1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and safety of Suprachoroidal Triamcinolone Acetonide in cases of resistant diabetic Macular Edema

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          To evaluate the safety and efficacy of Suprachoroidal Triamcinolone Acetonide (SCTA) injection in patients with treatment resistant Diabetic Macular Edema (DME).

          Methods:

          This was a prospective non randomized interventional study conducted in the vitreoretinal department of Al Ehsan Welfare Eye Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan from March 2018 to September 2018. A total of 24 eyes of 24 patients were included. Baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA), Intra Ocular Pressure (IOP) and Central Subfield Thickness (CST) was recorded. After SCTA, patient was followed up at one and three months and same clinical parameters were recorded again and results analyzed.

          Results:

          Out of 24 patients, 11(45.83%) were males and 13(54.16%) were females. Mean pre injection CST was 636.5 ± 200.11 um. Mean pre injection BCVA was 0.8 ± 0.24 on ETDRS chart. Mean post injection CST at one and three months was 304.54 ± 67.43 and 302.66 ± 66.93 um. Mean post injection BCVA at one and three months was 0.47 ± 0.3 and 0.45 ± 0.27 on ETDRS chart. The results were statistically significant for pre and post injection CST at both one and three months ( p-value < 0.00001). Pre and post injection BCVA was also statistically significant ( p-value < 0.05).

          Conclusion:

          Preliminary evidence suggests that SCTA is well tolerated and may help in improving functional and structural outcomes of treatment resistant DME

          Related collections

          Most cited references 15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Randomized trial evaluating ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

          Evaluate intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. A total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity (approximate Snellen equivalent) of 20/32 to 20/320 and DME involving the fovea. Eyes were randomized to sham injection + prompt laser (n=293), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + prompt laser (n=187), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + deferred (> or =24 weeks) laser (n=188), or 4 mg triamcinolone + prompt laser (n=186). Retreatment followed an algorithm facilitated by a web-based, real-time data-entry system. Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at 1 year. The 1-year mean change (+/-standard deviation) in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was significantly greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (+9+/-11, P<0.001) and ranibizumab + deferred laser group (+9+/-12, P<0.001) but not in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (+4+/-13, P=0.31) compared with the sham + prompt laser group (+3+/-13). Reduction in mean central subfield thickness in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group was similar to both ranibizumab groups and greater than in the sham + prompt laser group. In the subset of pseudophakic eyes at baseline (n=273), visual acuity improvement in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group appeared comparable to that in the ranibizumab groups. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes (0.8%) had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. Two-year visual acuity outcomes were similar to 1-year outcomes. Intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser is more effective through at least 1 year compared with prompt laser alone for the treatment of DME involving the central macula. Ranibizumab as applied in this study, although uncommonly associated with endophthalmitis, should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those in this clinical trial. In pseudophakic eyes, intravitreal triamcinolone + prompt laser seems more effective than laser alone but frequently increases the risk of intraocular pressure elevation. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Anti-VEGF treatment of diabetic macular edema in clinical practice: effectiveness and patterns of use (ECHO Study Report 1)

            Purpose To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and injection frequency of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors as used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Methods Multicenter (10 sites), retrospective chart review in patients (n=156) who received ≥3 anti-VEGF injections. Data collected for ≥6 months after the first injection included Snellen best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) by time-domain or spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (TD-OCT or SD-OCT). Results Mean number of anti-VEGF injections (627 bevacizumab, 594 ranibizumab, 1 aflibercept) was 5.8 (year 1), 5.0 (year 2), and 3.4 (year 3). Percentage of patients with BCVA of 20/40 or better and CRT ≤250 μm on TD-OCT or ≤300 μm on SD-OCT at the same visit (primary endpoint) ranged from 16.4% to 38.9% after the first 10 injections; 51.9%–62.3% achieved ≥20/40 BCVA and 26.2%–48.0% met CRT criteria. Therapy was well tolerated with 19 treatment-related adverse events (all ocular) reported. Conclusion Anti-VEGF injections were administered less frequently and were less effective than those in the ranibizumab registration trials. After each of the first 9 injections, <25% of patients achieved both BCVA of 20/40 or better and a dry macula. A substantial proportion of patients are suboptimal responders to anti-VEGF therapy; these patients may be candidates for other therapies, including intravitreal corticosteroid and laser therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema

              Background This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods The PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov website and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing DEX implant with anti-VEGF in patients with DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 for Mac was used to analyze the data and GRADE profiler were used to access the quality of outcomes. Results Based on four randomized clinical trials assessing a total of 521 eyes, the DEX implant can achieve visual acuity improvement for DME at rates similar to those achieved via anti-VEGF treatment (mean difference [MD] = − 0.43, P = 0.35), with superior anatomic outcomes at 6 months (MD = − 86.71 μm, P = 0.02), while requiring fewer injections, in comparison to anti-VEGF treatment. Although the mean reduction in CST did not showed significant difference at 12 months (MD = − 33.77 μm, P = 0.21), the significant in BCVA from baseline to 12 months supported the anti-VEGF treatment (MD = − 3.26, P < 0.00001). No statistically significant differences in terms of the serious adverse events. However, use of the DEX implant has higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract than anti-VEGF treatment. Conclusions Compared with anti-VEGF, DEX implant improved anatomical outcomes significantly. However, this did not translate to improved visual acuity, which may be due to the progression of cataract. Therefore, the DEX implant may be recommended as a first chioce for select cases, such as for pseudophakic eyes, anti-VEGF-resistant eyes, or patients reluctant to receive intravitreal injections frequently. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12886-018-0779-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pak J Med Sci
                Pak J Med Sci
                Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences
                Professional Medical Publications (Pakistan )
                1682-024X
                1681-715X
                Jan-Feb 2020
                : 36
                : 2
                : 42-47
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Dr. Haroon Tayyab, FCPS. Al-Ehsan Welfare Eye Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan. Department of Ophthalmology, King Edward Medical University / Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
                [2 ]Dr. Chaudhry Nasir Ahmed, FCPS. Department of Ophthalmology, King Edward Medical University / Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
                [3 ]Dr. Muhammad Ali Ayaz Sadiq, FCPS. Department of Ophthalmology, King Edward Medical University / Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Dr. Haroon Tayyab, FCPS, Chief Consultant, Al-Ehsan Welfare Eye Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan. E-mail: haroontayyab79@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                PJMS-36-42
                10.12669/pjms.36.2.1194
                6994882
                Copyright: © Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Original Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article