4.2 Article

Efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for the treatment of persistent diffuse diabetic macular edema

Journal

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 1-6

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-016-0219-2

Keywords

Persistent diabetic macular edema; Dexamethasone implant; Best-corrected visual acuity; Central macular thickness

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the efficiency and safety of a single injection of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in eyes with persistent diffuse diabetic macular edema (DME). In this retrospective study, 25 eyes of 20 patients, who underwent a single injection of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the treatment of persistent diffuse DME, were reviewed. Main outcome measures included the changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline at scheduled visits following injection. The mean BCVA showed improvement from baseline (0.97 +/- 0.26 logMAR) at every visit; the difference was significant at day 7 (0.85 +/- 0.3 logMAR, p = 0.003), month 1 (0.77 +/- 0.32 logMAR, p < 0.001), month 3 (0.77 +/- 0.34 logMAR, p = 0.001), and month 4 (0.85 +/- 0.31 logMAR, p = 0.014). The mean CMT was significantly lower than baseline (616 +/- 132 mu m) at day 1 (518 +/- 144 mu m), day 7 (414 +/- 134 mu m), month 1 (306 +/- 95 mu m), month 3 (339 +/- 88 mu m), month 4 (420 +/- 116 mu m), and month 6 (494 +/- 128 mu m) following the injection (p < 0.001, for all). Thirteen eyes on the 4-month follow-up and ten eyes on the 6-month follow-up experienced recurrence of macular edema requiring retreatment. No serious ocular and systemic adverse events were observed. In patients with persistent DME, switching to intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection provides functional and anatomical improvement, and might be an effective therapeutic option for long-standing diffuse DME.

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