Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for diffuse diabetic macular edema: Phase 2 trial comparing 4 mg vs 2 mg
ABSTRACT To prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of 4 vs 2 mg intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injection for diabetic macular edema.
Interventional case series.
Thirty-two patients with diabetic macular edema unresponsive to laser photocoagulation.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive 4 or 2 mg intravitreal TA in one eye (16 patients in each group).
The main outcome was central macular thickness (CMT) measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at four, 12, and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were gain in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scores, intraocular pressure (IOP), cataract progression, and duration of effect.
Before injection, mean (+/- SD) CMT was 564.5 +/- 119 microm and 522.9 +/- 148.5 microm in the 4- and 2-mg groups, respectively. At four, 12, and 24 weeks after injection, it was 275.0 +/- 79.8, 271.4 +/- 128.7, and 448.7 +/- 146.4 microm, respectively, in the 4-mg group, and 267.3 +/- 82.4, 289.8 +/- 111.4, and 394.7 +/- 178.9 microm, respectively, in the 2-mg group. At no time was the difference in CMT between both groups statistically significant (P> 0.3). The between-group differences in the gain in the ETDRS score and in IOP were not statistically significant either. Diabetic macular edema recurred after a median period of 20 weeks vs 16 weeks in the 4- and 2-mg groups, respectively (P = 0.11).
In the short term, intravitreal injection of 4 or 2 mg TA does not have different effects on CMT, visual acuity, or IOP.
- SourceAvailable from: sciencedirect.com
Article: Diabetic retinopathy – An update[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Management of diabetes should involve both systemic and ocular aspects. Control of hyperglycemia, hypertension and dyslipidemia are of major role in the management of diabetic retinopathy. In the ocular part; laser treatment remains the cornerstone of treatment of diabetic macular edema (focal/grid), severe non-proliferative and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (panretinal photocoagulation). There is a strong support to combination therapy. Using one or two intravitreal injections such as anti-VEGF and or steroid to reduce central macular thickness followed by focal or grid laser to give a sustained response may offer an alternative to treatment in diabetic macular edema. Anti-VEGF were found to be effective as an adjunct therapy in proliferative diabetic retinopathy patient who is going to have vitrectomy for vitreous hemorrhage with neovascularization, panretinal photocoagulation, and other ocular surgery such as cases with neovascular glaucoma and cataract with refractory macular edema.Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology 04/2011; 25(2):99–111. DOI:10.1016/j.sjopt.2011.01.009
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper summarizes the recent evidence for combined therapies in the intravitreal medical treatment of diabetic macular oedema or macular oedema, secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Since the introduction of anti-inflammatory or anti-VEGF drugs combined with or used alternatively to laser, visual acuity can be stabilized or improved in a significant number of patients. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the safety, efficiency and economic concerns related to these intravitreal monotherapies because they warrant frequent repetition to maintain the clinical effect. In the literature, the combination of photolasercoagulation, intravitreal steroids or VEGF-inhibitors, or both, shows early compelling evidence that some patients may benefit from less retreatment compared to monotherapy. To provide a conceptual and perspective approach for a first-line combined therapy, this paper also summarizes own results of pilot interventional case series of a 1.5 cc core pars plana vitrectomy and intravitreal substitution with balanced salt solution (BSS), 1.25 mg bevacizumab and 8 mg triamcinolone.Acta ophthalmologica 07/2010; 90(6):580-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01962.x · 2.51 Impact Factor
- Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 02/2007; 85(2):234 - 235. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.00912.x · 1.85 Impact Factor