4.7 Review

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13010072

关键词

fluocinolone acetonide; FAc; efficacy; safety; real-world; diabetic macular edema; DME

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic review of real-world studies on the efficacy and safety of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in treating diabetic macular edema (DME) showed that the implant was effective, especially for patients with lower baseline visual acuity and more recent onset of DME. However, ocular hypertension and cataract extraction were reported as potential side effects that need to be closely monitored.
To assess real-world outcomes of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in treating diabetic macular edema (DME), a systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed in order to identify publications assessing the efficacy and safety of the FAc implant in DME in daily practice. Case reports and randomized controlled trials were excluded. Twenty-two observational real-world studies analyzing a total of 1880 eyes were included. Mean peak visual gain was +8.7 letters (11.3 months post-FAc injection) and was greater for lower baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and for more recent DME. Mean central retinal thickness (CRT) decreased 34.3% from baseline. 77.0% of the analyzed studies reported both BCVA improvement of at least five letters and a CRT decrease by 20% or more. Rescue therapy was needed more frequently when FAc was administered for chronic DME. FAc-induced ocular hypertension was reported in 20.1% of patients but only 0.6% needed surgery. Cataract extraction was performed in 43.2% of phakic patients. Adequate patient selection is essential for optimal FAc response and better safety profile. Currently positioned as second- or third-line treatment in the management algorithm, FAc implant decreases treatment burden and provides better letter gain when administered for more recent DME.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据