Macular Degeneration: Greven CM

Anonymous00409, Scott IU, Edwards AR, Beck RW, Bressler NM, Chan CK, Elman MJ, Friedman SM, Greven CM, Maturi RK, Pieramici DJ, Shami M, Singerman LJ, Stockdale CR. · Jaeb Center for Health Research, 15310 Amberly Drive, Suite 350, Tampa, FL 33647, USA. · Ophthalmology. · Pubmed #17698196 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To provide data on the short-term effect of intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Randomized phase II clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-one eyes of 121 subjects (109 eligible for analysis) with DME and Snellen acuity equivalent ranging from 20/32 to 20/320. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to 1 of 5 groups: (A) focal photocoagulation at baseline (n = 19), (B) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks (n = 22), (C) intravitreal injection of 2.5 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks (n = 24), (D) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and sham injection at 6 weeks (n = 22), or (E) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks with photocoagulation at 3 weeks (n = 22). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central subfield thickness (CST) on optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (VA) were measured at baseline and after 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, median CST was 411 mum and median Snellen VA equivalent was 20/50. Compared with group A, groups B and C had a greater reduction in CST at 3 weeks and about 1 line better median VA over 12 weeks. There were no meaningful differences between groups B and C in CST reduction or VA improvement. A CST reduction > 11% (reliability limit) was present at 3 weeks in 36 of 84 (43%) bevacizumab-treated eyes and 5 of 18 (28%) eyes treated with laser alone, and at 6 weeks in 31 of 84 (37%) and 9 of 18 (50%) eyes, respectively. Combining focal photocoagulation with bevacizumab resulted in no apparent short-term benefit or adverse outcomes. Endophthalmitis developed in 1 eye. The following events occurred during the first 24 weeks in subjects treated with bevacizumab without attributing cause to the drug: myocardial infarction (n = 2), congestive heart failure (n = 1), elevated blood pressure (n = 3), and worsened renal function (n = 3). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that intravitreal bevacizumab can reduce DME in some eyes, but the study was not designed to determine whether treatment is beneficial. A phase III trial would be needed for that purpose.

Kylstra JA, Brown JC, Jaffe GJ, Cox TA, Gallemore R, Greven CM, Hall JG, Eifrig DE. · Department of Ophthalmology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill 27599-7040, USA. · Ophthalmology. · Pubmed #10571339 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that pretreatment fluorescein angiography (FA) is not necessary for effective laser treatment of patients with clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSME). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled treatment simulation. PARTICIPANTS: Six fellowship trained retina specialists. INTERVENTION: The authors compared the ability of four retina specialists (observers) to plan laser treatment with and without the use of FA. One hundred consecutive cases of CSME were selected, each case consisting of a stereo pair of color photographs and a corresponding fluorescein angiogram. These cases were first read by two retina specialists who reached consensus on a treatment plan for each case (standard map). Each of the 4 observers reviewed 50 of these cases on 2 occasions and plotted 2 sets of treatment maps, 1 set created with and 1 without the aid of FA. Each observer's 100 treatment maps were graded for accuracy by comparing them to the corresponding standard maps. The role of FA in improving the accuracy of treatment maps was evaluated using logistic regression analysis to control for different observers, different cases, and different posterior pole characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy was defined as the proportion of standard treatment correctly treated by the observer. RESULTS: For the observers as a group, the use of FA improved treatment planning accuracy from 49% to 54.5% (P = 0.02); however, there was significant interobserver variation in performance (P < 0.001). Treatment planning accuracy without and with FA was as follows: observer 1, 40.8% and 40.2%; observer 2, 49.8% and 72%; observer 3, 56.1% and 59.5%; and observer 4, 49.2% and 46.4%. CONCLUSION: The use of FA improves the accuracy of treatment planning for CSME. The authors' study supports the use of FA in laser treatment of patients with CSME.