Murilo W Rodrigues1, José A Cardillo2, André Messias2, Rubens C Siqueira2, Ingrid U Scott3, Rodrigo Jorge2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Brazil, 3900, Bandeirantes av., Campus, 12fl., Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, 14048-900, Brazil. murilowrj@yahoo.com.br. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Brazil, 3900, Bandeirantes av., Campus, 12fl., Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, 14048-900, Brazil. 3. Departments of Ophthalmology and Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, 700 HMC Crescent Road, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate 24-week visual acuity and anatomic outcomes of two "pro re nata" (prn) treatment strategies (intravitreal bevacizumab [IVB] prn versus intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide [IVT] prn) in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (pDME) after 24 weeks of prn-IVB. METHODS:One hundred eyes with center-involving DME were enrolled and treated with prn-IVB for 24 weeks; at week 24, eyes with pDME (central subfield thickness [CST] on spectral domain optical coherence tomography > 300 μm) were randomized to IVB monthly prn (group I; prn-IVB) or IVT every 3 months prn (group II; prn-IVT) and eyes in which the CST was ≤ 300 μm were assigned to continue prn-IVB (group III). RESULTS:Seventy-four eyes completed a 48-week study period. At week 24, 65 (79.3%) eyes still had DME with CST > 300 μm and, therefore, were randomized to prn-IVB (group I, n = 33) or prn-IVT (group II, n = 32); the remaining 17 (20.7%) eyes had CST ≤ 300 μm and were assigned to continued treatment with prn-IVB (group III). At baseline, mean CST (μm) ± standard error of the mean (SEM) was 447.2 ± 24.4, 478.0 ± 19.7, and 386.0 ± 21.0 in groups I, II, and III, respectively (p > 0.05). At week 48, there was no significant difference in mean CST between groups I and II (369.9 ± 23.3 and 426.0 ± 26.1, respectively; p = 0.9995). A significant reduction in mean CST, compared with baseline, was noted at weeks 28 (p = 0.0002) and 44 (p = 0.0002) in group II. Group I did not show a significant reduction in mean CST compared with baseline at any study visit. There were no significant differences in mean CST between groups I and II at any study visit. At baseline, mean ± SEM best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (logMAR) was 0.50 ± 0.00, 0.60 ± 0.10, and 0.50 ± 0.10 in groups I, II, and III, respectively (p > 0.05). At week 48, there was no statistically significant difference in mean BCVA between groups I and II (0.50 ± 0.10 and 0.80 ± 0.10, respectively; p = 0.4473). There was no significant improvement in mean BCVA, as compared with baseline, at any study follow-up visit in any of the groups. Group II demonstrated significantly lower BCVA after 24 weeks of IVT (at week 48) compared with baseline (p = 0.0435). There was no significant difference in mean BCVA between groups I and II at any time-point. CONCLUSION: In eyes with pDME after 24 weeks of treatment with prn-IVB, there was no difference between continued treatment with prn-IVB versus a treatment switch to prn-IVT with respect to mean BCVA or mean CST at week 48. However, BCVA was stable in the prn-IVB group, while prn-IVT was associated with BCVA reduction from baseline and a higher risk of IOP elevation.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate 24-week visual acuity and anatomic outcomes of two "pro re nata" (prn) treatment strategies (intravitreal bevacizumab [IVB] prn versus intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide [IVT] prn) in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (pDME) after 24 weeks of prn-IVB. METHODS: One hundred eyes with center-involving DME were enrolled and treated with prn-IVB for 24 weeks; at week 24, eyes with pDME (central subfield thickness [CST] on spectral domain optical coherence tomography > 300 μm) were randomized to IVB monthly prn (group I; prn-IVB) or IVT every 3 months prn (group II; prn-IVT) and eyes in which the CST was ≤ 300 μm were assigned to continue prn-IVB (group III). RESULTS: Seventy-four eyes completed a 48-week study period. At week 24, 65 (79.3%) eyes still had DME with CST > 300 μm and, therefore, were randomized to prn-IVB (group I, n = 33) or prn-IVT (group II, n = 32); the remaining 17 (20.7%) eyes had CST ≤ 300 μm and were assigned to continued treatment with prn-IVB (group III). At baseline, mean CST (μm) ± standard error of the mean (SEM) was 447.2 ± 24.4, 478.0 ± 19.7, and 386.0 ± 21.0 in groups I, II, and III, respectively (p > 0.05). At week 48, there was no significant difference in mean CST between groups I and II (369.9 ± 23.3 and 426.0 ± 26.1, respectively; p = 0.9995). A significant reduction in mean CST, compared with baseline, was noted at weeks 28 (p = 0.0002) and 44 (p = 0.0002) in group II. Group I did not show a significant reduction in mean CST compared with baseline at any study visit. There were no significant differences in mean CST between groups I and II at any study visit. At baseline, mean ± SEM best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (logMAR) was 0.50 ± 0.00, 0.60 ± 0.10, and 0.50 ± 0.10 in groups I, II, and III, respectively (p > 0.05). At week 48, there was no statistically significant difference in mean BCVA between groups I and II (0.50 ± 0.10 and 0.80 ± 0.10, respectively; p = 0.4473). There was no significant improvement in mean BCVA, as compared with baseline, at any study follow-up visit in any of the groups. Group II demonstrated significantly lower BCVA after 24 weeks of IVT (at week 48) compared with baseline (p = 0.0435). There was no significant difference in mean BCVA between groups I and II at any time-point. CONCLUSION: In eyes with pDME after 24 weeks of treatment with prn-IVB, there was no difference between continued treatment with prn-IVB versus a treatment switch to prn-IVT with respect to mean BCVA or mean CST at week 48. However, BCVA was stable in the prn-IVB group, while prn-IVT was associated with BCVA reduction from baseline and a higher risk of IOP elevation.
Authors: Michael J Elman; Lloyd Paul Aiello; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; Susan B Bressler; Allison R Edwards; Frederick L Ferris; Scott M Friedman; Adam R Glassman; Kellee M Miller; Ingrid U Scott; Cynthia R Stockdale; Jennifer K Sun Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Lloyd P Aiello; Alexander J Brucker; Stanley Chang; Emmett T Cunningham; Donald J D'Amico; Harry W Flynn; Lisa R Grillone; Steve Hutcherson; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Terrence P O'Brien; Ingrid U Scott; Richard F Spaide; Christopher Ta; Michael T Trese Journal: Retina Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Lloyd Paul Aiello; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; David J Browning; K V Chalam; Matthew Davis; Frederick L Ferris; Adam R Glassman; Raj K Maturi; Cynthia R Stockdale; Trexler M Topping Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David M Brown; Quan Dong Nguyen; Dennis M Marcus; David S Boyer; Sunil Patel; Leonard Feiner; Patricio G Schlottmann; Amy Chen Rundle; Jiameng Zhang; Roman G Rubio; Anthony P Adamis; Jason S Ehrlich; J Jill Hopkins Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Gabriele E Lang; András Berta; Bora M Eldem; Christian Simader; Dianne Sharp; Frank G Holz; Florian Sutter; Ortrud Gerstner; Paul Mitchell Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Joanne W Y Yau; Sophie L Rogers; Ryo Kawasaki; Ecosse L Lamoureux; Jonathan W Kowalski; Toke Bek; Shih-Jen Chen; Jacqueline M Dekker; Astrid Fletcher; Jakob Grauslund; Steven Haffner; Richard F Hamman; M Kamran Ikram; Takamasa Kayama; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Sannapaneni Krishnaiah; Korapat Mayurasakorn; Joseph P O'Hare; Trevor J Orchard; Massimo Porta; Mohan Rema; Monique S Roy; Tarun Sharma; Jonathan Shaw; Hugh Taylor; James M Tielsch; Rohit Varma; Jie Jin Wang; Ningli Wang; Sheila West; Liang Xu; Miho Yasuda; Xinzhi Zhang; Paul Mitchell; Tien Y Wong Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 19.112