METHODS: Cross-sectional study involving a retrospective record review of diabetic macular oedema patients who received an induction treatment of three monthly 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab injections between 2016 and 2019. Central macular thickness was measured at baseline and 3 months post-treatment. Linear regression was applied to identify the factors associated with the changes of central macular thickness.
RESULTS: A total of 153 diabetic macular oedema patients were involved in this study. Their mean age was 57.5 ± 7.7 years, 54.9% were female. The mean change of central macular thickness from baseline to 3 months after completed induction treatment of intravitreal ranibizumab was 155.5 ± 137.8 μm. Factors significantly associated with changes of central macular thickness were baseline central macular thickness [b = 0.73; 95% (CI): 0.63, 0.84; p = <0.001] and presence of subretinal fluid [b = 35.43; 95% CI: 3.70, 67.16; p = 0.029].
CONCLUSION: Thicker baseline central macular thickness and presence of subretinal fluid were the factors significantly associated with greater changes of central macular thickness in diabetic macular oedema patients after receiving three injections of intravitreal ranibizumab.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2020 to March 2021 in Ophthalmology Clinic Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (HCTM UKM). Subjects diagnosed with center-involved DME aged between 20 to 80 years who experienced delayed anti-VEGF injection were recruited. Level of depression, anxiety and stress were assessed using DASS-21 questionnaire. Statistical analysis using non-parametric tests were performed to determine the relationship between the DASS-21 score and duration of last injection, in those whose vision was affected by delayed injection and the relationship to the impact of COVID-19 pandemic. Statistical significance was denoted as p < 0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 86 respondents with median age of 69 years old participated in this study. Most respondents were Malays (n = 47,54.7%) males (n = 51, 59.3%), had education up to secondary level (n = 37, 43%), unemployed (n = 78, 90.7%), married (n = 72, 83.7%) and living with their family (n = 82, 95.3%). The number of intravitreal injections received was at least three times among the respondents (n = 81, 94.2%). More than half of the respondents (n = 46, 53.5%) had been postponed for more than 12 weeks and felt that their vision was affected after delayed intravitreal injection (n = 47, 54.7%). Most of the subjects did not experience depression, anxiety, or stress. However, there was a significant level of stress scores among those with delayed injection of 9 to 12 weeks (p = 0.004), and significant anxiety (p = 0.029) and stress (p = 0.014) scores found in subjects with vision affected due to delayed treatment.
CONCLUSION: The level of anxiety and stress can be significant in DME patients who experienced delay in intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment. Assessment of psychosocial impacts is important to identify early mental health issues potentially leading to the onset of psychiatry illness, thus early intervention is indispensable.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques of laser photocoagulation therapy in SCD-related proliferative retinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 4 July 2022. We also searched the following resources (26 June 2022): Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platforms (ICTRP); and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing laser photocoagulation to no treatment in children and adults with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials; we extracted and analysed data, contacting trial authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (414 eyes of 339 children and adults) comparing the efficacy and safety of laser photocoagulation to no therapy in people with PSR. There were 160 males and 179 females ranging in age from 13 to 67 years. The trials used different laser photocoagulation techniques; one single-centre trial employed sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation using an argon laser; a two-centre trial employed feeder vessel coagulation using argon laser in one centre and xenon arc in the second centre; while a third trial employed focal scatter laser photocoagulation using argon laser. The mean follow-up periods were 21 to 32 months in one trial, 42 to 47 months in a second, and 48 months in the third. Two trials had a high risk of allocation bias due to the randomisation method for participants with bilateral disease; the third trial had an unclear risk of selection bias. One trial was at risk of reporting bias. Given the unit of analysis is the eye rather than the individual, we chose to report the data narratively. Using sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation, one trial (174 eyes) reported no difference between groups for complete regression of PSR: 30.2% in the laser group and 22.4% in the control group. The same trial also reported no difference between groups in the development of new PSR: 34.3% of lasered eyes and 41.3% of control eyes (very low-certainty evidence). The two-centre trial using feeder vessel coagulation, only presented data at follow-up for one centre (mean period of nine years) and reported the development of new sea fan in 48.0% in the treated and 45.0% in the control group; no statistical significance (P = 0.64). A third trial reported regression in 55% of the laser group versus 28.6% of controls and progression of PSR in 10.5% of treated versus 25.7% of control eyes. We graded the evidence for these two primary outcomes as very low-certainty evidence. The sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation trial reported visual loss in 3.0% of treated eyes (mean follow-up 47 months) versus 12.0% of controlled eyes (mean follow-up 42 months) (P = 0.019). The feeder vessel coagulation trial reported visual loss in 1.14% of the laser group and 7.5% of the control group (mean follow-up 26 months at one site and 32 months in another) (P = 0.07). The focal scatter laser photocoagulation trial (mean follow-up of four years) reported that 72/73 eyes had the same visual acuity, while visual loss was seen in only one eye from the control group. We graded the certainty of the evidence as very low. The sectoral scatter laser trial detected vitreous haemorrhage in 12.0% of the laser group and 25.3% of control with a mean follow-up of 42 (control) to 47 months (treated) (P ≤ 0.5). The two-centre feeder vessel coagulation trial observed vitreous haemorrhage in 3.4% treated eyes (mean follow-up 26 months) versus 27.5% control eyes (mean follow-up 32 months); one centre (mean follow-up nine years) reported vitreous haemorrhage in 1/25 eyes (4.0%) in the treatment group and 9/20 eyes (45.0%) in the control group (P = 0.002). The scatter laser photocoagulation trial reported that vitreous haemorrhage was not seen in the treated group compared to 6/35 (17.1%) eyes in the control group and appeared only in the grades B and (PSR) stage III) (P < 0.05). We graded evidence for this outcome as low-certainty. Regarding adverse effects, only one occurrence of retinal tear was reported. All three trials reported on retinal detachment, with no significance across the treatment and control groups (low-certainty evidence). One trial reported on choroidal neovascularization, with treatment with xenon arc found to be associated with a significantly higher risk, but visual loss related to this complication is uncommon with long-term follow-up of three years or more. The included trials did not report on other adverse effects or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusions are based on the data from three trials (two of which were conducted over 30 years ago). Given the limited evidence available, which we assessed to be of low- or very low-certainty, we are uncertain whether laser therapy for sickle cell retinopathy improves the outcomes measured in this review. This treatment does not appear to have an effect on clinical outcomes such as regression of PSR and development of new incidences. No evidence is available assessing efficacy in relation to patient-important outcomes (such as quality of life or the loss of a driving licence). Further research is needed to examine the safety of laser treatment compared to other interventions such as intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) . Patient-important outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness should be addressed.
METHODS: This was a 24-month, phase 4, open-label, single-arm, prospective, observational study conducted at 20 specialised retinal centres in Japan. Participants were 209 patients with DME and impaired VA, not previously treated with either intravitreal or systemic anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, who initiated ranibizumab 0.5 mg per investigator discretion. Following ranibizumab administration, patients were treated per routine clinical practice. Other treatments were allowed. The main outcome measure was the mean change in best-corrected VA (BCVA) in logarithmic minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) from baseline to month 12. An exploratory objective was to assess patients' psychological status using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).
RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation BCVA at baseline was 0.43 ± 0.39 logMAR. The mean number of injections of ranibizumab and anti-VEGF agents from baseline to month 11 was 3.2 ± 2.0 and 3.6 ± 2.4, respectively. The BCVA change from baseline to 12 months was - 0.08 ± 0.34 logMAR (p = 0.011), showing a significant improvement; the HADS-anxiety score also decreased significantly (p = 0.001) and the depression score decreased numerically (p = 0.080).
CONCLUSION: MERCURY study data confirm the effectiveness of real-world treatment initiated with ranibizumab in Japanese patients with DME. In addition, treatment was able to positively influence anxiety via VA improvement.
METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, and abstract databases of the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society, European Society of Retina Specialists, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Controversies in Ophthalmology: Asia-Australia congresses, was conducted to assess evidence for T&E regimens in nAMD. Only studies with ≥100 study eyes were included. An expert panel reviewed the results and key factors potentially influencing the use of T&E regimens in nAMD and PCV, and subsequently formed consensus recommendations for their application in the Asia-Pacific region.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. Studies demonstrated that T&E regimens with aflibercept, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab in nAMD, and with aflibercept in PCV, were efficacious and safe. The recommendation for T&E is, after ≥3 consecutive monthly loading doses, treatment intervals can be extended by 2 to 4 weeks up to 12 to 16 weeks. When disease activity recurs, the recommendation is to reinject and shorten intervals by 2 to 4 weeks until fluid resolution, after which treatment intervals can again be extended. Intraretinal fluid should be treated until resolved; however, persistent minimal subretinal fluid after consecutive treatments may be tolerated with treatment intervals maintained or extended if the clinical condition is stable.
CONCLUSIONS: T&E regimens are efficacious and safe for nAMD and PCV, can reduce the number of visits, and minimize the overall burden for clinicians and patients.
Objective: To compare treatment outcomes of ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, plus prompt vPDT combination therapy with ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, monotherapy in participants with PCV for 24 months.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This 24-month, phase IV, double-masked, multicenter, randomized clinical trial (EVEREST II) was conducted among Asian participants from August 7, 2013, to March 2, 2017, with symptomatic macular PCV confirmed using indocyanine green angiography.
Interventions: Participants (N = 322) were randomized 1:1 to ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, plus vPDT (combination therapy group; n = 168) or ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, plus sham PDT (monotherapy group; n = 154). All participants received 3 consecutive monthly ranibizumab injections, followed by a pro re nata regimen. Participants also received vPDT (combination group) or sham PDT (monotherapy group) on day 1, followed by a pro re nata regimen based on the presence of active polypoidal lesions.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluation of combination therapy vs monotherapy at 24 months in key clinical outcomes, treatment exposure, and safety. Polypoidal lesion regression was defined as the absence of indocyanine green hyperfluorescence of polypoidal lesions.
Results: Among 322 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.1 [8.8] years; 225 [69.9%] male), the adjusted mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gains at month 24 were 9.6 letters in the combination therapy group and 5.5 letters in the monotherapy group (mean difference, 4.1 letters; 95% CI, 1.0-7.2 letters; P = .005), demonstrating that combination therapy was superior to monotherapy by the BCVA change from baseline to month 24. Combination therapy was superior to monotherapy in terms of complete polypoidal lesion regression at month 24 (81 of 143 [56.6%] vs 23 of 86 [26.7%] participants; P
DESIGN: A questionnaire containing 47 questions was developed which encompassed clinical scenarios such as treatment response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and steroid, treatment side effects, as well as cost and compliance/reimbursement in the management of DME using a Dephi questionnaire as guide.
METHODS: An expert panel of 12 retinal specialists from Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, India and Vietnam responded to this questionnaire on two separate occasions. The first round responses were compiled, analyzed and discussed in a round table discussion where a consensus was sought through voting. Consensus was considered achieved, when 9 of the 12 panellists (75%) agreed on a recommendation.
RESULTS: The DME patients were initially profiled based on their response to treatment, and the terms target response, adequate response, nonresponse, and inadequate response were defined. The panellists arrived at a consensus on various aspects of DME treatment such as need for classification of patients before treatment, first-line treatment options, appropriate time to switch between treatment modalities, and steroid-related side effects based on which recommendations were derived, and a treatment algorithm was developed.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus article provides comprehensive, evidence-based treatment guidelines in the management of DME in Asian population. In addition, it also provides recommendations on other aspects of DME management such as steroid treatment for stable glaucoma patients, management of intraocular pressure rise, and recommendations for cataract development.
CASE PRESENTATION: An ophthalmic trainee performed an Ozurdex™ intravitreal injection into a 48-year-old Asian man's right eye under aseptic conditions. This patient was then followed up for further management. On day 7 post-procedure, a slit lamp examination revealed that the Ozurdex™ implant was injected into the intralenticular structure of his right eye and had fractured into two pieces. The posterior capsule of the right lens was breached, with one half of the Ozurdex™ implant stuck at the entry and the other stuck at the exit wound of the posterior capsule. This patient underwent right eye cataract extraction and repositioning of the fractured implant; he made an uneventful recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmologists should be aware of the potential risk of injecting an Ozurdex™ implant into an anatomical structure other than the vitreous cavity. Adequate training and careful administration of the Ozurdex™ implant are necessary to avoid such a complication, which fortunately is rare.
METHODOLOGY: Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into 5 groups of 33 each. Group 1 was administered intravitreally with PBS and group 2 was similarly injected with NMDA (160 nmol). Groups 3, 4 and 5 were injected with TAU (320 nmol) 24 hours before (pre-treatment), in combination (co-treatment) and 24 hours after (post-treatment) NMDA exposure respectively. Seven days after injection, rats were sacrificed; eyes were enucleated, fixed and processed for morphometric analysis, TUNEL and caspase-3 staining. Optic nerve morphology assessment was done using toluidine blue staining. The estimation of BDNF, pro/anti-apoptotic factors (Bax/Bcl-2) and caspase-3 activity in retina was done using ELISA technique.
RESULTS: Severe degenerative changes were observed in retinae after intravitreal NMDA exposure. The retinal morphology in the TAU pre-treated group appeared more similar to the control retinae and demonstrated a higher number of nuclei than the NMDA group both per 100 μm length (by 1.5-fold, p
METHODS: Sprague Dawley rats were intravitreally injected with ET1. MgAT and TAU were administered as pre-, co-, or posttreatment. Subsequently, the expression of NOS isoforms was detected in retina by immunohistochemistry, retinal nitrotyrosine level was estimated using ELISA, and retinal cell apoptosis was detected by TUNEL staining.
RESULTS: Intravitreal ET1 caused a significant increase in the expressions of nNOS and iNOS while eNOS expression was significantly reduced compared to vehicle treated group. Administration of both MgAT and TAU restored the altered levels of NOS isoform expression, reduced retinal nitrosative stress and retinal cell apoptosis. The effect of MgAT, however, was greater than that of TAU alone.
CONCLUSIONS: MgAT and TAU prevent ET1-induced retinal cell apoptosis by reducing retinal nitrosative stress in Sprague Dawley rats. Addition of TAU to Mg seems to enhance the efficacy of TAU compared to when given alone. Moreover, the pretreatment with MgAT/TAU showed higher efficacy compared to co- or posttreatment.