4.7 Review

Intravitreal DEX Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review of National Consensus

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 15, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15102461

关键词

diabetes; diabetic macular edema; DME; dexamethasone; DEX; intraocular implant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review examines the use of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and highlights the lack of unified agreement among retina specialists from different countries. The findings provide a broader perspective and global understanding of the topic.
Diabetic macular edema (DME)'s therapeutic approach can frequently be challenging. The purpose of the review is to propose evidence-based recommendations on the employment of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) when approaching patients suffering from DME. Seven national consensuses redacted by different groups of retina specialists from Europe and Asia were examined and confronted. Each consensus was redacted utilizing a Delphi approach, in person meetings, or by reviewing the literature. DEX can be studied as a first-line strategy in individuals suffering from DME with inflammatory OCT biomarkers, in vitrectomized eyes, in patients with recent cardiovascular events, in pregnant women, in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery or with poor compliance. The other parameters considered were the indications to the DME treatment, when to switch to DEX, the definition of non-responder to anti-VEGFs agents and to the DEX implant, whether to combine DEX with laser photocoagulation, the association between glaucoma and DEX, and the management of DEX and the cataract. Although several years have passed since the introduction of DEX implants in the DME treatment, there is still not a unified agreement among retina specialists. This paper compares the approach in the DME treatment between countries from different continents and provides a broader and worldwide perspective of the topic.

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