-
1.
Randomized controlled European multicenter trial on the prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in diabetics: ESCRS PREMED Study Report 2.
Wielders, LHP, Schouten, JSAG, Winkens, B, van den Biggelaar, FJHM, Veldhuizen, CA, Murta, JCN, Goslings, WRO, Kohnen, T, Tassignon, MJ, Joosse, MV, et al
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2018;(7):836-847
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the efficacy of perioperative treatment strategies, in addition to topical bromfenac 0.09% and dexamethasone 0.1%, to reduce the risk for developing cystoid macular edema (CME) after uneventful cataract surgery in diabetic patients. SETTING Twelve European study centers. DESIGN Randomized clinical trial. METHODS Diabetic patients having phacoemulsification cataract surgery were randomly allocated to receive no additional treatment, a subconjunctival injection with 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, an intravitreal injection with 1.25 mg bevacizumab, or a combination of both. The main outcomes were the difference in central subfield mean macular thickness, corrected distance visual acuity, and the incidence of CME and clinically significant macular edema within 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS The study comprised 213 patients. At 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively, the central subfield mean macular thickness was 12.3 μm and 9.7 μm lower, respectively, in patients who received subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide than patients who did not (P = .007 and P = .014, respectively). No patient who received subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide developed CME. Intravitreal bevacizumab had no significant effect on macular thickness. CONCLUSIONS Diabetic patients who received a subconjunctival injection with triamcinolone acetonide at the end of cataract surgery had a lower macular thickness and macular volume at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively than patients who did not. Intravitreal bevacizumab had no significant effect.
-
2.
A CCR2/5 Inhibitor, PF-04634817, Is Inferior to Monthly Ranibizumab in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema.
Gale, JD, Berger, B, Gilbert, S, Popa, S, Sultan, MB, Schachar, RA, Girgenti, D, Perros-Huguet, C
Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2018;(6):2659-2669
Abstract
PURPOSE Ligands for the proinflammatory C-C chemokine receptor types 2 and 5 (CCR2 and CCR5) are elevated in the eyes of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of PF-04634817, an oral CCR2/5 dual antagonist, versus intravitreal ranibizumab, in adult subjects with DME. METHODS In this phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked study, eligible subjects (≥18 years of age) had type 1 or 2 diabetes and DME with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/32 or worse (letter score ≤ 78), and up to 20/320 or better (≥24 letter score), in the study eye. Subjects were assigned randomly 1:1 to once-daily (QD) oral PF-04634817 200 mg plus masked sham therapy as placebo or monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.3/0.5 mg plus QD oral placebo. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of PF-04634817 compared with ranibizumab in change from baseline in BCVA after 12 weeks in a noninferiority design. Noninferiority was based on BCVA 80% confidence interval (CI): there had to be a less than three letter loss in the PF-04634817 arm compared with the ranibizumab arm. RESULTS A total of 199 subjects were randomized. Least squares mean difference in change in BCVA from baseline to week 12 in the study eye for the PF-04634817 arm was -2.41 letters (80% CI: -3.91, -0.91; P = 0.04) compared with ranibizumab. PF-04634817 was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with oral CCR2/5 receptor dual antagonist PF-04634817 was associated with a modest improvement in BCVA, but did not meet the predefined noninferiority criteria compared with intravitreal ranibizumab.
-
3.
Metamorphopsia Score and Central Visual Field Outcomes in Diabetic Cystoid Macular Edema.
Kalinowska, A, Nowomiejska, K, Brzozowska, A, Maciejewski, R, Rejdak, R
BioMed research international. 2018;:4954532
Abstract
AIM: To detect abnormality of the visual function in naïve patients with cystoid diabetic macular edema (DME) using M-charts, Amsler test, and white on white (W/W) and blue on yellow (B/Y) perimetry. METHODS There were 64 eyes included in the study: 30 eyes with DME, 22 eyes with diabetes without DME, and 12 eyes of normal subjects. Conventional W/W perimetry and B/Y perimetry were performed within the central 10° of the visual field. To assess metamorphopsia, Amsler test and M-charts were used. RESULTS The rate of detection of metamorphopsia was 37% with Amsler test examination and 50% with M-charts. Specificity of both tests was 100%. We found a significant difference between vertical scores of M-charts in all groups, but not in horizontal scores (p < 0.0001). Mean defect (MD) was 8.9 dB and 3.6 dB and loss variance (LV) 4.8 dB and 3.3 dB (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS M-chart is more sensitive than Amsler test method for detection of metamorphopsia. The MD and LV are higher in b/y in comparison to W/W perimetry. B/Y perimetry and M-charts are more sensitive than conventional methods for detecting the visual function loss in cystoid DME.
-
4.
Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants of Vitrectomized and Nonvitrectomized Eyes in a Real-World Study.
Rezkallah, A, Malclès, A, Dot, C, Voirin, N, Agard, É, Vié, AL, Denis, P, Mathis, T, Kodjikian, L
Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2018;(8):596-602
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant of vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes in real-world conditions. METHODS This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study. All consecutive patients presenting with at least one 0.7-mg intravitreal injection of DEX implant were included in this study. A total of 186 eyes in 170 patients were analyzed. Fifty-nine eyes were vitrectomized at baseline and 127 eyes had no vitrectomy at the last visit. Among the baseline-vitrectomized eyes analyzed, 72.9% were treatment naive eyes, and 44.1% of nonvitrectomized eyes had no prior treatment. RESULTS There was no statistically significant difference in the variation in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between the 2 groups (P = 0.343). Variations of BCVA and central macular thickness were not significantly different between nonvitrectomized eyes and baseline-vitrectomized eyes. The intraocular pressure profile was the same in both nonvitrectomized eyes and baseline-vitrectomized eyes. The mean interval between injections was 6.9 months (2; 27.7) for nonvitrectomized eyes and 5.2 months (4; 22.1) for baseline-vitrectomized eyes (P = 0.001). The mean number of IVIs was 2 (1; 6) for nonvitrectomized eyes and 2.3 (1; 10) for baseline-vitrectomized eyes (P = 0.188) during the total follow-up period. CONCLUSION This large cohort shows that vitrectomy does not seem to influence the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for DME.
-
5.
The efficacy and safety of aflibercept and conbercept in diabetic macular edema.
Cai, S, Yang, Q, Li, X, Zhang, Y
Drug design, development and therapy. 2018;:3471-3483
Abstract
Diabetic macular edema (DME) has shown an increasing prevalence during the past years and is the leading cause of diabetic retinopathy blindness. Traditional treatment modalities include laser and corticosteroid therapy, which, however, either act through unclear mechanisms or cause cataracts and elevated intraocular pressure. In recent years, as the pathogenic role of VEGF in DME has been well-recognized, the intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF drugs has become the first-line treatment of DME due to their great efficacy in improving visual acuity and mitigating macular edema. Advantages have been shown for aflibercept and conbercept, the two recombinant decoy receptors that can bind VEGF with high specificity and affinity, in DME treatment in clinical trials conducted both worldwide and in People's Republic of China. This review introduces the structural characteristics and molecular mechanisms of action of these two anti-VEGF drugs, and summarizes the clinical trials evaluating their efficacy and safety, with the hope to provide clues for designing optimal and personalized therapeutic regimens for DME patients.
-
6.
ILM peeling in nontractional diabetic macular edema: review and metanalysis.
Rinaldi, M, dell'Omo, R, Morescalchi, F, Semeraro, F, Gambicorti, E, Cacciatore, F, Chiosi, F, Costagliola, C
International ophthalmology. 2018;(6):2709-2714
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during vitrectomy for nontractional diabetic macular edema. METHODS PUBMED, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were reviewed using the following terms (or combination of terms): diabetic macular edema, nontractional diabetic macular edema, internal limiting membrane peeling, vitrectomy, Müller cells. Randomized and nonrandomized studies were included. The eligible studies compared anatomical and functional outcomes of vitrectomy with or without ILM peeling for tractional and nontractional diabetic macular edema. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness were considered, respectively, the primary and secondary outcomes. Meta-analysis on mean differences between vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling was performed using inverse variance method in random effects. RESULTS Four studies with 672 patients were eligible for analysis. No significant difference was found between postoperative best-corrected visual acuity or best-corrected visual acuity change of ILM peeling group compared with nonpeeling group. There was no significant difference in postoperative central macular thickness and central macular thickness reduction between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS The visual acuity outcomes in patients affected by nontractional diabetic macular edema using pars plana vitrectomy with ILM peeling versus no ILM peeling were not significantly different. A larger prospective and randomized study would be necessary.
-
7.
Real-World Assessment of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in DME: Findings of the Prospective, Multicenter REINFORCE Study.
Singer, MA, Dugel, PU, Fine, HF, Capone, A, Maltman, J
Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina. 2018;(6):425-435
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) (Ozurdex; Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland) is approved for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). This study assessed the real-world effectiveness, safety, and reinjection interval of DEX in adult patients with DME. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a phase 4, prospective, multicenter (18 U.S. sites), observational study. RESULTS The study population comprised 177 patients (180 eyes; 93.8% previously treated). Baseline mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were 54.4 letters and 424.6 μm, respectively. DEX was administered as monotherapy or with other DME therapy (55%/45%). The mean reinjection interval was 5.0 months. Mean maximum BCVA change from baseline after the first three DEX injections was +9.1 letters, +7.7 letters, and +7.0 letters, respectively (P < .001); 36.0% of eyes achieved 15-letter or greater BCVA improvement. Mean maximum CRT change from baseline was -137.7 μm (P < .001). CONCLUSION DEX used alone or with other DME therapy improved visual and anatomic outcomes in DME patients in clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:425-435.].
-
8.
Multimodal Imaging in Diabetic Macular Edema.
Acón, D, Wu, L
Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2018;(1):22-27
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Throughout ophthalmic history it has been shown that progress has gone hand in hand with technological breakthroughs. In the past, fluorescein angiography and fundus photographs were the most commonly used imaging modalities in the management of diabetic macular edema (DME). Today, despite the moderate correlation between macular thickness and functional outcomes, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) has become the DME workhorse in clinical practice. Several SD-OCT biomarkers have been looked at including presence of epiretinal membrane, vitreomacular adhesion, disorganization of the inner retinal layers, central macular thickness, integrity of the ellipsoid layer, and subretinal fluid, among others. Emerging imaging modalities include fundus autofluorescence, macular pigment optical density, fluorescence lifetime imaging ophthalmoscopy, OCT angiography, and adaptive optics. Technological advances in imaging of the posterior segment of the eye have enabled ophthalmologists to develop hypotheses about pathological mechanisms of disease, monitor disease progression, and assess response to treatment. Spectral domain OCT is the most commonly performed imaging modality in the management of DME. However, reliable biomarkers have yet to be identified. Machine learning may provide treatment algorithms based on multimodal imaging.
-
9.
Continuous positive airway pressure effect on visual acuity in patients with type 2 diabetes and obstructive sleep apnoea: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
West, SD, Prudon, B, Hughes, J, Gupta, R, Mohammed, SB, Gerry, S, Stradling, JR, ,
The European respiratory journal. 2018;(4)
Abstract
We sought to establish whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in people with type 2 diabetes and diabetic macular oedema (DMO) improved visual acuity.We randomly assigned 131 eligible patients aged 30-85 years from 23 UK centres with significant DMO causing visual impairment (LogMAR letters identified ≥39 and ≤78, score 0.92-0.14) plus severe OSA on screening to either usual ophthalmology care (n=67) or usual ophthalmology care plus CPAP (n=64) for 12 months.Mean age of participants was 64 years, 73% male, mean body mass index 35.0 kg·m- 2 Mean 4% oxygen desaturation index was 36 events·h-1 There was no significant difference in the visual acuity at 12 months between the CPAP group and the control group (mean LogMAR 0.33 (95% CI 0.29-0.37) versus 0.31 (95% CI 0.27-0.35); p=0.39), and no significant correlation between change in LogMAR and average CPAP use. The median±sd (range) daily CPAP use was 3.33±2.25 (0-7.93) h at 3 months, 3.19±2.54 (0-8.07) h at 6 months and 3.21±2.70 (0-7.98) h at 12 months.CPAP therapy for OSA did not improve visual acuity in people with type 2 diabetes and DMO compared with usual care alone over 12 months.
-
10.
A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema.
He, Y, Ren, XJ, Hu, BJ, Lam, WC, Li, XR
BMC ophthalmology. 2018;(1):121
Abstract
BACKGROUND 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). METHODS 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. RESULTS 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 μm, 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 μm, 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.