Dataset Information

Panretinal photocoagulation after or prior to intravitreal conbercept injection for diabetic macular edema: a retrospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Panretinal photocoagulation treatment (PRP) have been known as a standard treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (sNPDR). However, there is no consensus on when PRP should be administrated if anti-VEGF treatment is needed for the concurrent diabetic macular edema (DME). This study is to evaluate the difference between two groups of PRP prior to, or after intravitreal conbercept (IVC) for patients with PDR or sNPDR combined with DME.

Methods

This was a retrospective study. Fifty-eight eyes with DME secondary to PDR or sNPDR were divided into two groups; the PRP after (PRP-after group), or prior to (PRP-prior group), IVC. Changes in number of IVC injections, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central subfield macular thickness (CSMT) were compared after 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 1 year, and 2 years from the first IVC injection.

Results

The mean number of injections in PRP-after group was 4.8 (1 year) and 6.4 (2 year), lower than 6.4 (1 year) and 8.5 (2 year) in PRP-prior group (both p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in change in BCVA and CSMT between two groups after each follow-up.

Conclusion

PRP after IVC requires less injections but also yields similar visual and anatomic outcome comparing with PRP prior to IVC in patients with diabetic retinopathy combined with DME.

SUBMITTER: Zhang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015169 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo compare efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) injection with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus early vitrectomy for diabetic vitreous hemorrhage (VH).MethodsProspective, randomized study that included 34 eyes with diabetic VH. They were divided into two groups, Group Ι (17 eyes) received three successive IVA injections followed by PRP and group ΙΙ (17 eyes) for whom early vitrectomy was done. Follow up was carried out after one, two, three, six and nine months. The primary outcome measure was change in the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after nine months, secondary outcome measures were mean duration of clearance of VH and rate of recurrent hemorrhage with any additional treatment in both groups. Complications were reported.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference regarding initial demographic criteria between both groups. The mean final log MAR BCVA was statistically better than the initial BCVA in both groups (0.51 ± 0.20, 1.17 ± 0.48 for group I and 0.48 ± 0.18, 1.44 ± 0.44 for group II, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the mean final Log Mar BCVA (0.51 ± 0.20 for group I, 0.48 ± 0.18 for group II, p ≥ 0.05), the mean duration of clearance of VH was 7.8 ± 1.8 weeks, 5 days for group I and II respectively. PRP was completely done for all eyes in group I after three months. The difference in the recurrence rate between group I (29.4%) and group II (11.8%) was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Vitrectomy was done for three eyes (17.6%) due to recurrent non-resolving VH in group I. late recurrent VH occurred in two eyes (11.8%) in group II, IVA was given with complete clearance of the hemorrhage. No vision threatening complications were reported in both groups.ConclusionBoth intravitreal injection of aflibercept followed by PRP and early vitrectomy are effective and safe modalities for treatment of diabetic vitreous hemorrhage. Early vitrectomy leads to faster vision gain with less incidence of recurrence than intravitreal injection.Trial registrationRandomized clinical trial under the number of NCT04153253 on November 6, 2019 "Retrospectively registered".

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1-mg and 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone in comparison with focal/grid photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsEight hundred forty study eyes of 693 subjects with DME involving the fovea and with visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/320.MethodsEyes were randomized to focal/grid photocoagulation (n = 330), 1 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (n = 256), or 4 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (n = 254). Retreatment was given for persistent or new edema at 4-month intervals. The primary outcome was evaluated at 2 years.Main outcome measuresVisual acuity measured with the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study method (primary), optical coherence tomography-measured retinal thickness (secondary), and safety.ResultsAt 4 months, mean visual acuity was better in the 4-mg triamcinolone group than in either the laser group (P<0.001) or the 1-mg triamcinolone group (P = 0.001). By 1 year, there were no significant differences among groups in mean visual acuity. At the 16-month visit and extending through the primary outcome visit at 2 years, mean visual acuity was better in the laser group than in the other 2 groups (at 2 years, P = 0.02 comparing the laser and 1-mg groups, P = 0.002 comparing the laser and 4-mg groups, and P = 0.49 comparing the 1-mg and 4-mg groups). Treatment group differences in the visual acuity outcome could not be attributed solely to cataract formation. Optical coherence tomography results generally paralleled the visual acuity results. Intraocular pressure increased from baseline by 10 mmHg or more at any visit in 4%, 16%, and 33% of eyes in the 3 treatment groups, respectively, and cataract surgery was performed in 13%, 23%, and 51% of eyes in the 3 treatment groups, respectively.ConclusionsOver a 2-year period, focal/grid photocoagulation is more effective and has fewer side effects than 1-mg or 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone for most patients with DME who have characteristics similar to the cohort in this clinical trial. The results of this study also support that focal/grid photocoagulation currently should be the benchmark against which other treatments are compared in clinical trials of DME.

Project description:PurposeThe prevalence of diabetes and diabetes-related complications, including diabetic macular edema (DME), is increasing in Asia and worldwide.MethodsVIVID-East was a 12-month, double-masked, randomized, active-controlled, Phase 3 trial (NCT01783886) enrolling adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with DME at 25 centers across China, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, and Russia. Eyes were randomized 1:1:1 to 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) every 4 weeks (2q4; N=127), 2 mg IVT-AFL every 8 weeks (after 5 initial monthly doses from baseline to week 16) with sham injections on nontreatment visits (2q8; N=127), or macular laser photocoagulation at baseline and sham injections at every visit (laser control group; N=124). The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to week 52.ResultsCompared with baseline, at week 52 the mean (SE) BCVA in the 2q4 and 2q8 groups gained +13.6 (0.9) and +13.1 (1.0) letters, respectively, versus -0.5 (1.4) letters in the laser group (P<0.0001 for both). A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with IVT-AFL (2q4 and 2q8) achieved a ≥10-letter or ≥15-letter gain compared with laser (both P<0.0001) (≥10-letter gain: 70.9%, 62.7%, and 23.4%, respectively; ≥15-letter gain: 43.3%, 36.5%, and 12.1%, respectively). Mean reduction in central retinal thickness from baseline to week 52 was significantly greater with IVT-AFL versus laser treatment. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was low and similar across groups; conjunctival hemorrhage (11.8%), retinal hemorrhage (8.7%), retinal aneurysm (7.5%), and retinal exudates (5.5%) being the most frequently reported. Visual and anatomic outcomes in the Chinese subgroup were consistent with the overall population.ConclusionIVT-AFL treatment resulted in significant visual and anatomic improvements in Asian patients with DME. Treatment benefits observed in the overall study population were mirrored in the subgroup of Chinese patients, who made up the largest population group in the study.Study registrationNCT01783886.

Project description:IntroductionWith the increasing use of intravitreal administration of corticosteroids in macular edema, steroid-induced intraocular pressure (IOP) rise is becoming an emergent issue. However, for patients in whom intravitreal steroids are indicated, there are no specific recommendations for IOP monitoring and management after intravitreal administration of corticosteroids.MethodAn expert panel of European ophthalmologists reviewed evidence on corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation. The objective of the panel was to propose an algorithm based on available literature and their own experience for the monitoring and management of corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation, with a focus on diabetic patients.ResultsData from trials including diabetic patients with a rise of IOP after intravitreal steroid administration indicate that IOP-lowering medical treatment is sufficient for a large majority of patients; only a small percentage underwent laser trabeculoplasty or filtering filtration surgery. A 2-step algorithm is proposed that is based on the basal value of IOP and evidence for glaucoma. The first step is a risk stratification before treatment. Patients normotensive at baseline (IOP ≤ 21 mmHg), do not require additional baseline diagnostic tests. However, patients with baseline ocular hypertension (OHT) (IOP > 21 mmHg) should undergo baseline imaging and visual field testing. The second step describes monitoring and treatment after steroid administration. During follow-up, patients developing OHT should have baseline and periodical imaging and visual field testing; IOP-lowering treatment is proposed only if IOP is >25 mmHg or if diagnostic tests suggest developing glaucoma.ConclusionThe management and follow-up of OHT following intravitreal corticosteroid injection is similar to that of primary OHT. If OHT develops, IOP is controlled in a large proportion of patients with standard IOP treatments. The present algorithm was developed to assist ophthalmologists with guiding principles in the management of corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation.FundingAlimera Sciences Limited.