2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00592-020-01496-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Profile of non-responder and late responder patients treated for diabetic macular edema: systemic and ocular factors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
29
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
2
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Treatment response is a matter of controversy between studies since there is no univocal definition of responsiveness to treatment and there are different criteria of “successful” treatment response or “nonresponse,” while the time to assess treatment response varies among studies [27]. Although anti-VEGF agents were found to be effective in DME treatment, reducing retinal thickness as a whole and in all separate retinal layers and improving visual acuity in the 12-month follow-up, the definition of factors affecting visual outcome is significant to determine treatment response and consider early switch in treatment in cases of “nonresponders.” Although it has been supported that there may be a delayed treatment response and that patients with DME may benefit from sustained anti-VEGF treatment [28], a recent study by Ruiz-Medrano et al [29] has shown that in eyes with insufficient response to anti-VEGF agents, switching to dexamethasone implant after 3 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections provided better functional results than receiving >3 injections and then switching, supporting early switch in “nonresponders.”…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Treatment response is a matter of controversy between studies since there is no univocal definition of responsiveness to treatment and there are different criteria of “successful” treatment response or “nonresponse,” while the time to assess treatment response varies among studies [27]. Although anti-VEGF agents were found to be effective in DME treatment, reducing retinal thickness as a whole and in all separate retinal layers and improving visual acuity in the 12-month follow-up, the definition of factors affecting visual outcome is significant to determine treatment response and consider early switch in treatment in cases of “nonresponders.” Although it has been supported that there may be a delayed treatment response and that patients with DME may benefit from sustained anti-VEGF treatment [28], a recent study by Ruiz-Medrano et al [29] has shown that in eyes with insufficient response to anti-VEGF agents, switching to dexamethasone implant after 3 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections provided better functional results than receiving >3 injections and then switching, supporting early switch in “nonresponders.”…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Anti-VEGF agents have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in several pivotal clinical trials for control of CI-DME and have become the gold standard primary treatment, replacing laser photocoagulation [4]. Differences between anti-VEGF drugs have been explored in Protocol T, a comparative effectiveness trial conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) that compared 3 commonly used anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept) for eyes with CI-DME [15]. On average, each drug was found to improve vision and reduce central retinal thickness (CRT) [15].…”
Section: Response To Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increased CMT after treatment also considered predictor of poor response to treatment. (19,20) The limitation of this study were short follow up and the diagnostic criteria for macular edema were only based on the CMT despite the presence of hard exudate and macular ischemia, both of which could affect the results of this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%