Oren Tomkins-Netzer1, Susan Lightman1, Lea Drye2, John Kempen3, Gary N Holland4, Narsing A Rao5, Richard J Stawell6, Albert Vitale7, Douglas A Jabs8. 1. The Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. The Departments of Ophthalmology and Epidemiology, the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, USC Eye Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 8. Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; Departments of Ophthalmology and Medicine, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Electronic address: douglas.jabs@mssm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the 2-year outcomes of uveitic macular edema. DESIGN: Longitudinal follow-up of a randomized cohort. PARTICIPANTS: At baseline, 148 eyes of 117 patients enrolled in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) Trial had macular edema, and 134 eyes of 108 patients completed 2-year follow-up. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the study were randomized to either systemic immunosuppression or intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy. Macular edema was defined as thickening of the retina (center point thickness≥240 μm) on time-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) of macula. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Improvement in macular edema (≥20% reduction in central point thickness on OCT), resolution of macular edema (normalization of thickness on OCT), and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). RESULTS: Between randomization and 2-years' follow-up, 62% and 25% of eyes in the systemic and implant groups, respectively, received at least 1 supplemental regional corticosteroid injection. By 2-years' follow-up, macular edema improved in 71% of eyes and resolved in 60%. There were no differences between treatment groups in the proportion of eyes with macular edema improving (systemic therapy vs. implant, 65% vs. 77%; P=0.20) and resolving (52% vs. 68%; P=0.28), but eyes randomized to implant had more improvement in macular thickness (median decrease of 180 vs. 109 μm in the systemic therapy group; P=0.04). Eyes with baseline fluorescein angiographic leakage were more likely to improve than those without (76% vs. 58%; P=0.03). Overall, there was a mean 5-letter (1 line) improvement in BCVA at 2 years. Mean changes in BCVA from baseline at 2 years by macular edema response status were: resolution, +10 letters; improvement without resolution, +10 letters (P=0.92); little to no change, 6 letters (P=0.19); and worsening, -16 letters (worsening acuity; P=0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: About two thirds of eyes with uveitic macular edema were observed to experience improvement in the edema and visual acuity with implant or systemic treatment. Fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy was associated with a greater quantitative improvement in thickness. Fluorescein angiography leakage was associated with a greater likelihood of improvement in macular edema.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the 2-year outcomes of uveitic macular edema. DESIGN: Longitudinal follow-up of a randomized cohort. PARTICIPANTS: At baseline, 148 eyes of 117 patients enrolled in the Multicenter UveitisSteroid Treatment (MUST) Trial had macular edema, and 134 eyes of 108 patients completed 2-year follow-up. METHODS:Patients enrolled in the study were randomized to either systemic immunosuppression or intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy. Macular edema was defined as thickening of the retina (center point thickness≥240 μm) on time-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) of macula. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Improvement in macular edema (≥20% reduction in central point thickness on OCT), resolution of macular edema (normalization of thickness on OCT), and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). RESULTS: Between randomization and 2-years' follow-up, 62% and 25% of eyes in the systemic and implant groups, respectively, received at least 1 supplemental regional corticosteroid injection. By 2-years' follow-up, macular edema improved in 71% of eyes and resolved in 60%. There were no differences between treatment groups in the proportion of eyes with macular edema improving (systemic therapy vs. implant, 65% vs. 77%; P=0.20) and resolving (52% vs. 68%; P=0.28), but eyes randomized to implant had more improvement in macular thickness (median decrease of 180 vs. 109 μm in the systemic therapy group; P=0.04). Eyes with baseline fluorescein angiographic leakage were more likely to improve than those without (76% vs. 58%; P=0.03). Overall, there was a mean 5-letter (1 line) improvement in BCVA at 2 years. Mean changes in BCVA from baseline at 2 years by macular edema response status were: resolution, +10 letters; improvement without resolution, +10 letters (P=0.92); little to no change, 6 letters (P=0.19); and worsening, -16 letters (worsening acuity; P=0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: About two thirds of eyes with uveitic macular edema were observed to experience improvement in the edema and visual acuity with implant or systemic treatment. Fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy was associated with a greater quantitative improvement in thickness. Fluorescein angiography leakage was associated with a greater likelihood of improvement in macular edema.
Authors: D A Jabs; J T Rosenbaum; C S Foster; G N Holland; G J Jaffe; J S Louie; R B Nussenblatt; E R Stiehm; H Tessler; R N Van Gelder; S M Whitcup; D Yocum Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Brian Lehpamer; Erin Moshier; Patricia Pahk; Naomi Goldberg; Jessica Ackert; James Godbold; Douglas A Jabs Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jennifer E Thorne; Douglas A Jabs; George B Peters; David Hair; James P Dunn; John H Kempen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jennifer E Thorne; Douglas A Jabs; Sanjay R Kedhar; George B Peters; James P Dunn Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-11-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: John H Kempen; Elizabeth A Sugar; Glenn J Jaffe; Nisha R Acharya; James P Dunn; Susan G Elner; Susan L Lightman; Jennifer E Thorne; Albert T Vitale; Michael M Altaweel Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Zohar Habot-Wilner; Ahmed Sallam; Patricio A Pacheco; Helen H Do; Peter McCluskey; Sue Lightman Journal: Eur J Ophthalmol Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.597
Authors: Simon R J Taylor; Susan L Lightman; Elizabeth A Sugar; Glen J Jaffe; William R Freeman; Michael M Altaweel; Igor Kozak; Janet T Holbrook; Douglas A Jabs; John H Kempen Journal: Ocul Immunol Inflamm Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 3.070
Authors: Kathryn L Pepple; Macklin H Nguyen; Kaivon Pakzad-Vaezi; Kathleen Williamson; Naomi Odell; Cecilia Lee; Thellea K Leveque; Russell N Van Gelder Journal: Retina Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Christopher J Brady; Andrea C Villanti; Hua Andrew Law; Ehsan Rahimy; Rahul Reddy; Pamela C Sieving; Sunir J Garg; Johnny Tang Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-02-12
Authors: Jennifer E Thorne; Elizabeth A Sugar; Janet T Holbrook; Alyce E Burke; Michael M Altaweel; Albert T Vitale; Nisha R Acharya; John H Kempen; Douglas A Jabs Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 14.277
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