Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Macular Edema Due to Retinal Vein Occlusion

Haller, Julia A.; Bandello, Francesco; Belfort, Rubens; Blumenkranz, Mark S.; Gillies, Mark; Heier, Jeffrey S.; Loewenstein, Anat; Yoon, Young-Hee; Jacques, M.-L.; Jiao, Jenny; Li, Xiaoyan; Whitcup, Scott M.

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.03.032

Cited by 954 publications

(934 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

803

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the side effects of treatment were no worse than that reported in the Geneva study. 4,5 Although the implant landed in the crystalline lens and potentially contributed to earlier manifestations of known side effects, watchful and conservative management was prudent and outcomes, both in terms of VA and anatomical improvement of macular oedema, were good.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accidental insertion of dexamethasone implant into the crystalline lens—12 months follow-up

Chhabra

Kopsidas

Mahmood

2014

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accidental insertion of dexamethasone implant into the crystalline lens—12 months follow-up

Chhabra

Kopsidas

Mahmood

2014

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recently, dexamethasone (Ozurdex, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) intravitreal implant was granted approval for the treatment of macular edema following BRVO or CRVO in the Unites States and the European Union based on two multicenter, doubleblind, randomized studies (GENEVA). 32 Following dexamethasone, ranibizumab (Lucentis, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA; Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) intravitreal injection was also approved in the United States for the same indication on the basis of two multicenter, randomized, doublemasked clinical trials (BRAVO and CRUISE). 33,34 In these clinical trials, both dexamethasone and ranibizumab demonstrated clinically and statistically improved vision acuity compared with placebo.…”

Section: Risk Of Vascular and Cardiovascular Complications In Rvomentioning

confidence: 99%

The burden of disease of retinal vein occlusion: review of the literature

Laouri¹,

E²,

Looman³

et al. 2011

Eye

222

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second most common cause of vision loss due to retinal vascular disease. A literature review was undertaken to understand the epidemiology, clinical consequence, current practice patterns, and cost of RVO. Pertinent articles were identified by computerized searches of the English language literature in MEDLINE supplemented with electronic and manual searches of society/association proceedings and bibliographies of electronically identified sources. Populationbased studies report a prevalence rate of 0.5-2.0% for branch RVO and 0.1-0.2% for central RVO. The 15-year incidence rate is estimated to be 1.8% for branch RVO and 0.2% for central RVO. Patients with RVO report lower vision-related quality of life than those without ocular disease. Available treatment options are limited. Until recently there was no treatment for central RVO. Laser photocoagulation is only recommended for branch RVO in patients who have not experienced severe vision loss. Emerging evidence on the effectiveness of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and dexamethasone intravitreal implant is promising. Information on the treatment patterns and cost of RVO is extremely limited with one retrospective analysis of secondary insurance payment data identified and limited to the United States population only. A better understanding of the economic and societal impact of RVO will help decision makers evaluate emerging medical interventions for this sight-threatening disease.

show abstract

“…[15][16][17][18] Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) has been found to be effective in reducing ME and improving visual function, but its use is limited by high risk of IOP elevation and cataract progression. [15][16][17]19,20 Posterior subtenon triamcinolone acetonide (STA) has the advantage of easy injection and decreased risk of intraocular complications such as IOP elevation and cataract progression compared with IVTA, but the efficacy of STA is thought be slightly less than that of IVTA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, its risk of complications such as glaucoma and cataract was relatively lower and its intraocular half-life was longer. 18 However, due to its high cost, intravitreal dexamethasone implant can be a major economic burden for patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combination therapy of intravitreal bevacizumab with single simultaneous posterior subtenon triamcinolone acetonide for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion

Moon

Kim

Sagong

2016

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate efficacy and safety of combination therapy of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) with single simultaneous posterior subtenon triamcinolone acetonide (STA) for treatment of macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods This was a prospective, randomized, interventional comparative study conducted in 45 eyes with ME secondary to BRVO who were treated primarily with IVB 1.25 mg (23 eyes, IVB group) or combination therapy of IVB 1.25 mg with a single simultaneous STA 40 mg (18 eyes, IVB/STA group). Reinjections were performed with IVB if optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed recurrent ME associated with decreased visual acuity. The main outcome measurement was the number of additional IVB injections, and changes of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) during a 6-month follow-up period were compared. Results BCVA showed significant improvement in two groups at 6 months. In addition, CMT showed significant decrease in two groups at 6 months. No significant differences in the change of BCVA and CMT at 6 months after injection (P = 0.973, P = 0.639) were observed between the two groups. A statistically significant difference was found regarding the number of additional IVB injections (IVB group 0.96 ± 0.83; IVB/STA group 0.44 ± 0.70, P = 0.034).Conclusion Although combination therapy of IVB with a single simultaneous STA for treatment of ME secondary to BRVO did not affect the visual outcomes compared with IVB monotherapy, it had a benefit of reducing the number of additional IVB injections.

show abstract

Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Macular Edema Due to Retinal Vein Occlusion

Cited by 954 publications

References 30 publications

Accidental insertion of dexamethasone implant into the crystalline lens—12 months follow-up

Accidental insertion of dexamethasone implant into the crystalline lens—12 months follow-up

The burden of disease of retinal vein occlusion: review of the literature

Combination therapy of intravitreal bevacizumab with single simultaneous posterior subtenon triamcinolone acetonide for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About