiabetic 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 coveredThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC7341631 | biostudies-literature
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.).
| S-EPMC4422053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMacular edema is the most common cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes.ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatments of diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignMarkov model.Data sourcesPublished literature and expert opinion.Target populationPatients with clinically significant DME.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveSocietal.InterventionLaser treatment, intraocular injections of triamcinolone or a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, or a combination of both.Outcome measuresDiscounted costs, gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results of base-case analysisAll treatments except laser monotherapy substantially reduced costs, and all treatments except triamcinolone monotherapy increased QALYs. Laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor achieved the greatest benefit, gaining 0.56 QALYs at a cost of $6975 for an ICER of $12 410 per QALY compared with laser treatment plus triamcinolone. Monotherapy with a VEGF inhibitor achieved similar outcomes to combination therapy with laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor. Laser monotherapy and triamcinolone monotherapy were less effective and more costly than combination therapy.Results of sensitivity analysisVEGF inhibitor monotherapy was sometimes preferred over laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor, depending on the reduction in quality of life with loss of visual acuity. When the VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab was as effective as ranibizumab, it was preferable because of its lower cost.LimitationLong-term outcome data for treated and untreated diseases are limited.ConclusionThe most effective treatment of DME is VEGF inhibitor injections with or without laser treatment. This therapy compares favorably with cost-effective interventions for other conditions.Primary funding sourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
| S-EPMC4020006 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10836924 | biostudies-literature