Article

Expanded 2-year follow-up of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

Elman Retina Group, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 5.56). 04/2011; 118(4):609-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.033
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To report expanded 2-year follow-up of a previously reported randomized trial evaluating 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 of 20/32 to 20/320 (approximate Snellen equivalent) and DME involving the fovea.
Continuation of procedures previously reported for the randomized trial.
Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 2-year visit.
At the 2-year visit, compared with the sham + prompt laser group, the mean change in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was 3.7 letters greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (95% confidence interval adjusted for multiple comparisons [aCI], -0.4 to +7.7), 5.8 letters greater in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group (95% aCI, +1.9 to +9.8), and 1.5 letters worse in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (95% aCI, -5.5 to +2.4). After the 1- to 2-year visit in the ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser groups, the median numbers of injections were 2 and 3 (potential maximum of 13), respectively. At the 2-year visit, the percentages of eyes with central subfield thickness ≥250 μm were 59% in the sham + prompt laser group, 43% in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group, 42% in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group, and 52% in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes in 3 (0.8%) of 375 participants had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group.
The expanded 2-year results reported are similar to results published previously and reinforce the conclusions originally reported: Ranibizumab should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those of the cohort in this clinical trial, including vision impairment with DME involving the center of the macula.

1 Bookmark
 · 
150 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the main cause of visual impairment in diabetic patients. The management of DME is complex and often various treatment approaches are needed. At the present time, despite the enthusiasm for evaluating several new treatments for DME, including the intravitreal pharmacologic therapies (e.g., corticosteroids and anti-VEGF drugs), laser photocoagulation still remains the current standard in DME. The purpose of this review is to update our knowledge on laser photocoagulation for DME and describe the developments in laser systems. And we will also discuss the new laser techniques and review the latest results including benefits of combined therapy. In this paper, we briefly summarize the major laser therapeutics for the treatment of diabetic macular edema and allude to some future promising laser therapies.
    Journal of Ophthalmology 01/2014; 2014:769213. · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inflammation has been recognised to both decrease beta cell insulin secretion and increase insulin resistance. Circulating cytokines can affect beta cell function directly leading to secretory dysfunction and increased apoptosis. These cytokines can also indirectly affect beta cell function by increasing adipocyte inflammation.The resulting glucotoxicity and lipotoxicity further enhance the inflammatory process resulting in a vicious cycle. Weight reduction and drugs such as metformin have been shown to decrease the levels of C-Reactive Protein by 31% and 13%, respectively. Pioglitazone, insulin and statins have anti-inflammatory effects. Interleukin 1 and tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists are in trials and NSAIDs such as salsalate have shown an improvement in insulin sensitivity. Inhibition of 12-lipo-oxygenase, histone de-acetylases, and activation of sirtuin-1 are upcoming molecular targets to reduce inflammation. These therapies have also been shown to decrease the conversion of pre-diabetes state to diabetes. Drugs like glicazide, troglitazone, N-acetylcysteine and selective COX-2 inhibitors have shown benefit in diabetic neuropathy by decreasing inflammatory markers. Retinopathy drugs are used to target vascular endothelial growth factor, angiopoietin-2, various proteinases and chemokines. Drugs targeting the proteinases and various chemokines are pentoxifylline, inhibitors of nuclear factor-kappa B and mammalian target of rapamycin and are in clinical trials for diabetic nephropathy. Commonly used drugs such as insulin, metformin, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, glucagon like peptide-1 agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors also decrease inflammation. Anti-inflammatory therapies represent a potential approach for the therapy of diabetes and its complications.
    World journal of diabetes. 10/2014; 5(5):697-710.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the relative efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ) monotherapy or combined with laser (RBZ + Laser) versus laser monotherapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A comprehensive literature search using PUBMED, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ or RBZ + Laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Efficacy estimates were determined by comparing weighted mean differences (WMD) in the change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters change from baseline. Safety analysis estimated the RR of cardiac disorders at 6 to 12 months in RBZ therapy vs. laser monotherapy. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.1 software. Seven RCTs were selected for this meta-analysis, including 1749 patients (394 patients in the RBZ group, 642 patients in the RBZ + Laser group, and 713 patients in the laser group). RBZ and RBZ + Laser were superior to laser monotherapy in the mean change of BCVA and CMT from baseline (WMD = 5.65, 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.44-6.87, P<0.00001; WMD = 5.02, 95% CI, 3.83-6.20, P<0.00001, and WMD = -57.91, 95% CI, -77.62 to -38.20, P<0.00001; WMD = -56.63, 95% CI, -104.81 to -8.44, P = 0.02, respectively). The pooled RR comparing the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters improvement or deterioration were also in favor of RBZ and RBZ + Laser (RR = 2.94, 95% CI, 1.82-4.77, P<0.00001; RR = 2.04, 95% CI, 1.50-2.78, P<0.00001, and RR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.06-0.71, P = 0.01; RR = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.29-0.95, P = 0.03, respectively). There were no significant differences between RBZ and RBZ + Laser for any of the parameters. There were no difference in the safety profile between RBZ and laser. RBZ and RBZ + Laser had better visual and anatomic outcomes than laser monotherapy in the treatment of DME. RBZ + Laser seemed to be equivalent to RBZ.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e115797. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
34 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014