4.4 Article

Aflibercept in Diabetic Macular Oedema Previously Refractory to Standard Intravitreal Therapy: An Irish Retrospective Study

Journal

OPHTHALMOLOGY AND THERAPY
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 173-183

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40123-018-0123-0

Keywords

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor; Diabetic macular oedema; Medical retina

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: To determine visual and anatomical outcomes of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) patients in a tertiary centre following conversion to aflibercept having been refractory to previous treatment with bevacizumab/ranibizumab. Methods: A retrospective case series of patients with a diagnosis of DMO undergoing aflibercept intravitreal therapy for at least 6 months who had previous treatment with three consecutive bevacizumab/ranibizumab injections pre-switch. Exclusion criteria included other procedures affecting visual outcome performed within the treatment period. Outcomes measured included visual acuity (VA), central macular thickness (CMT) and injection frequency. Results: Eighteen eyes of 13 patients were included. Mean VA pre-switch was 61.5 +/- 13.8 letters and CMT was 433.2 +/- 101.4. Mean number of prior bevacizumab/ranibizumab treatments was 11.3 +/- 7.2. Mean follow-up post-switch was 22.5 months (SD 7.9). Mean VA improved from baseline by 4.8 letters at 6 months (p = 0.005), by 6.1 letters at 12 months (p = 0.006), by 7.9 letters (p = 0.004) at 18 months and by 6.4 letters (p = 0.1) at 24 months. Mean CMT decreased from baseline by 108.6 mu m at 6 months (p = 0.01), 117.7 mu m at 12 months (p = 0.0003), 158.0 mu m at 18 months (p = 0.005) and by 123.3 mu m at 24 months (p = 0.02). Conclusion: Switching to aflibercept in treatment-resistant DMO produces significant improvements in visual and anatomical outcomes, with eventual maintenance of VA levels.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available