Marion R Munk1,2,3, Radha Ram1, Alfred Rademaker4, Dachao Liu4, Vikram Setlur5, Felix Chau5, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth2, Debra A Goldstein1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Biostatistics Collaboration Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Illinois, Eye and Ear Infirmary, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the vitreomacular interface (VMI) on treatment efficacy of intravitreal therapy in uveitic cystoid macular oedema (CME). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of CME resolution, CME recurrence rate and monthly course of central retinal thickness (CRT), retinal volume (RV) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after intravitreal injection with respect to the VMI configuration on spectral-domain OCT using chi-squared test and repeated measures anova adjusted for confounding covariates epiretinal membrane, administered drug and subretinal fluid. RESULTS: Fifty-nine eyes of 53 patients (mean age: 47.4 ± 16.9 years) were included. VMI status had no effect on complete CME resolution rate (p = 0.16, corrected p-value: 0.32), time until resolution (p = 0.09, corrected p-value: 0.27) or CME relapse rate (p = 0.29, corrected p-value: 0.29). Change over time did not differ among the VMI configuration groups for BVCA (p = 0.82) and RV (p = 0.18), but CRT decrease was greater and faster in the posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) group compared to the posterior vitreous attachment (PVA) and vitreous macular adhesion (VMA) groups (p = 0.04). Also, the percentage of patients experiencing a ≥ 20% CRT thickness decrease after intravitreal injection was greater in the PVD group (83%) compared to the VMA (64%) and the PVA (16%) group (p = 0.027), however, not after correction for multiple testing (corrected p-value: 0.11). CONCLUSION: The VMI configuration seems to be a factor contributing to treatment efficacy in uveitic CME in terms of CRT decrease, although BCVA outcome did not differ according to VMI status.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the vitreomacular interface (VMI) on treatment efficacy of intravitreal therapy in uveitic cystoid macular oedema (CME). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of CME resolution, CME recurrence rate and monthly course of central retinal thickness (CRT), retinal volume (RV) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after intravitreal injection with respect to the VMI configuration on spectral-domain OCT using chi-squared test and repeated measures anova adjusted for confounding covariates epiretinal membrane, administered drug and subretinal fluid. RESULTS: Fifty-nine eyes of 53 patients (mean age: 47.4 ± 16.9 years) were included. VMI status had no effect on complete CME resolution rate (p = 0.16, corrected p-value: 0.32), time until resolution (p = 0.09, corrected p-value: 0.27) or CME relapse rate (p = 0.29, corrected p-value: 0.29). Change over time did not differ among the VMI configuration groups for BVCA (p = 0.82) and RV (p = 0.18), but CRT decrease was greater and faster in the posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) group compared to the posterior vitreous attachment (PVA) and vitreous macular adhesion (VMA) groups (p = 0.04). Also, the percentage of patients experiencing a ≥ 20% CRT thickness decrease after intravitreal injection was greater in the PVD group (83%) compared to the VMA (64%) and the PVA (16%) group (p = 0.027), however, not after correction for multiple testing (corrected p-value: 0.11). CONCLUSION: The VMI configuration seems to be a factor contributing to treatment efficacy in uveitic CME in terms of CRT decrease, although BCVA outcome did not differ according to VMI status.
Authors: Jessica Matas; Victor Llorenç; Alex Fonollosa; Cristina Esquinas; David Diaz-Valle; Barbara Berasategui; Marina Mesquida; Joseba Artaraz; Jose Rios; Alfredo Adan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marion R Munk; Gabor Mark Somfai; Marc D de Smet; Guy Donati; Marcel N Menke; Justus G Garweg; Lala Ceklic Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 6.208