23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Evolving Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy

      review-article

      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

          Purpose

          To review the current therapeutic options for the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) and examine the evidence for integration of laser and pharmacotherapy.

          Methods

          A review of the PubMed database was performed using the search terms diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, neovascularization, laser photocoagulation, intravitreal injection, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), vitrectomy, pars plana vitreous surgery, antiangiogenic therapy. With additional cross-referencing, this yielded 835 publications of which 301 were selected based on content and relevance.

          Results

          Many recent studies have evaluated the pharmacological, laser and surgical therapeutic strategies for the treatment and prevention of DR and DME. Several newer diagnostic systems such as optical coherence tomography (OCT), microperimetry, and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) are also assisting in further refinements in the staging and classification of DR and DME. Pharmacological therapies for both DR and DME include both systemic and ocular agents. Systemic agents that promote intensive glycemic control, control of dyslipidemia and antagonists of the renin-angiotensin system demonstrate beneficial effects for both DR and DME. Ocular therapies include anti-VEGF agents, corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Laser therapy, both as panretinal and focal or grid applications continue to be employed in management of DR and DME. Refinements in laser devices have yielded more tissue-sparing (subthreshold) modes in which many of the benefits of conventional continuous wave (CW) lasers can be obtained without the adverse side effects. Recent attempts to lessen the burden of anti-VEGF injections by integrating laser therapy have met with mixed results. Increasingly, vitreoretinal surgical techniques are employed for less advanced stages of DR and DME. The development and use of smaller gauge instrumentation and advanced anesthesia agents have been associated with a trend toward earlier surgical intervention for diabetic retinopathy. Several novel drug delivery strategies are currently being examined with the goal of decreasing the therapeutic burden of monthly intravitreal injections. These fall into one of the five categories: non-biodegradable polymeric drug delivery systems, biodegradable polymeric drug delivery systems, nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems, ocular injection devices and with sustained release refillable devices. At present, there remains no one single strategy for the management of the particular stages of DR and DME as there are many options that have not been rigorously tested through large, randomized, controlled clinical trials.

          Conclusion

          Pharmacotherapy, both ocular and systemic, will be the primary mode of intervention in the management of DR and DME in many cases when cost and treatment burden are less constrained. Conventional laser therapy has become a secondary intervention in these instances, but remains a first-line option when cost and treatment burden are more constrained. Results with subthreshold laser appear promising but will require more rigorous study to establish its role as adjunctive therapy. Evidence to support an optimal integration of the various treatment options is lacking. Central to the widespread adoption of any therapeutic regimen for DR and DME is substantiation of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness by a body of sound clinical trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references247

          • 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: not found

            Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report number 1. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study research group.

            (1985)
            Data from the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) show that focal photocoagulation of "clinically significant" diabetic macular edema substantially reduces the risk of visual loss. Focal treatment also increases the chance of visual improvement, decreases the frequency of persistent macular edema, and causes only minor visual field losses. In this randomized clinical trial, which was supported by the National Eye Institute, 754 eyes that had macular edema and mild to moderate diabetic retinopathy were randomly assigned to focal argon laser photocoagulation, while 1,490 such eyes were randomly assigned to deferral of photocoagulation. The beneficial effects of treatment demonstrated in this trial suggest that all eyes with clinically significant diabetic macular edema should be considered for focal photocoagulation. Clinically significant macular edema is defined as retinal thickening that involves or threatens the center of the macula (even if visual acuity is not yet reduced) and is assessed by stereo contact lens biomicroscopy or stereo photography. Follow-up of all ETDRS patients continues without other modifications in the study protocol.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Heat shock proteins: modifying factors in physiological stress responses and acquired thermotolerance.

              Cells from virtually all organisms respond to a variety of stresses by the rapid synthesis of a highly conserved set of polypeptides termed heat shock proteins (HSPs). The precise functions of HSPs are unknown, but there is considerable evidence that these stress proteins are essential for survival at both normal and elevated temperatures. HSPs also appear to play a critical role in the development of thermotolerance and protection from cellular damage associated with stresses such as ischemia, cytokines, and energy depletion. These observations suggest that HSPs play an important role in both normal cellular homeostasis and the stress response. This mini-review examines recent evidence and hypotheses suggesting that the HSPs may be important modifying factors in cellular responses to a variety of physiologically relevant conditions such as hyperthermia, exercise, oxidative stress, metabolic challenge, and aging.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Ophthalmol
                Clin Ophthalmol
                OPTH
                clinop
                Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)
                Dove
                1177-5467
                1177-5483
                04 March 2020
                2020
                : 14
                : 653-678
                Affiliations
                [1 ]George Washington University , Washington, DC, USA
                [2 ]Virginia Retina Center , Warrenton, VA, 20186, USA
                [3 ]Charlotte Eye Ear Nose & Throat Associates , Charlotte, NC 28210, USA
                [4 ]Retina Associates of Sarasota , Sarasota, FL 34233, USA
                [5 ]Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Health System , Miami, FL, USA
                [6 ]Retina Center of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Sam E Mansour Virginia Retina Center , 45 North Hill Drive, Suite 202, Warrenton, VA20186, USATel +1 703 443-0015Fax +1 703 738-7157 Email smansour@virginiaretina.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0345-0467
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3316-7152
                Article
                236637
                10.2147/OPTH.S236637
                7061411
                32184554
                9d6f0011-9f6d-4c8a-9a23-9118f5337f0a
                © 2020 Mansour et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 11 November 2019
                : 18 February 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, References: 301, Pages: 26
                Categories
                Review

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                diabetes,retina,diabetic retinopathy,diabetic macular edema,neovascularization,laser photocoagulation,intravitreal injection,vascular endothelial growth factor,vitrectomy pars plana vitreous surgery,antiangiogenic therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article