-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess macular perfusion with fundus fluorescein angiography at the 4-month time point in a prospective randomized, single-center 2-year trial comparing intravitreal bevacizumab and laser therapy in patients with diabetic macular edema.
All enrolled patients had standard Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study 7-field fundus photographs and fundus fluorescein angiography at baseline and subsequently at 4-month intervals. Patients were excluded from the study if either the greatest linear dimension of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) was >1,000 microm in diameter or there was severe perifoveal capillary loss (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study criteria) on fundus fluorescein angiography. The fundus fluorescein angiograms of the bevacizumab (n=42) and laser (n=38) groups were graded for greatest linear dimension of the FAZ, area of the FAZ, and perifoveal capillary loss by the Moorfields Reading Centre in a masked fashion.
At baseline, the mean greatest linear dimension of the FAZ in the laser group was 685 +/- 262 microm and in the bevacizumab group was 737 +/- 262 microm. There was no significant difference at the 4-month time point (P 0.40) with the mean greatest linear dimension of the FAZ in the laser group recorded as 678 +/- 221 microm and in the bevacizumab group was 678 +/- 231 microm. At baseline, the median area of the FAZ in the laser group was 0.36 mm(2) (interquartile range, 0.21-0.46) and in the bevacizumab group was 0.33 mm(2) (interquartile range, 0.27-0.49). There was no significant difference at the 4-month time point (P=0.30) with the median area of the FAZ in the laser group recorded as 0.35 mm(2) (interquartile range, 0.20-0.52) and in the bevacizumab group was 0.34 mm(2) (interquartile range, 0.23-0.47). Similarly, there was no difference between the two treatment groups (P=0.64) when a comparison was made of the number of grades of change in perifoveal capillary loss observed in each patient. To date, no patients have been withdrawn from the study because of worsening macular ischemia.
At 4 months, there was no evidence of worsening macular ischemia in either group.
Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) 05/2010; 30(5):781-6. · 2.93 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is unclear, but it can take either a neovascular/exudative/wet form, characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV), or a dry form. No treatments are available for the dry form, but there are a number of pharmacological interventions that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is central to the pathogenesis of CNV and neovascular AMD. Available anti-VEGF agents either target all active VEGF isoforms (eg, ranibizumab), or take a more selective approach and inhibit only VEGF(165) (eg, pegaptantib sodium). Current guidance on their use is equivocal and restrictive at best, resulting in associated difficulties in securing adequate, timely funding for treatment. The Moorfields Eye Hospital undertook an audit of 70 patients receiving intravitreal (ITV) pegaptanib sodium on a pro re nata (prn) dosing schedule. Despite initial funding delays, the audit recorded superior treatment outcomes compared with those reported in the VISION trials at 12 weeks: 88% of audit patients maintained stable vision, 29% gained vision and 6% experienced severe vision loss compared with 70%, >/=6% and </=10% of patients in VISION at 54 weeks, respectively. The audit indicates a positive correlation between patients with better baseline visual acuity (VA) and improved therapeutic benefits, including a greater likelihood of both vision gain and vision preservation. Experience at Moorfields also suggests that pegaptanib sodium is more useful in occult lesions than minimally classic lesions, and clinical experience suggests that combination therapies may offer the best approach with anti-VEGF therapies. Further randomized clinical trials will help better determine the optimal treatment strategies with pegaptanib sodium in neovascular AMD.
Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 07/2008; 2(2):347-54.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We propose a case selection algorithm to assess suitability for macular translocation for subfoveal neovascular membrane (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration. The algorithm is based on preoperative assessment of residual foveal function, as assessed by a slit-lamp fixation task and duration of visual loss, in patients with poor acuity. We validate our slit-lamp fixation task against an objective analysis (Nidek MP-1 Microperimetry) and proceed to examine surgical outcomes as selected by the algorithm.
A prospective series of 27 consecutive patients with CNV underwent translocation at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London between May 2003 and May 2006.
Validation of the slit-lamp fixation task revealed 100% concordance in classification of fixation between the slit-lamp task and the microperimeter. At an average follow up of 12.2 months, the mean Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study distance acuity improved from logMAR 0.88 to 0.68 (P < 0.03). Sixty-six per cent of patients achieved an acuity of < or =logMAR 0.8 (6/30), 22% an acuity of < or =logMAR 0.3 (6/12) and 33% gained three lines of acuity. The mean MN Read reading acuity improved from logMAR 1.23 to 0.91 (P < 0.01). Forty-four per cent of patients achieved an acuity of > or =logMAR 0.7 (N10), 15% an acuity of > or =logMAR 0.4 (N5) and 44% gained three lines of acuity.
We have demonstrated a simple case selection algorithm that is based on residual foveal function and suggests good outcomes. The strongest indicators of foveal function are fixation characteristics and duration of visual loss. In contrast to previous studies, our algorithm suggests good outcomes independently of preoperative visual acuity and CNV characteristics.
Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 08/2007; 35(5):448-57. · 1.98 Impact Factor
-
British journal of hospital medicine (London, England: 2005) 01/2007; 67(12):647-50. · 0.19 Impact Factor
