4.6 Article

Eplerenone for the treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: 3-year clinical experience

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 2, Pages 182-187

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314047

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/aims The efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist eplerenone to treat chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) has been established. However, previous studies have been limited by small cohort size and short follow-up duration. This study aims to report 3-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with eplerenone for chronic CSCR. Methods Institutional review board-approved retrospective chart analysis at a single institution from 2012 to 2018. Baseline best-corrected visual acuity and anatomical measurements related to degree of subretinal fluid (SRF) were collected at eplerenone initiation. Follow-up data were collected at the closest date to 12, 24 and 36 months. Results Data were obtained for 100 eyes of 83 patients at 1-year (mean 11.18 +/- 4.00 months), 49 eyes at 2-year (24.01 +/- 3.33 months) and 33 eyes at 3-year (mean 35.5 +/- 7.89 months) follow-up visits. The rate of complete SRF resolution was 31%, 28% and 33%, respectively. At final follow-up, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity change from baseline was +0.10 +/- 0.24 (p = 0.130). Average change from baseline at final follow-up for central subfield thickness was -97 +/- 140.6 mu m (p < 0.001), cube volume was -1.07 +/- 1.71 mm(3) (p < 0.001), macular thickness -28. 5 +/- 47.5 mu m (p < 0.001), maximum SRF height was -95.6 +/- 160.5 mu m (p < 0.001) and maximum SRF diameter was -1169.0 +/- 1638.7 mu m (p = 0.008). Conclusion Anatomical improvement occurs primarily within the first year of eplerenone treatment for chronic CSCR.

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