4.6 Article

Two-year follow-up of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 8, Pages 1184-1189

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312892

Keywords

retina; treatment medical

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To evaluate the long-term oral mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRa) treatment in chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC). Methods Patients with chronic non-resolving CSC (defined as foveal subretinal fluid (SRF) lasting >4 months with retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) alterations) treated with MRa only (eplerenone or spironolactone) for at least 6 months were retrospectively included. Clinical and imaging characteristics were recorded during visits at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Results Sixteen eyes of 16 patients were included (mean age 53 +/- 11 years; 14 men, 2 women). Mean duration of SRF before treatment initiation was 11.2 +/- 19.7 months. MRa treatment was administered during 21.0 +/- 5.1 months (range, 10-24 months). There was a progressive improvement of visual acuity (p=0.05), a decrease of foveal SRF height (p=0.011), central macular thickness (p=0.004) and subfoveal choroidal thickness (p=0.002) over 24 months. Changes in SRF were correlated with subfoveal choroidal thickness at 24 months (p=0.006, Spearman r=065). The mean time to complete foveal SRF resolution was 10.5 +/- 8.0 months after treatment initiation. At 24 months, foveal SRF resolution was achieved in 13 eyes (81%). Minor side effects occurred in five patients (31%) and resolved after switching between MRa. Conclusion The visual and anatomical benefit of MRa treatment prolonged for 6 months or more in chronic, non-resolving CSC appeared to be maintained over a 24-month period. These results suggest that MRa can be proposed as an alternative therapy in severe CSC with advanced RPE alterations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available