AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: Totally 113 eyes of 84 patients were divided in three subgroups: naive patients (n=11), pseudophakic patients (n=72) and phakic patients (n=30). Inclusive criterion comprised adult diabetic patients with central fovea thickening and impaired visual acuity resulting from DME for whom previous standard treatments showed no improvement in both central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after at least 3mo of treatment. Outcome data were obtained from patient visits at baseline and at months 1, 3, 5, 9 and 12 after the first DEX implant injection. At each of these visits, patients underwent measurement of BCVA, a complete eye examination and measurement of CMT and macular volume (MV) carried out with optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. RESULTS: Seventy-three eyes (64.5%) received a single implant, 30 (26.5%) received two implants and 10 (9%) received three implants. At baseline, average in BCVA, CMT and MV were 43.5±20.8, 462.8±145 and 12.6±2.5 respectively. These values improved significantly at 1mo (BCVA: 47.2±19.5, CMT: 339.6±120, MV: 11.11±1.4) and 3mo (BCVA: 53.2±18.1, CMT: 353.8±141, MV: 11.3±1.3) (P≤0.05). At 5mo (BCVA: 50.9±19.8, CMT: 425±150, MV: 12.27±2.3), 9mo (BCVA: 48.4±17.6, CMT: 445.5±170, MV: 12.5±2.3) and 12mo (BCVA: 47.7±18.8, CMT: 413.2±149, MV: 12.03±2.5), improvements in the three parameters were no longer statistically significant and decreased progressively but did not reach baseline values. There were no clinical differences between subgroups. Ocular complications were minimal. CONCLUSION: Patients with DEX implants show maximum efficacy at 3mo which then declined progressively, but is still better than baseline values at the end of follow-up.
AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: Totally 113 eyes of 84 patients were divided in three subgroups: naive patients (n=11), pseudophakic patients (n=72) and phakic patients (n=30). Inclusive criterion comprised adult diabeticpatients with central fovea thickening and impaired visual acuity resulting from DME for whom previous standard treatments showed no improvement in both central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after at least 3mo of treatment. Outcome data were obtained from patient visits at baseline and at months 1, 3, 5, 9 and 12 after the first DEX implant injection. At each of these visits, patients underwent measurement of BCVA, a complete eye examination and measurement of CMT and macular volume (MV) carried out with optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. RESULTS: Seventy-three eyes (64.5%) received a single implant, 30 (26.5%) received two implants and 10 (9%) received three implants. At baseline, average in BCVA, CMT and MV were 43.5±20.8, 462.8±145 and 12.6±2.5 respectively. These values improved significantly at 1mo (BCVA: 47.2±19.5, CMT: 339.6±120, MV: 11.11±1.4) and 3mo (BCVA: 53.2±18.1, CMT: 353.8±141, MV: 11.3±1.3) (P≤0.05). At 5mo (BCVA: 50.9±19.8, CMT: 425±150, MV: 12.27±2.3), 9mo (BCVA: 48.4±17.6, CMT: 445.5±170, MV: 12.5±2.3) and 12mo (BCVA: 47.7±18.8, CMT: 413.2±149, MV: 12.03±2.5), improvements in the three parameters were no longer statistically significant and decreased progressively but did not reach baseline values. There were no clinical differences between subgroups. Ocular complications were minimal. CONCLUSION:Patients with DEX implants show maximum efficacy at 3mo which then declined progressively, but is still better than baseline values at the end of follow-up.
Authors: Mark C Gillies; Lyndell L Lim; Anna Campain; Godfrey J Quin; Wedad Salem; Ji Li; Stephanie Goodwin; Christine Aroney; Ian L McAllister; Samantha Fraser-Bell Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David S Boyer; David Faber; Sunil Gupta; Sunil S Patel; Homayoun Tabandeh; Xiao-Yan Li; Charlie C Liu; Jean Lou; Scott M Whitcup Journal: Retina Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Julia A Haller; Baruch D Kuppermann; Mark S Blumenkranz; George A Williams; David V Weinberg; Connie Chou; Scott M Whitcup Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-03
Authors: Peter A Campochiaro; David M Brown; Andrew Pearson; Thomas Ciulla; David Boyer; Frank G Holz; Michael Tolentino; Amod Gupta; Lilianne Duarte; Steven Madreperla; John Gonder; Barry Kapik; Kathleen Billman; Frances E Kane Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: V Lozano López; M Serrano García; C Mantolán Sarmiento; A Pareja Ríos; M J Losada Castillo; L Cordovés Dorta; E Quijada Fumero; T Virgós Aller; M Bullejos Molina Journal: Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol Date: 2014-10-25
Authors: Quan Dong Nguyen; David M Brown; Dennis M Marcus; David S Boyer; Sunil Patel; Leonard Feiner; Andrea Gibson; Judy Sy; Amy Chen Rundle; J Jill Hopkins; Roman G Rubio; Jason S Ehrlich Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-02-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David J Browning; Adam R Glassman; Lloyd Paul Aiello; Roy W Beck; David M Brown; Donald S Fong; Neil M Bressler; Ronald P Danis; James L Kinyoun; Quan Dong Nguyen; Abdhish R Bhavsar; Justin Gottlieb; Dante J Pieramici; Michael E Rauser; Rajendra S Apte; Jennifer I Lim; Päivi H Miskala Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ranjan Rajendram; Samantha Fraser-Bell; Andrew Kaines; Michel Michaelides; Robin D Hamilton; Simona Degli Esposti; Tunde Peto; Catherine Egan; Catey Bunce; Richard David Leslie; Philip G Hykin Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2012-08