PurposePegaptanib has been shown to be effective in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). In the original Phase II/III trial, however, patients with macular ischemia were excluded. In this study, we treated patients with ischemic DME.MethodsMacular ischemia was defined as a 30% increase in the area of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) at 45 seconds on fundus fluorescein angiography. In addition, the participants had diffuse foveal-involving DME with a central subfield thickness (CST) of >300 μm on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Five intravitreal pegaptanib injections were given 6 weeks apart. The final study visit was 6 weeks after the fifth injection. The primary outcome was change in the size of FAZ. Secondary outcomes were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the change in CST.ResultsThirty participants were enrolled. Three were unable to complete the full course of treatment. Their outcomes were carried forward for the first part of this analysis. There was no statistically significant change in the mean size of the FAZ from baseline to the final visit. Subclassifying participants as those with minimal/moderate ischemia (16 participants, FAZ area <1,000 pixels) and those with more severe ischemia (14 participants, FAZ area >1,000 pixels) also showed no statistically significant change in the mean area of the FAZ. On average, BCVA increased and CST decreased from baseline to the final visit, but these changes were not statistically significant. Using per protocol analysis on those participants who completed the full course of treatment, the mean BCVA increased from 49.2 to 53.9 letters (P=0.046).ConclusionIn this study, intravitreal injection of pegaptanib did not significantly alter the size of the FAZ in participants with varying degrees of ischemic DME. There was, however, a significant improvement in mean BCVA in those who completed the treatment course.

Background Idiopathic blepharospasm (IB) is a rare but well-characterised adult onset focal dystonia that may cause severe visual disability. The most effective treatment is with periodic injections of botulinum toxin (BTX) into the pre-tarsal and/or pre-septal orbicularis oculi muscles bilaterally. However, even with treatment, practical visual function often remains compromised. A subset of IB sufferers find that eye opening improves with a focal unilateral digital pressure usually on a specific point on the temple. This is known as a 'sensory trick'. We have developed a spectacle mounted device ('Pressop') to apply continuous individually localised focal pressure on the temple to mimic the effect of finger pressure. The aim of the study was to determine if the 'sensory trick' could be replicated by Pressop and if the interval between BTX treatments could thereby be extended. Subjects/methods Study participants had three clinic visits-an initial screening assessment, a visit 2 weeks before the next injection was due when the device was fitted, and one 2 weeks later to assess the response to Pressop. A CDQ 24 and devicespecific feedback questionnaire were completed and comparison photographs were taken. Repeat BTX injections were administered at the third visit. Results Of 58 patients with typical IB recruited to the trial, 39 reported an effective focal finger pressure sensory trick. 56 completed the trial, more than 50% of whom reported some benefit using Pressop; 18% had substantial improvement, sustained for up to 5 years. Improvement could occur in those without an effective sensory trick, therefore there was no significant correlation between using a sensory trick and benefiting from 'Pressop'. There was a trend towards the responders having greater improvement in CDQ24 total score than non-responders but this was not statistically significant. Conclusions We recommend a trial of this simple safe device as a means of augmenting visual function in all IB patients.