scholarly journals The Impact of Interval between Recurrence and Reinjection in Anti-VEGF Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema in Pro Re Nata Regimen

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (24) ◽  
pp. 5738
Author(s):  
Yoshihiro Takamura ◽  
Teruyo Kida ◽  
Hidetaka Noma ◽  
Makoto Inoue ◽  
Shigeo Yoshida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Functional Improvement ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Pro Re Nata ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Deferred Group

Background: Pro re nata (PRN) regimen using anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent is popular for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). We investigated the influence of waiting time (WT) and interval between the date of recurrence of edema and re-injection on treatment efficacy. Methods: This retrospective study conducted at 7 sites in Japan enrolled patients who received intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (IVR) and aflibercept (IVA) in 1+PRN regimen. Enrolled patients were divided into 2 groups: prompt group (less than 1 week) and deferred group (3 weeks or more). Central retinal thickness (CRT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were measured every month for 1 year. Results: CRT in the deferred group was significantly higher than that in the prompt group at 2, 5, 6, 7, and 12 months (p < 0.05). BCVA in the prompt group was significantly better than that in the deferred group at 7, 10, and 12 months (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The prompt group was superior in anatomical and functional improvement of DME in anti-VEGF therapy than the deferred group. Our data suggests that shorter WT is recommended for better visual prognosis in the treatment for DME.

scholarly journals Combination Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Steroids: Analysis of DRCR.net Protocol U

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Cindy Ung ◽  
Kareem Moussa ◽  
Yoshihiro Yonekawa
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the main cause of visual impairment in diabetic patients. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy is considered the first-line treatment option in the management of DME with corticosteroids used as second-line therapy. The DRCR.net Protocol U study was a Phase II trial that sought to compare the combination of a steroid and anti-VEGF therapy to anti-VEGF monotherapy regarding visual acuity and anatomic outcomes. This review highlights the strengths, weaknesses, and clinical implications of this study.

Aflibercept: A Review of Its Use in the Management of Diabetic Eye Complications

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 534-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluwaranti Akiyode ◽  
Jateh Major ◽  
Abiola Ojo
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Vegf Inhibitor ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Visual Acuity Loss ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

Aflibercept is the most recently approved vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) inhibitor for the management of diabetic macular edema and diabetic retinopathy. The purpose of this article is to review the efficacy and safety of aflibercept in the management of diabetic eye complications and to describe its place in therapy. Anti-VEGF agents have been noted in clinical trials to be superior to laser photocoagulation, the standard therapy ( P < .0001, P ≤ .0085, respectively). Aflibercept has been comparatively studied with other anti-VEGF agents, namely, bevacizumab and ranibizumab, and noted to be equally efficacious and safe in patients with mild visual acuity loss ( P > .50). However, in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema having moderate to severe visual acuity loss, aflibercept outperformed the other 2 anti-VEGF agents (aflibercept vs bevacizumab, P < .001; aflibercept vs ranibizumab, P = .003). However, additional studies are needed to fully appreciate the long-term safety and efficacy of aflibercept and the anti-VEGF therapy class.

Subthreshold micropulse laser reduces anti-VEGF injection burden in patients with diabetic macular edema

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elad Moisseiev ◽  
Sam Abbassi ◽  
Sumeer Thinda ◽  
Joseph Yoon ◽  
Glenn Yiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Micropulse Laser ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of micropulse laser in the early treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and its associated burden of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections. Methods: This retrospective comparative study compared a group of 19 eyes with DME treated with micropulse laser to a matched control group of 19 eyes with DME treated with ranibizumab injections without micropulse laser. Recorded parameters included previous medical and ocular history, previous and subsequent ranibizumab injections administered for DME, visual acuity (VA), central macular thickness throughout the follow-up period, and the occurrence of any complications. Results: The improvement in VA was comparable in both groups, at 12 months and at the final follow-up. Patients treated with micropulse laser required significantly fewer ranibizumab injections than their controls, both at 12 months (1.7 ± 2.3 vs 5.6 ± 2.1) and by the end of the follow-up (2.6 ± 3.3 vs 9.3 ± 5.1) (p<0.001 for both). No complications related to the micropulse laser were encountered. Conclusions: Micropulse laser is a safe and effective treatment for DME, which may achieve comparable improvement in VA along with a significant reduction in the burden of anti-VEGF injections. We suggest a treatment approach for its inclusion in the early stages of DME.

scholarly journals Intravitreal Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: An Update

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Claudio Furino ◽  
Francesco Boscia ◽  
Michele Reibaldi ◽  
Giovanni Alessio
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Sustained Release ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Surgical Removal ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

Diabetic macular edema (DME) represents a prevalent and disabling eye condition. Despite that DME represents a sight-threatening condition, it is also among the most accessible to treatment. Many different treatment options including photocoagulation, intravitreal medical treatment (either vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors or corticosteroids therapies), and surgical removal are currently available. Although laser has been considered as the gold standard for many years, over the past several years vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) have become first-line therapy. However, many patients do not adequately respond to them. With the development of sustained-release corticosteroid devices, steroids have gained a presence in the management of the DME. We review and update the role of anti-VEGF and intravitreal sustained-release corticosteroid management of DME. According to the currently available scientific evidence, the choice of one anti-VEGF over another critically depends on the baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). While aflibercept may be the drug of choice in low baseline BCVA, the three anti-VEGFs (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept) provided similar functional outcomes when the baseline BCVA was higher. DEX implants are a valuable option for treating DME, although they are usually seen as a second choice, particularly in those eyes that have an insufficient response to anti-VEGF. The new evidence suggested that, in eyes that did not adequately respond to anti-VEGF, switching to a DEX implant at the time to 3 monthly anti-VEGF injections provided better functional outcomes.

The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema

2021 ◽  
pp. 112067212110147
Author(s):  
Albert J Augustin ◽  
Silvia Bopp ◽  
Martin Fechner ◽  
Frank G Holz ◽  
Dirk Sandner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Disease Process ◽  
Fluocinolone Acetonide ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
First Line ◽  
Intravitreal Implant ◽  
Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor ◽  
The Impact

Background: There is a lack of consensus on the use of intravitreal corticosteroid therapies in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and prior vitrectomized eyes in clinical practice. Methods: Retro-IDEAL was a 3-year retrospective, multicenter study in patients with chronic DME (i.e. DME that persists or recurs despite treatment) treated with ILUVIEN® (0.2 µg daily fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant), who had suboptimal outcomes with first-line vascular endothelial growth-factor inhibitors and other DME therapies. Results: A total of 81 eyes (63 patients) were included of which 39 eyes had undergone prior vitrectomy (PV group) while 42 eyes had not undergone prior vitrectomy (NPV). Baseline characteristics were balanced; however, more patients had proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the PV group vs. the NPV group (21.62% vs 9.38%, respectively). Over 36 months, mean visual acuity (VA) increased in both groups with a tendency for more ETDRS letters being gained in the NPV group (+5.33) vs. the PV group (+2.42). By month 36, central retinal thickness was reduced to ⩽300 µm in two-thirds of the eyes in both groups and the mean change from baseline in intraocular pressure was similar in both groups (+0.50 mmHg −0.75 mmHg; NPV and PV group). Conclusions: These long-term data suggest that the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant is effective in both vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized patients, with a manageable safety profile, and improved VA and reduced supplemental therapies for patients with a suboptimal response to first-line DME therapies. Clinicians may consider utilizing the FAc implant earlier in the DME disease process.

Intravitreal dexamethasone insert in diabetic macular edema super-refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy

2021 ◽  
pp. 112067212110043
Author(s):  
Carl S Wilkins ◽  
Ethan K Sobol ◽  
Gareth MC Lema ◽  
Jessica G Lee ◽  
Richard B Rosen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Intravitreal Dexamethasone ◽  
Growth Factor Therapy ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

Background: Some patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) fail to completely respond to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. These patients have a high treatment burden in the absence of significant improvement. We investigate the role of intravitreal dexamethasone insert (IDI) in eyes with super-refractory DME. Methods: A non-randomized interventional study was performed among eyes with super-refractory DME refractory to anti-VEGF therapy. Eyes were treated with IDI after failing clinical response to anti-VEGF, with a minimum of 15 prior. Failure to respond was defined as failure of vision to improve at least one line on Snellen Acuity chart, central subfield thickness (CST) greater than 320 μm, or failure of CST to improve by 10% or more. Eyes with glaucoma or prior uncontrolled steroid-responsive ocular hypertension were excluded. Patient outcomes were analyzed at weeks 6, 12, 24, and year 1. Results: Six eyes of four patients were identified. All patients had failed aflibercept. The mean number of prior anti-VEGF injections was 34.5. Eyes received an average of 2.92 dexamethasone injections per person-year (PY) and required breakthrough anti-VEGF injection at 1.95/PY. Mean pre-treatment visual acuity was 0.475 LogMAR, improving to 0.342 at week 6, and 0.375 at 1 year. Mean CST pre-injection was 386.5 mm, improving to 315 mm at 1 year. No glaucoma developed. Conclusions: Intravitreal dexamethasone insert appears effective in eyes with super-refractory DME. IDI resulted in excellent anatomic improvement on SD-OCT as well as modest visual improvement. Injection burden was reduced in those who may otherwise receive years of monthly treatments.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Response to Ranibizumab Therapy following Bevacizumab Treatment Failure in Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Hanhart ◽  
Itay Chowers
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Spectral Domain Oct ◽  
Bevacizumab Treatment ◽  
Central Subfield Thickness ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

Background/Aims: Bevacizumab and ranibizumab are routinely used to treat diabetic macular edema (DME). We aim to evaluate the usefulness of switching to ranibizumab therapy following bevacizumab treatment failure in eyes with DME. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive group of patients with DME who received ranibizumab injections following the failure of bevacizumab injections. The injections were delivered following a pro re nata protocol every 4-6 weeks. The data collected included demographics, systemic and ophthalmic findings, as well as the central subfield thickness according to spectral-domain OCT. Results: Eight eyes (5 patients) were included in the study. The median number of bevacizumab injections prior to the switch to ranibizumab was 4, and the median number of ranibizumab injections during the study was 2. The mean follow-up period was 541 ± 258 days. The mean central retinal thickness (CRT) (±SEM) was 539 ± 75 μm before the initiation of bevacizumab treatment, and 524 ± 43 μm after the last bevacizumab injection (p = 0.7). It reduced to 325 ± 26 μm following the ranibizumab injections (p = 0.0063). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved in 4 eyes and remained stable in 4 eyes following the ranibizumab injections. Conclusion: A ranibizumab therapy was effective in reducing the CRT in eyes that failed bevacizumab therapy. A BCVA improvement can also occur in these eyes. Switching between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor compounds may be beneficial in eyes with DME.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document