8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Intravitreal Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: An Update

      review-article
      1 , , 1 , 2 , 1
      Journal of Ophthalmology
      Hindawi

      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

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references163

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

          IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045

          Since the year 2000, IDF has been measuring the prevalence of diabetes nationally, regionally and globally.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

            Pegaptanib, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, was evaluated in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. We conducted two concurrent, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, dose-ranging, controlled clinical trials using broad entry criteria. Intravitreous injection into one eye per patient of pegaptanib (at a dose of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg) or sham injections were administered every 6 weeks over a period of 48 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who had lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity at 54 weeks. In the combined analysis of the primary end point (for a total of 1186 patients), efficacy was demonstrated, without a dose-response relationship, for all three doses of pegaptanib (P<0.001 for the comparison of 0.3 mg with sham injection; P<0.001 for the comparison of 1.0 mg with sham injection; and P=0.03 for the comparison of 3.0 mg with sham injection). In the group given pegaptanib at 0.3 mg, 70 percent of patients lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity, as compared with 55 percent among the controls (P<0.001). The risk of severe loss of visual acuity (loss of 30 letters or more) was reduced from 22 percent in the sham-injection group to 10 percent in the group receiving 0.3 mg of pegaptanib (P<0.001). More patients receiving pegaptanib (0.3 mg), as compared with sham injection, maintained their visual acuity or gained acuity (33 percent vs. 23 percent; P=0.003). As early as six weeks after beginning therapy with the study drug, and at all subsequent points, the mean visual acuity among patients receiving 0.3 mg of pegaptanib was better than in those receiving sham injections (P<0.002). Among the adverse events that occurred, endophthalmitis (in 1.3 percent of patients), traumatic injury to the lens (in 0.7 percent), and retinal detachment (in 0.6 percent) were the most serious and required vigilance. These events were associated with a severe loss of visual acuity in 0.1 percent of patients. Pegaptanib appears to be an effective therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Its long-term safety is not known. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema.

              The relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Ophthalmol
                J Ophthalmol
                JOPH
                Journal of Ophthalmology
                Hindawi
                2090-004X
                2090-0058
                2021
                23 February 2021
                : 2021
                : 6654168
                Affiliations
                1Department of Medical Science, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, Eye Clinic, University of Bari, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico Bari, Bari, Italy
                2Department of Surgical Sciences, Eye Clinic, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Enrique Mencía-Gutiérrez

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0254-7432
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5478-060X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1368-6729
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8313-4159
                Article
                10.1155/2021/6654168
                7925023
                33688431
                eabcd2a2-2333-4a27-aae6-d691990f4dfa
                Copyright © 2021 Claudio Furino et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 November 2020
                : 11 February 2021
                : 16 February 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Allergan
                Funded by: AbbVie
                Categories
                Review Article

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                Ophthalmology & Optometry

                Comments

                Comment on this article