4.6 Article

Randomized Trial of Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor Delivered by Encapsulated Cell Intraocular Implants for Retinitis Pigmentosa

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 156, 期 2, 页码 283-292

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.03.021

关键词

-

资金

  1. Neurotech USA, Inc., Lincoln, Rhode Island

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effect on visual function of ciliary neurotrophic factor delivered via an intraocular encapsulated cell implant for the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa (RP). DESIGN: Ciliary neurotrophic factor for late-stage retinitis pigmentosa study 3 (CNTF3; n = 65) and ciliary neurotrophic factor for early-stage retinitis pigmentosa study 4 (CNTF4; n = 68) were multicenter, sham-controlled dose-ranging studies. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive a high- or low-dose implant in 1 eye and sham surgery in the fellow eye. The primary endpoints were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 months for CNTF3 and change in visual field sensitivity at 12 months for CNTF4. Patients had the choice of retaining or removing the implant at 12 months for CNTF3 and 24 months for CNTF4. RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events related to either the encapsulated cell implant or the surgical procedure. In CNTF3, there was no change in acuity in either ciliary neurotrophic factor- or sham-treated eyes at 1 year. In CNTF4, eyes treated with the high-dose implant showed a significant decrease in sensitivity while no change was seen in sham- and low dose-treated eyes at 12 months. The decrease in sensitivity was reversible upon implant removal. In both studies, ciliary neurotrophic factor treatment resulted in a dose-dependent increase in retinal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term intraocular delivery of ciliary neurotrophic factor is achieved by the encapsulated cell implant. Neither study showed therapeutic benefit in the primary outcome variable. (C) 2013 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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