4.2 Article

The Multifactorial Nature of Retinal Vascular Disease

Journal

OPHTHALMOLOGICA
Volume 224, Issue -, Pages 16-24

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000315152

Keywords

Retinal vascular disease; Macular edema, derangements

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY018836, R01 EY018836-01, K08 EY021757] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [K08EY021757, R01EY018836] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Retinal vascular disease is the most common cause of macular edema (ME). While there are several etiologies of vascular compromise and subsequent macular leakage, diabetic retinopathy is the most prevalent and continues to challenge ophthalmologists and frustrate patients due to its refractory nature. In response to this epidemic, diabetic ME (DME) along with cystoid ME (CME) have been areas of active investigation both in the clinic and the laboratory. Several decades of basic science research have revealed a growing and complex array of cytokine growth factors and proinflammatory mediators which are capable of inciting the cellular changes that result in accumulation of fluid within the retina. Much of this new molecular foundation provides the current and fundamental scaffold for understanding the pathologic process of ME while simultaneously identifying potential therapeutic targets. Whereas CME has classically been treated with corticosteroids and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, recent clinical studies have demonstrated improved visual outcomes for DME treatment with light focal/grid laser, corticosteroids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies. Yet, each of these treatments has differential effects on the multifactorial mechanisms of ME. This article reviews the anatomical, cellular and molecular derangements associated with ME and highlights specific pathways targeted by current treatments. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available