METHODS: This comparative pilot study consists of 40 diabetic patients with diabetic macular oedema. The patients were randomized into two groups using envelope technique sampling procedure. Treatment for diabetic macular oedema was based on the printed envelope technique selected for every patient. Twenty patients were assigned for IVTA group (one injection of IVTA) and another 20 patients for LASER group (one laser session). Main outcome measures were mean BCVA and mean MEI at three months post treatment. The MEI was quantified using Heidelberg Retinal Tomography II.
RESULTS: The mean difference for BCVA at baseline [IVTA: 0.935 (0.223), LASER: 0.795 (0.315)] and at three months post treatment [IVTA: 0.405 (0.224), LASER: 0.525 (0.289)] between IVTA and LASER group was not statistically significant (p = 0.113 and p = 0.151 respectively). The mean difference for MEI at baseline [IVTA: 2.539 (0.914), LASER: 2.139 (0.577)] and at three months post treatment [IVTA: 1.753 (0.614), LASER: 1.711 (0.472)] between IVTA and LASER group was also not statistically significant (p = 0.106 and p = 0.811 respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: IVTA demonstrates good outcome comparable to laser photocoagulation as a primary treatment for diabetic macular oedema at three months post treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN05040192 (http://www.controlled-trial.com).
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients presenting with ocular inflammation to the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia between 2005 and 2009 was undertaken. Visual acuity, clinical manifestations at presentation, toxoplasmosis antibody testing, and treatment records were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 130 patients with ocular inflammation were reviewed retrospectively. The patients had a mean age of 38.41 (standard deviation 19.24, range 6-83) years. Seventy-one patients (54.6%) were found to be seropositive, of whom five (3.8%) were both IgG and IgM positive (suggestive of recently acquired ocular toxoplasmosis) while one (0.8%) showed IgG avidity ≤40% (suggestive of recently acquired ocular toxoplasmosis) and 65 patients (50.0%) showed IgG avidity >40% (suggestive of reactivation of toxoplasmosis infection). Chorioretinal scarring as an ocular manifestation was significantly more common in patients with seropositive toxoplasmosis (P = 0.036). Eighteen patients (13.8%) were diagnosed as having recent and/or active ocular toxoplasmosis based on clinical manifestations and serological testing.
CONCLUSION: Ocular toxoplasmosis is a clinical diagnosis, but specific toxoplasmosis antibody testing helps to support the diagnosis and to differentiate between reactivation of infection and recently acquired ocular toxoplasmosis.