L Pelegrín1, M S de la Maza1, B Molins2, J Ríos3, A Adán1. 1. 1] Institut Clínic d'Oftalmologia, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain [2] Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques Agustí Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. 3. 1] Biostatistics and Data Management Core Facility, IDIBAPS, (Hospital Clinic), Barcelona, Spain [2] Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant effect in non-vitrectomized (non-PPV) vs vitrectomized (PPV) eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to non-infectious uveitis. METHODS: Medical records of patients with uveitic ME treated with DEX-intravitreal implant were reviewed. Main outcome measures were changes in central retinal thickness (CRT), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), vitreous haze and adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed by Longitudinal Linear model using the General Estimating Equation methodology. RESULTS: Forty-two eyes of 32 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 18 months (interquartile range (IQR): 12-24). Median CRT showed its maximum decrease at the first month in non-PPV and PPV eyes without statistically significant differences between both groups (P=NS). Median Snellen BCVA, converted to logarithm (LogMAR), showed its maximum improvement at third month in both groups without statistically significant differences between them (P=NS). Median IOP was higher in non-PPV eyes than in PPV eyes from third (P=0.025) to 12th month (P=0.013). Vitreous haze score improved in both groups since first month and showed no differences (P=0.706). Reinjection was performed in 45.2% of eyes at a median time of 5 months IQR: (5-6). Ocular hypertension (47.6%) was the most common adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: DEX-intravitreal implant for uveitic ME has similar long-term safety profile and good response measured in terms of CRT decrease, BCVA, and vitreous haze improvement in both groups. Non-PPV eyes following DEX-intravitreal implant showed higher IOP increase than PPV eyes, showing the need for close IOP monitoring.
PURPOSE: To compare dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant effect in non-vitrectomized (non-PPV) vs vitrectomized (PPV) eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to non-infectious uveitis. METHODS: Medical records of patients with uveitic ME treated with DEX-intravitreal implant were reviewed. Main outcome measures were changes in central retinal thickness (CRT), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), vitreous haze and adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed by Longitudinal Linear model using the General Estimating Equation methodology. RESULTS: Forty-two eyes of 32 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 18 months (interquartile range (IQR): 12-24). Median CRT showed its maximum decrease at the first month in non-PPV and PPV eyes without statistically significant differences between both groups (P=NS). Median Snellen BCVA, converted to logarithm (LogMAR), showed its maximum improvement at third month in both groups without statistically significant differences between them (P=NS). Median IOP was higher in non-PPV eyes than in PPV eyes from third (P=0.025) to 12th month (P=0.013). Vitreous haze score improved in both groups since first month and showed no differences (P=0.706). Reinjection was performed in 45.2% of eyes at a median time of 5 months IQR: (5-6). Ocular hypertension (47.6%) was the most common adverse event. CONCLUSIONS:DEX-intravitreal implant for uveitic ME has similar long-term safety profile and good response measured in terms of CRT decrease, BCVA, and vitreous haze improvement in both groups. Non-PPV eyes following DEX-intravitreal implant showed higher IOP increase than PPV eyes, showing the need for close IOP monitoring.
Authors: Saskia M Maca; Claudette Abela-Formanek; Christopher G Kiss; Stefan G Sacu; Thomas Benesch; Talin Barisani-Asenbauer Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Rene A Cervantes-Castañeda; Gian Paolo Giuliari; Michael J Gallagher; Taygan Yilmaz; Rebecca E MacDonell; Karina Quinones; Charles S Foster Journal: Eur J Ophthalmol Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.597
Authors: Evangelos Minos; Robert J Barry; Sue Southworth; Annie Folkard; Philip I Murray; Jay S Duker; Pearse A Keane; Alastair K Denniston Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Eduardo A Novais; Mauricio Maia; Paulo Augusto de Arruda Mello Filho; João Rafael de Oliveira Dias; José Maurício B B Garcia; Gabriel C de Andrade; Ricardo N Louzada; Marcos Ávila; André Maia; J Fernando Arevalo; Lihteh Wu; Maria Berrocal; Emmerson Badaró; Michel Farah Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-09-18 Impact factor: 1.909