scholarly journals Dexamethasone implant in diabetic macular edema in real-life situations

Eye ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 426-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Chhablani ◽  
P Bansal ◽  
D Veritti ◽  
S Sambhana ◽  
V Sarao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant

REAL-LIFE STUDY IN DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA TREATED WITH DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT

Retina ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 753-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane Malclès ◽  
Corinne Dot ◽  
Nicolas Voirin ◽  
Émilie Agard ◽  
Anne-Laure Vié ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant ◽  
Life Study ◽  
Real Life Study

Dexamethasone Implant in Pseudophakic and Nonglaucomatous Subgroup of Diabetic Macular Edema Patients: A Real Life Experience

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah Ozkaya ◽  
Cengiz Alagoz ◽  
Nese Alagoz ◽  
Hasan Gunes ◽  
Ihsan Yilmaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Life Experience ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant

Long-term follow-up of diabetic macular edema treated with dexamethasone implant: a real-life study

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (12) ◽  
pp. 1413-1421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thibaud Mathis ◽  
Théo Lereuil ◽  
Amro Abukashabah ◽  
Nicolas Voirin ◽  
Aditya Sudhalkar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant ◽  
Life Study ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Real Life Study

scholarly journals Visual Acuity Gain Profiles and Anatomical Prognosis Factors in Patients with Drug-Naive Diabetic Macular Edema Treated with Dexamethasone Implant: The NAVEDEX Study

Pharmaceutics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 194
Author(s):  
Mauricio Pinto ◽  
Thibaud Mathis ◽  
Pascale Massin ◽  
Jad Akesbi ◽  
Théo Lereuil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant ◽  
Stage Disease ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Functional Factors ◽  
Drug Naïve ◽  
Group B

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the visual acuity (VA) gain profiles between patients with drug-naive diabetic macular edema (DME) treated by dexamethasone implant (DEX-implant) and assess the baseline anatomical and functional factors that could influence the response to the treatment in real-life conditions. A retrospective, multi-center observational study included 129 eyes with drug-naive DME treated by DEX-implant. The Median follow-up was 13 months. Two groups of VA gain trajectories were identified—Group A, with 71% (n = 96) of patients whose average VA gain was less than five letters and Group B, with 29% (n = 33) of patients with an average gain of 20 letters. The probability of belonging to Group B was significantly higher in patients with baseline VA < 37 letters (p = 0.001). Ellipsoid zone alterations (EZAs) or disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRILs) were associated with a lower final VA (53.0 letters versus 66.4, p = 0.002) but without a significant difference in VA gain (4.9 letters versus 6.8, p = 0.582). Despite a low baseline VA, this subgroup of patients tends to have greater visual gain, encouraging treatment with DEX-implant in such advanced-stage disease. However, some baseline anatomic parameters, such as the presence of EZAs or DRILs, negatively influenced final vision.

scholarly journals GRAding of functional and anatomical response to DExamethasone implant in patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: GRADE-DME Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricio J. Rodríguez-Valdés ◽  
Matus Rehak ◽  
Dinah Zur ◽  
Anna Sala-Puigdollers ◽  
Samantha Fraser-Bell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Response Pattern ◽  
Observational Cohort Study ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant ◽  
Central Subfield Thickness ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
Stable Improvement

AbstractTo analyze functional and anatomical response patterns to dexamethasone (DEX) implant in diabetic macular edema (DME), to describe proportion of responders and non-responders, and to propose a new DME grading system. Retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study. Naïve and non-naïve DME patients were treated with DEX, with visual acuity (VA) ≥ 0.2 logMAR and central subfield thickness (CST) of ≥ 300 µm. Functional and anatomical responses were graded after 2 and 4 months, and categorized as early and stable improvement, early and progressive improvement, pendular response, delayed improvement, and persistent non-response. 417 eyes were included (175 treatment naïve eyes). Compared to non-naïve eyes, naïve eyes showed a very good functional response (VA gain ≥ 10 letters) more frequently after 2 and 4 months (56% and 57% [naïve] vs. 33% and 28% [non-naïve], p < 0.001). A VA gain < 5 letters (non-response) after 2 and 4 months was seen in 18% and 16% of naïve eyes, and in 49% and 53% of non-naïve eyes (p < 0.001). A lack of anatomical response was rare in both groups, but more frequently in non-naïve eyes (12% vs. 4%, p = 0.003). Functionally and anatomically, naïve eyes showed most frequently an early and stable improvement (functionally: 77/175 44%; anatomically: 123/175 eyes, 70%). Most non-naïve eyes experienced no significant improvement functionally (97/242 eyes, 40%), despite a mostly early and stable improvement anatomical response pattern (102/242 eyes, 42%). Functional but not anatomical response patterns were influenced by baseline VA. Naïve and non-naïve eyes show different functional and anatomical response patterns to DEX implant. Functional non-responders are rare in naïve eyes, whereas anatomical non-response is unusual in both groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document