OBJECTIVE: To compare baseline characteristics and treatment response of participants with hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) with those of participants with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in the Standard Care vs COrticosteroid for REtinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) Study. METHODS: Eyes were randomized to standard care, 1 mg intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or 4 mg intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide. Standard care was observation in the SCORE-CRVO trial and grid photocoagulation in the SCORE-BRVO trial. The HRVO eyes were enrolled in the SCORE-BRVO trial. Baseline characteristics, changes in visual acuity and center point thickness, safety outcomes, and number of treatments were compared among HRVO, BRVO, and CRVO participants. RESULTS: At baseline, HRVO eyes were intermediate between BRVO and CRVO eyes in area of retinal thickening, area of fluorescein leakage, visual acuity, and center point thickness. No differences in visual acuity change from baseline to 1 year were noted between standard care groups for HRVO and BRVO. Within triamcinolone-treated eyes, HRVO eyes did not differ from BRVO eyes in visual acuity change, but HRVO eyes fared better than CRVO eyes. There were no differences in center point thickness change between standard care groups for HRVO and BRVO, nor were there differences across the 3 disease entities for triamcinolone-treated eyes. There were no differences in frequency of protocol treatments and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The HRVO participants were similar to BRVO and CRVO participants regarding most demographic characteristics, with fundus findings intermediate between BRVO and CRVO. In the SCORE Study, HRVO was treated as BRVO; HRVO eyes responded to treatment similarly to BRVO eyes, and there was no difference among the 3 disease entities in frequency of protocol treatments and adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00105027.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare baseline characteristics and treatment response of participants with hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) with those of participants with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in the Standard Care vs COrticosteroid for REtinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) Study. METHODS: Eyes were randomized to standard care, 1 mg intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or 4 mg intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide. Standard care was observation in the SCORE-CRVO trial and grid photocoagulation in the SCORE-BRVO trial. The HRVO eyes were enrolled in the SCORE-BRVO trial. Baseline characteristics, changes in visual acuity and center point thickness, safety outcomes, and number of treatments were compared among HRVO, BRVO, and CRVO participants. RESULTS: At baseline, HRVO eyes were intermediate between BRVO and CRVO eyes in area of retinal thickening, area of fluorescein leakage, visual acuity, and center point thickness. No differences in visual acuity change from baseline to 1 year were noted between standard care groups for HRVO and BRVO. Within triamcinolone-treated eyes, HRVO eyes did not differ from BRVO eyes in visual acuity change, but HRVO eyes fared better than CRVO eyes. There were no differences in center point thickness change between standard care groups for HRVO and BRVO, nor were there differences across the 3 disease entities for triamcinolone-treated eyes. There were no differences in frequency of protocol treatments and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The HRVO participants were similar to BRVO and CRVO participants regarding most demographic characteristics, with fundus findings intermediate between BRVO and CRVO. In the SCORE Study, HRVO was treated as BRVO; HRVO eyes responded to treatment similarly to BRVO eyes, and there was no difference among the 3 disease entities in frequency of protocol treatments and adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00105027.
Authors: Michael S Ip; Ingrid U Scott; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Neal L Oden; Barbara A Blodi; Marian Fisher; Lawrence J Singerman; Michael Tolentino; Clement K Chan; Victor H Gonzalez Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-09
Authors: Michael S Ip; Neal L Oden; Ingrid U Scott; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Barbara A Blodi; Maria Figueroa; Andrew Antoszyk; Michael Elman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-07-19 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Michael S Ip; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Neal L Oden; Barbara A Blodi; Marian Fisher; Clement K Chan; Victor H Gonzalez; Lawrence J Singerman; Michael Tolentino Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-09
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Barbara A Blodi; Michael S Ip; Paul C Vanveldhuisen; Neal L Oden; Clement K Chan; Victor Gonzalez Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Roy W Beck; Pamela S Moke; Andrew H Turpin; Frederick L Ferris; John Paul SanGiovanni; Chris A Johnson; Eileen E Birch; Danielle L Chandler; Terry A Cox; R Clifford Blair; Raymond T Kraker Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Neal L Oden; Michael S Ip; Barbara A Blodi; J Michael Jumper; Maria Figueroa Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Michael S Ip; Barbara A Blodi; Neal L Oden; Maria Figueroa; Pravin U Dugel Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Michael S Ip; Barbara A Blodi; Neal L Oden; Carl C Awh; Derek Y Kunimoto; Dennis M Marcus; John J Wroblewski; Jacqueline King Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 56.272