Comparison of 2-Year Outcomes between Intravitreal Ranibizumab and Intravitreal Aflibercept for Diabetic Macular Edema with "Treat-and-Extend" Regimen-Its Usefulness and Problems.
aflibercept
diabetic macular edema
ranibizumab
treat-and-extend regimen
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2020
02 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
09
07
2020
revised:
18
08
2020
accepted:
29
08
2020
entrez:
5
9
2020
pubmed:
6
9
2020
medline:
6
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) performed with the treat-and-extend (TAE) regimen on eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME). This is a retrospective study of 125 eyes of 125 treatment-naïve DME patients who received anti-VEGF injections at three consecutive monthly intervals as the loading phase. The changes in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), diabetic retinopathy severity scale (DRSS), and total injection numbers were compared between the two anti-VEGF agents. Among 125 eyes, 26 eyes completed the treatment with the TAE regimen for 24 months (20.8%). Thirteen eyes of 13 patients (mean age, 70.9 ± 6.0 years) received intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg ranibizumab, and 13 eyes of 13 patients (65.9 ± 8.6 years) received 2 mg aflibercept. No significant differences were detected in the baseline demographics. At 24 months, BCVA was significantly improved in both groups; from 0.31 ± 0.19 to 0.10 ± 0.12 logMAR units for IVR and 0.41 ± 0.19 to 0.16 ± 0.28 logMAR units for IVA ( No significant differences were detected in the improvements of BCVA or CRT and injection numbers between the IVR and IVA groups treated with the TAE regimen. These results indicate that the results of the treatment with both agents with the TAE regimen were equally effective, but only 20.8% of patients completed 24 months of continuous treatment with the TAE regimen.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To compare the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) performed with the treat-and-extend (TAE) regimen on eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
This is a retrospective study of 125 eyes of 125 treatment-naïve DME patients who received anti-VEGF injections at three consecutive monthly intervals as the loading phase. The changes in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), diabetic retinopathy severity scale (DRSS), and total injection numbers were compared between the two anti-VEGF agents.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 125 eyes, 26 eyes completed the treatment with the TAE regimen for 24 months (20.8%). Thirteen eyes of 13 patients (mean age, 70.9 ± 6.0 years) received intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg ranibizumab, and 13 eyes of 13 patients (65.9 ± 8.6 years) received 2 mg aflibercept. No significant differences were detected in the baseline demographics. At 24 months, BCVA was significantly improved in both groups; from 0.31 ± 0.19 to 0.10 ± 0.12 logMAR units for IVR and 0.41 ± 0.19 to 0.16 ± 0.28 logMAR units for IVA (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
No significant differences were detected in the improvements of BCVA or CRT and injection numbers between the IVR and IVA groups treated with the TAE regimen. These results indicate that the results of the treatment with both agents with the TAE regimen were equally effective, but only 20.8% of patients completed 24 months of continuous treatment with the TAE regimen.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32887464
pii: jcm9092848
doi: 10.3390/jcm9092848
pmc: PMC7565483
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Ophthalmology. 2007 Mar;114(3):525-36
pubmed: 17123615
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Oct;56(11):6501-5
pubmed: 26447985
Retina. 2016 Aug;36(8):1418-31
pubmed: 27388744
Ophthalmology. 2007 Apr;114(4):743-50
pubmed: 17398322
Ophthalmology. 2010 Nov;117(11):2134-40
pubmed: 20591490
Ophthalmology. 2015 Feb;122(2):375-81
pubmed: 25439614
Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Mar;153(3):468-473.e1
pubmed: 21996309
Ophthalmol Retina. 2018 Mar;2(3):217-224
pubmed: 29527585
Ophthalmology. 2015 Oct;122(10):2044-52
pubmed: 26198808
Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Jun;98(6):813-25
pubmed: 24457369
Ophthalmology. 2010 Jun;117(6):1064-1077.e35
pubmed: 20427088
Ophthalmol Retina. 2018 Oct;2(10):997-1009
pubmed: 31047503
Trans Sect Ophthalmol Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1977 May-Jun;83(3 Pt 1):OP476-87
pubmed: 888258
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 26;372(13):1193-203
pubmed: 25692915
Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Jun;202:91-99
pubmed: 30771333
Retina. 2013 Jul-Aug;33(7):1351-8
pubmed: 23538578
Ophthalmology. 1988 Oct;95(10):1340-8
pubmed: 3265775
Ophthalmology. 2003 Sep;110(9):1677-82
pubmed: 13129861
Retina. 2010 Oct;30(9):1368-75
pubmed: 20517175
JAMA. 2015 Nov 24;314(20):2137-2146
pubmed: 26565927
Retina. 2011 Jan;31(1):26-30
pubmed: 20890246
Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Jun;100(6):787-95
pubmed: 26453639
Retina. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(9):999-1005
pubmed: 17151486
Ophthalmol Retina. 2019 Dec;3(12):1067-1075
pubmed: 31446029
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Apr;96(16):e6406
pubmed: 28422832
J Diabetes Investig. 2019 Mar;10(2):475-483
pubmed: 30204303
Ophthalmologica. 2019;241(4):220-225
pubmed: 30654365
Ophthalmology. 2012 Oct;119(10):2125-32
pubmed: 22727177
Ophthalmol Retina. 2018 Oct;2(10):988-996
pubmed: 31047501
Sci Rep. 2015 Dec 09;5:17946
pubmed: 26648523
Ophthalmology. 2012 Jun;119(6):1175-83
pubmed: 22306121
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Mar;255(3):549-555
pubmed: 27714513