dc.contributor.author
Zarranz Ventura, Javier
dc.contributor.author
Romero Núñez, Bárbara
dc.contributor.author
Bernal Morales, Carolina
dc.contributor.author
Velázquez Villoria, Daniel
dc.contributor.author
Sala Puigdollers, Anna
dc.contributor.author
Figueras Roca, Marc
dc.contributor.author
Copete, Sergio
dc.contributor.author
Distefano, Laura
dc.contributor.author
Boixadera, Anna
dc.contributor.author
García Arumí, José
dc.contributor.author
Adán Civera, Alfredo
dc.contributor.author
Hospital Clínic-Hospital Vall de Hebron Intravitre
dc.date.issued
2021-05-11T07:30:19Z
dc.date.issued
2021-05-11T07:30:19Z
dc.date.issued
2020-11-11
dc.date.issued
2021-05-11T07:30:19Z
dc.identifier
https://hdl.handle.net/2445/177140
dc.description.abstract
Background: To identify different response patterns to intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI) in naïve and previously treated (PT) diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes in a real-life setting. Methods: 342 IDI injections (203 DME eyes) were included. Number of IDI injections, percentage (%) of eyes with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 injections, time to reinjections, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated for naïve and PT DME eyes over 24 months. Results: Mean number of injections was significantly lower in naïve vs PT DME eyes (1.40 ± 0.9 vs 1.82 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The percentage of eyes receiving 1 injection was significantly higher in naïve vs PT DME eyes (76.1 vs 47.7), (p < 0.001). However, it was significantly lower for 2 (16.4 vs 29.4), or 3 injections (1.4 vs 17.6) (both p < 0.001), with no differences in eyes receiving ≥4 injections (5.9 vs 5.1 respectively, p = 0.80). Mean time to reinjection was not significantly different between both groups for the second, third and fourth injection (9.6 ± 4.0 vs 10.0 ± 5.5, p = 0.75, 13.2 ± 4.0 vs 16.0 ± 3.5, p = 0.21 and 21.7 ± 3.8 vs 19.7 ± 5.8, p = 0.55). VA scores were consistently better in naïve vs PT DME eyes at all studied timepoints, with no significant differences in CRT reduction or adverse effect rates. Conclusion: Naïve DME eyes received lower number of IDI injections and showed better VA levels than PT DME eyes for 24 months in a real-world setting. This data supports the IDI use in early DME stages and provide further evidence of better IDI response when used as first-line therapy.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.publisher
BioMed Central
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01716-2
dc.relation
BMC Ophthalmology, 2020, vol. 20, num. 1, p. 443
dc.relation
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01716-2
dc.rights
cc-by (c) Zarranz Ventura, Javier et al., 2020
dc.rights
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Articles publicats en revistes (Cirurgia i Especialitats Medicoquirúrgiques)
dc.subject
Pròtesis internes
dc.subject
Stents (Surgery)
dc.title
Differential response to intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated diabetic macular edema eyes
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion