4.2 Article

Effects of Switching from Anti-VEGF Treatment to Triamcinolone Acetonide in Eyes with Refractory Macular Edema Associated with Diabetic Retinopathy or Retinal Vein Occlusion

Journal

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 2020, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2020/4529850

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of the Japanese Government [16K11318]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K11318] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy of switching from intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents to triamcinolone acetonide (TA) in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) or with retinal vein occlusion-associated macular edema (RVO-ME) on the resolution of the macular edema (ME). Methods. The medical records of 11 eyes of 11 patients with DME and 9 eyes of 9 patients with RVO-ME whose MEs were refractory to anti-VEGF treatment were reviewed. The central retinal thickness (CRT), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and the mean interval of the recurrences were measured during the anti-VEGF treatment and after switching to the TA injections. Results. Switching to TA injections significantly increased the mean interval for recurrences from 9.2 +/- 2.7 weeks to 22.3 +/- 12.9 weeks in eyes with DME (P=0.006). In eyes with RVO-ME, the mean period of recurrence was 12.3 +/- 5.6 weeks before and 11.6 +/- 4.4 weeks after the switch (P=0.44). The mean interval for recurrence was extended to more than 8 weeks in 7 of 11 eyes with DME, but none of the eyes with RVO-ME had a prolongation of more than 4 weeks. An elevation of the IOP was observed in 3 of the 20 eyes after the TA injection. Conclusions. These findings indicate that switching to TA injections can be a good option for DME eyes refractory to anti-VEGF injections but not for the RVO-ME eyes.

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