The treatment of diabetic macular edema: current status and future perspectives.
Full text
2011/2012 André Gomes de Sena The treatment of diabetic macular edema: current status and future perspectives março, 2012
Mestrado Integrado em Medicina Área: Oftalmologia Trabalho efetuado sob a Orientação de: Dra. Susana Costa Nunes Penas Trabalho organizado de acordo com as normas da revista: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research André Gomes de Sena The Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: Current Status and Future Perspectives março, 2012
Resumo O Edema macular diabético é a principal causa de perda de visão moderada entre a população diabética. Fotocoagulação a laser e controlo intensivo da glicémia e da pressão arterial têm sido a abordagem terapêutica padrão por mais de 20 anos. No entanto, na maioria dos casos de edema macular diabético difuso e grave, o controlo da doença não é satisfatório. A crescente compreensão da patofisiologia multifactorial do edema macular incentivou a investigação de novas terapias na última década. Tanto os corticosteroides e como os inibidores do fator de crescimento endotelial vascular (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, pegaptanib e aflibercept) foram amplamente estudados e mostraram melhorias anatómicas e funcionais satisfatórias, com perfis de segurança aceitáveis. Infelizmente, alguns dos principais efeitos adversos dos corticosteroides e a necessidade de múltiplas injeções intravítreas permanecem grandes preocupações. Sistemas intravitreos de libertação sustentada de drogas foram desenvolvidos para reduzir estes e outros eventos adversos relacionados com as drogas e as injeções. A vitrectomia mostra ser valiosa apenas em alguns casos selecionados, geralmente associados a anomalias da interface vítreoretiniana. Novos sistemas de aplicação de laser têm sido desenvolvidos para reduzir os eventos adversos relacionados com o laser. Algumas novas drogas experimentais estão também em investigação. A maioria dos estudos publicados têm interesse limitado devido ao pequeno número de participantes e ao curto período de acompanhamento. Além disso, os seus resultados são de difícil comparação, devido a desenhos de estudo e características diferentes. O número crescente de publicações e terapias em desenvolvimento revela o crescente interesse neste assunto. Uma abordagem multimodalidade pode tornar-se o padrão de tratamento para uma doença multifatorial como o edema macular diabético. Palavras-chave: Edema Macular Diabético, Tratamento, Fotocoagulação a Laser, Corticosteroide, Inibidor do Fator de Crescimento Endotelial Vascular, Vitrectomia
The treatment of diabetic macular edema: current status and future perspectives Author André Sena a, * aDepartment of Ophthalmology, Centro Hospitalar S. João, EPE, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal *Corresponding author. Department of Ophthalmology, Centro Hospitalar S. João, EPE, Alameda Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, PT-4202-451 Porto, Portugal. Tel.: +351 913 270 738. Email: [email protected]. Abstract Diabetic macular edema is the main cause of moderate vision loss among diabetic population. Laser photocoagulation and intensive glycemic and blood pressure control have been the standard treatment approach for more than 20 years. However, in the majority of cases of diffuse and severe diabetic macular edema, the control of the disease is not satisfactory. The growing understanding of the multifactorial pathophysiology of macular edema encouraged the investigation of new therapies in the last decade. Both corticosteroids and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, pegaptanib, and aflibercept) were widely studied and showed satisfactory anatomical and functional improvements with acceptable safety profiles. Unfortunately, some of corticosteroids’ main adverse effects and the need for multiple intravitreal injections remain major concerns. Intravitreal sustained drug delivery systems were developed to reduce these and other drugand injection-related adverse events. Vitrectomy proves to be valuable only in a few selected cases, usually associated with vitreoretinal interface abnormalities. New laser delivery systems have been developed to reduce laser-related adverse events. Some experimental new drugs are also under investigation. The majority of reported studies have limited interest due to a short number of participants and a short follow-up. Also, their results are difficult to compare, due to different study designs and characteristics. The increasing number of reports and developing therapies shows the growing interest in this subject. A multi-modality approach may become the standard of care for a multifactorial disease as diabetic macular edema. Keywords: Diabetic Macular Oedema, Treatment, Laser Photocoagulation, Corticosteroid, Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, Vitrectomy
Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Definitions and classifications 3. Pathophysiology 4. Glycemic and blood pressure control 5. Laser photocoagulation 5.1. Mechanism of action 5.2. Techniques 5.3. Efficacy 5.4. Safety 6. Corticosteroids 6.1. Mechanism of action 6.2. Techniques of delivery 6.3. Intravitreal injections (triamcinolone acetonide) 6.4. Peribulbar injections (triamcinolone acetonide) 6.5. Intravitreal delivery systems 6.6. Safety of corticosteroids 7. Anti-VEFG Therapy 7.1. Mechanism of action 7.2. Intravitreal bevacizumab 7.3. Intravitreal ranibizumab 7.4. Intravitreal pegaptanib sodium 7.5. Intravitreal aflibercept 7.6. Safety of anti-VEFG Therapies 8. Vitrectomy 8.1. Techniques 8.2. Mechanism of action 8.3. Efficacy 8.4. Safety 9. Other potential pharmacological therapeutics 10. Conclusions and future directions 11. Acknowledgments 12. References
1 Introduction Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is an important cause of severe and moderate vision loss in the working-age population. In 10 years, nearly 90% of patients with type 1 diabetes and more than 65% of patients with type 2 diabetes develop some form of retinopathy (Williams et al., 2004). Diabetic macular edema (DME), a form of DR defined as the retinal thickening involving the macula, is the main cause of moderate vision loss (≥15 letters lost on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] visual acuity [VA] chart or a doubling of the visual angle) among diabetic population (Klein et al., 2009b; Williams et al., 2004). DME can occur at any stage of the disease progression, but incidence and prevalence tends to rise with the increase in duration and severity of diabetes (Williams et al., 2004). In type 1 diabetes patients, the annual incidence of DME ranges from 0.9% to 2.3% and there is a cumulative incidence of 26% within 14 years of diagnosis. In 25 years, 29% of these will be presenting DME and 17 % will show a clinically significant macular edema (CSME) (Klein et al., 1998; Klein et al., 2009a). In type 2 diabetes patients, the annual incidence of DME ranges from 1.25% to 1.40% and there is an increase in prevalence from 3% within 5 years of diagnosis to 28% after 20 years (Klein et al., 1995). DME tends to be a chronic disease, however, about 1/3 of the patients can have a spontaneous recovery in 6 months, without any treatment except the adequate control of glycemic levels (Ferris and Patz, 1984; Hikichi et al., 1997). Since the incidence and prevalence of diabetes are estimated to significantly increase during the next years (Narayan et al., 2006), the incidence of DR and consequently DME is also expected to rise. Therefore, in the future, it is likely that DME may be responsible for a substantial vision loss unless adequately treated. Aside from intensive glycemic and blood pressure control, for more than 20 years the standard of care has been laser photocoagulation. Laser proved to prevent further vision loss but unfortunately visual improvement is rare. This problem encouraged the search for other treatment modalities, and alternative therapies, such as intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, have been recently investigated in numerous clinical trials. Thereby, this review aims to evaluate where we stand in terms of effectiveness and safety of these new treatment modalities and predict how treatment guidelines may change in the next years. 2 Definitions and classifications The ETDRS defined DME as the thickening of the retina and ⁄ or presence of hard exudates within one disc diameter of the center of the macula (ETDRS, 1985, 1987). The study also proposed the term clinically significant macular edema to characterize the severity of macular edema for treatment guidelines proposes. Macular edema is said to be clinically significant when presenting: retinal thickening at or within 500 µm of the macular center; and/or hard exudates at or within 500 µm of the macular center if associated with adjacent retinal thickening; and/or a zone or
zones of retinal thickening greater than 1 disc diameter in size, at least part of which is within 1 disc diameter of the macular center. Classically, DME is classified into focal or diffuse, according to the leakage pattern seen on the fluorescein angiogram (Kang et al., 2004). In focal DME, there are points of retinal hyperfluorescence due to focal leakage from microaneurysms, usually found within areas of focal retinal edema and commonly surrounded by rings of hard exudates. In diffuse DME, the fluorescein angiogram shows areas of diffuse leakage due to intraretinal outflow from a dilated retinal capillary bed and/or intraretinal microvascular abnormalities and/or (in severe cases) from arterioles and venules without foci of leaking microaneurysms. In addition, cystoid macular edema, which results from a generalized breakdown of the inner blood retinal barrier, with fluid accumulation in the outer plexiform layer, can also be present and associated to the diffuse type. With the appearance of new imaging techniques, such as the optical coherence tomography, a quantitative classification of the edema was possible. Measurements of retinal thickness and retinal volume have revolutionized the classification. In the initial classification, there were 3 basic structural changes of the retina: retinal swelling, cystoid edema and serous retinal detachment (Otani et al., 1999). Posteriorly, it was modified into: type 1 with foveal thickening with homogenous optical reflectivity in the entire layer of the retina; type 2 with foveal thickening and a distinct decrease in the optical reflectivity of the outer retinal layer; type 3 with foveal thickening with subretinal fluid accumulation; type 3 is further divided into type 3A if no vitreofoveal traction is present and type 3B if vitreofoveal traction is present (Kang et al., 2004). Further investigation brought a new classification with five different morphologic patterns: diffuse retinal thickening; cystoid macular edema; serous retinal detachment without posterior hyaloidal traction; posterior hyaloidal traction without tractional retinal detachment; and posterior hyaloidal traction with tractional retinal detachment. In addition, mix patterns can arise from co-existence of at least two of these basic patterns in the same eye (Kim et al., 2006). 3 Pathophysiology Much is already known about the pathophysiology of DME, but we are still far from fully understanding it. It is clear that the mechanism is multifactorial and very complex. Several angiogenic, inflammatory and oxidative stress overlapping and inter-relating pathways have been implicated. It is also clear that they are directly or indirectly triggered by chronic hyperglycemia, recognized as the primary insult, and converge into a final common pathway that results in macular edema. This last step is the disruption of the blood-retinal barrier. The blood-retinal barrier has two components: the outer barrier is formed by retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells tightly connected by tight junctions (zonula occludens and desmosomes); the inner barrier is formed by retinal vascular endothelial cells tightly connected by tight junctional complexes (occludins and claudins) and glial cells, such as Müller cells. The disruption of the blood-retinal barrier occurs due to the compromise of at least one barrier component, leading to an increase of vascular leakage into the neurosensory retina that exceeds the removal of fluid from the retinal tissue into the systemic circulation (a process that can also be impaired), causing an accumulation of fluid in the intraretinal layers of the macula. This increase of
dissolve after the first year. Around the 16th month of treatment, laser becomes significantly superior, remaining that way for at least another year (Beck et al., 2009; Lam et al., 2007a; Network, 2008). Like IVTA in monotherapy, a combined treatment sequence of an IVTA injection 3 to 6 weeks before the laser session, with retreatment as needed, shows better anatomical than functional results over time (Aydin et al., 2009; Gillies et al., 2010, 2011; Kang et al., 2006; Lam et al., 2007a). It also does not seem to provide significant advantages over laser monotherapy at longterm (2 years) (Gillies et al., 2010, 2011; Lam et al., 2007a). But, some benefits can be found; the combined treatment allows an earlier visual recovery (Aydin et al., 2009), a more sustained visual improvement (Kang et al., 2006), a slower recurrence of the macular edema (Kang et al., 2006; Lam et al., 2007a), and a lesser need for additional injections and laser treatments (Mohamed et al., 2009). In contrast, a concomitant association (laser immediately followed by IVTA) should be avoided, since it may lead to a worsening of the VA (Aydin et al., 2009). In cases of DME with moderate to high-risk proliferative DR, the combination of IVTA with standard treatment (pan-retinal photocoagulation plus macular photocoagulation) or simply with pan-retinal photocoagulation shows superior results over the standard treatment alone. However, while in moderate risk cases the therapeutic effect can be maintained for 1 year (Maia et al., 2009), in high risk cases the superiority can only be maintained for a much more shorter period (Choi et al., 2007; Mirshahi et al., 2010). In addition, IVTA can also reduce the risk of short-term exacerbation of macular edema (and consequent associated VA loss) after pan-retinal photocoagulation, at least in short-term (Googe et al., 2011). A small nonrandomized prospective study suggests that the adjunctive use of IVTA after vitrectomy should be avoided, because 1 year later the recurrence may be worse than with vitrectomy alone (Shimonagano et al., 2007a). 6.4 Peribulbar injections (triamcinolone acetonide) Peribulbar route (by both posterior subtenon's triamcinolone acetonide injection [40 mg] and anterior subtenon's triamcinolone acetonide injection [20 mg]) was thought to be a good initial approach in eyes with mild DME and good VA. However, the results were disappointing, and further studies were not recommended (Chew et al., 2007). In more severe diffuse DME, a single posterior subtenon's triamcinolone acetonide injection, combined with grid laser or not, can provide anatomical and functional improvements in some cases, with the effects lasting little more than 3 months. However, these improvements are not as good and sustained as the ones provided by a single IVTA (4mg) injection (Chung et al., 2008a; Yalcinbayir et al., 2011). On the other hand, in eyes with cystoid DME, the posterior subtenon injection approach seems to provide a longer effect than the intravitreal approach (Cellini et al., 2008) and combined with laser may provide a better chance of stabilizing vision loss than photocoagulation alone (Kuo et al., 2009). As primary treatment for diffuse DME, posterior subtenon's triamcinolone acetonide injection can also provide an additive effect to laser. The improvement appears more prominent when the baseline ETDRS score is superior to 40 letters (Tunc et al., 2005). In contrast, it presents
no value in refractory to laser DME eyes (Bonini-Filho et al., 2005; Cardillo et al., 2005), even with additional injections (Entezari et al., 2005), and also as an adjuvant treatment to phacoemulsification (Takata et al., 2010). Nonrandomized studies suggest that posterior subtenon's triamcinolone acetonide injection may perform better in vitrectomized eyes, even if they are refractory to vitrectomy (Koga et al., 2005; Sato et al., 2008; Wada et al., 2005). As for factors that influence peribulbar injections’ performance, the local of injection is one of the most important. It was shown that a precise placement of corticosteroids in the subtenon’s capsule space, in direct proximity to the macula, might influence both the effectiveness and the side effects of the drug. (Freeman et al., 1987; Mueller et al., 1998). Drug reflux at the time of the injection is also a risk factor for treatment failure (Shimura et al., 2009). 6.5 Intravitreal delivery systems Retisert® (Bausch & Lomb) is a non-biodegradable delivery platform implant providing fluocinolone acetonide. Its implantation and removal, once drug depletion, requires a surgical procedure in an operating room. It is sutured to the anterior eye wall and provides a highly reliable and stable long-term drug delivery (Driot et al., 2004). The initial release rate is 0.60 µg/day, decreasing in 1 month to a stable rate of 0.3-0.4 µg/day, and its life span is about 30 months (Jaffe et al., 2000). This implant is currently approved for the treatment of chronic noninfectious posterior uveitis. Iluvien® (Alimera Sciences) consists in very small non-biodegradable cylindrical tubes that have a polymer matrix loaded with fluocinolone acetonide (Campochiaro et al., 2011; Campochiaro et al., 2010). The device is inserted into the vitreous cavity through a 25-gauge needle, not needing a surgical procedure or an operating room. It can deliver the drug at a rate of 0.5 or 0.2 µg/day. When the drug supply is depleted, another one can be administered; the limit number of inserts that can be tolerated is unknown. In eyes with persistent or recurrent DME, both Retisert® (Pearson et al., 2011) and Iluvien® (Campochiaro et al., 2011; Campochiaro et al., 2010) can provide significant macular edema reduction and VA improvement for about 2 years, reflecting the drug lifespan. They also decrease the need of additional laser treatment. However, there are some VA fluctuations, thought to be related to cataract formation and extraction. Ozurdex® (Allergan Inc.) is a biodegradable drug delivery system that allows sustainedrelease of dexamethasone. Inserted into the vitreous cavity through a 22-gauge needle, it can deliver the drug at a rate of 350 or 700 µg/day and its life span is about 6 months. It is approved for the treatment of macular edema caused by retinal vein occlusion (Haller et al., 2010). In eyes with persistent or recurrent DME, the significant therapeutic improvement lasts for little more than 3 months and a release of 700 µg/day shows better efficacy than 350 µg/day (Haller et al., 2010). Vitrectomized patients with persistent or recurrent DME may also benefit from Ozurdex®, according to a nonrandomized study (Boyer et al., 2011).
6.6 Safety of corticosteroids Despite the majority of the randomized studies are limited by the short follow-up and participant numbers, their combined evidences reveal that, in general, and regardless of the application route, the most common corticosteroid-related vision-threatening complications are the intraocular pressure (IOP) increase and the development and progression of cataract. With IVTA and fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal delivery systems (Audren et al., 2006a; Audren et al., 2006b; Aydin et al., 2009; Beck et al., 2009; Campochiaro et al., 2011; Campochiaro et al., 2010; Choi et al., 2007; Dehghan et al., 2008; Gillies et al., 2011; Gillies et al., 2009; Jonas et al., 2006; Kang et al., 2006; Lam et al., 2007a; Lam et al., 2007b; Larsson et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Maia et al., 2009; Ockrim et al., 2008; Pearson et al., 2011; Spandau et al., 2005) the elevation of IOP is usually mild to moderate, transient and controllable with topical antiglaucomatous medication, without future sequels. However, in some cases it can lead to secondary glaucoma and surgery might be required. The risk can reach 80% or more in 5 years and the first episode can occur in the first months (usually in the 2nd). Higher doses tend to increase the probability of IOP elevation and glaucoma; this might be the reason for the higher risk associated to Retisert® compared with Iluvien®. As for the progression of cataracts, it is progressive and, in most cases, only evident after 1 year and/or multiple doses. At least 2/3 end up requiring cataract surgery in 5 years, which can, in a few patients, exacerbate macular edema, leading to poorer outcomes. Unlike the elevation of IOP, cataract development seems less dose-dependent. Regarding the dexamethasone delivery system, the incidence of increased IOP seems lower than with IVTA, however, study follow-up was too short to allow long-term conclusions regarding incidence of both IOP increase and cataract progression (Haller et al., 2010). Other adverse effects reported with intravitreal approaches are: vitreous hemorrhage, pruritus, vitreous floaters, subconjunctival hemorrhage, retinal detachment, corneal epithelial defect, abnormal sensation in the eye, eye pain, and endophthalmitis. They are generally transient and thought to be related to the implantation and injection procedures. High-dosage IVTA may not necessarily have a higher side effects profile than low-dosage IVTA (Jonas et al., 2006). In contrast, multiple injections predispose to the cumulative risk of injection-related and drug-related (Gillies et al., 2009; Jonas et al., 2003) complications. No systemic drug-related adverse events have been reported. In fact, triamcinolone acetonide is barely detected in the serum after an intravitreal injection of 20 mg (Degenring and Jonas, 2004). The peribulbar approach is clearly less invasive than the intravitreal approaches and shows fewer vision-threatening complications (Cellini et al., 2008; Chung et al., 2008a). In short-term, the elevation of IOP seems lower than with IVTA, although the association of posterior approach with IOP elevation is less certain (Chew et al., 2011). Short follow-up period unable cataract discussion, with the exception of the anterior approach, which has been associated with an increased risk of cataract development, compared with laser and posterior peribulbar approach. Other potential injectionor infusion-related complications are: ptosis, accidental injection directly into the
choroidal or retinal circulation, perforation of the ocular bulb, occlusion of the central retinal artery, blepharoptosis, orbital fat atrophy, strabismus, conjunctival necrosis and ulceration, and endophthalmitis (Agrawal et al., 2003; Cellini et al., 2008; Chew et al., 2007; Chew et al., 2011). These complications are rare when the injection is properly given. 7 Anti-VEFG Therapy 7.1 Mechanism of action VEGF plays a key role in the pathophysiology of DME. Thereby, VEGF blockage became an attractive therapeutic approach. After the first evidences that VEGF inhibition could effectively prevent experimental diabetic blood–retina barrier breakdown and also revert DME once it has occurred, VEGF inhibitors have been studied, in the last decade, as a therapeutic option for DME. Bevacizumab, ranibizumab, pegaptanib and aflibercept bind to VEGF, preventing interaction with its receptors (VEGFR1 and VEGFR2) on the surface of endothelial cells, thereby, nullifying its biological effect. 7.2 Intravitreal bevacizumab Bevacizumab (Avastin®, Genentech Inc.) is a full-length recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody directed at all isoforms of VEGF-A. Originally used in the treatment of various cancers, it is being used off-label as a treatment for DME. The optimal dosage and algorithm for DME treatment are still not defined, but the majority of studies use a 1.25 mg dose. There is no evidence that a higher dose of 2.5 mg provides a significantly superior efficacy (at least in the first 6 months), so the lower dose is recommended (Lam et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2007). A single intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) (1.25 mg) injection can reduce the macular edema in 24h, but the VA needs about 1 week to significantly improve (Sonoda et al., 2011). The effect lasts for little more than 12 weeks (Isaac et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011), therefore, multiple injections are needed to sustain the effects for longer periods (Michaelides et al., 2010; Soheilian et al., 2009). When compared with standard laser treatment, IVB demonstrates a significantly greater macular edema reduction (Scott et al., 2007). When in combination, focal laser applied 3 weeks after IVB does not seem to provide any additional short-term benefit over IVB monotherapy (Scott et al., 2007), but grid laser, also applied 3 weeks after IVB, is able to maintain the functional and anatomical improvements of a single IVB injection for a longer period of time in eyes with diffuse CSME (Solaiman et al., 2010). In short-term, both IVTA (2 and 4 mg) and combination of IVB (1.25 mg) and IVTA (2mg) are anatomically and functionally more efficient than IVB (1.25 mg) alone (Isaac et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2012). However, after 1 year of treatment no significant differences can be seen between them, so IVB/IVTA association provides no significant additional benefit over IVB monotherapy (Lim et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011). In contrast, the improvements may persist
longer with IVB alone than with IVB/IVTA association (36 weeks vs. 12 weeks), with or without additional injections (Soheilian et al., 2009). Similar performance for IVB (compared to and/or associated to IVTA or laser) is found in treatment naïve eyes (Faghihi et al., 2008; Marey and Ellakwa, 2011; Shahin and El-Lakkany, 2010; Soheilian et al., 2007) and in eyes with refractory/persistent DME, even when centerinvolving (Ahmadieh et al., 2008; Michaelides et al., 2010; Paccola et al., 2008; Synek and Vesely, 2011). However, there are some evidences that in treatment naïve eyes it can be more effective than in eyes that had any prior treatment (Lam et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2007). A prospective nonrandomized study (Kook et al., 2008) suggests that IVB can even be benefic in cases of chronic diffuse ischemic DME, but the preexisting macular ischemia limits the potential treatment benefits (Chung et al., 2008b). IVB can also be useful in preventing the exacerbation of macular edema in diabetic patients undergoing cataract surgery. A single IVB injection has the potential not only to prevent the increase, but also reduce the macular edema and improve the VA, for at least 6 months (Cheema et al., 2009; Lanzagorta-Aresti et al., 2009; Takamura et al., 2009), although, in some cases, the positive effect lasts for a shorter period of time (Fard et al., 2011). 7.3 Intravitreal ranibizumab Ranibizumab (Lucentis®, Novartis Pharma AG and Genentech Inc.) is a Fab fragment of a full-length recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody that binds to the receptor-binding site of active forms of VEGF-A. As the Fab derivate of bevacizumab, its molecular weight is a fraction of the bevacizumab’s weight (~48 kilodaltons vs. ~149 kilodaltons, respectively), which may explain its shorter intravitreal half-live in animal studies (3.2 vs. 5.6 days) (Stewart et al., 2012). Already approved for the treatment of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion and age-related macular degeneration, it was recently also approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of DME, based on evidence from the RESOLVE (Massin et al., 2010) and RESTORE (Mitchell et al., 2011) trials. A single intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) (0.5mg) injection is capable of reduce macular edema in about 1 hour and significantly improve the VA in 24 hours, although the maximum effect is only achieved after approximately 14 days (Querques et al., 2009b). After 1 month the effect starts to decrease, so additional injections are required to maintain the therapeutic levels. In general, a regimen of multiple injections of IVR, in a minimal interval of 4 weeks, can provide significant VA increase and macular edema reduction for at least 2 years (Massin et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2011). These results are also observed in patients with recurrent or persistent DME (Nguyen et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2010). A small retrospective study suggests that despite no significant difference between one injection of IVB and IVR in terms of visual improvement (4.5 vs. 6 ETDRS letters, p=0.58,
respectively), a difference might exist in the degree of macular edema reduction, being greater with IVR (41 vs. 100#µm, p=0.005) (Ozturk et al., 2011). The combination with laser photocoagulation does not seem to provide any functional or anatomical advantage over IVR monotherapy (Mitchell et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2010). In fact, in some cases, it can lead to a slower visual improvement rate compare with IVR alone (Nguyen et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2010). On the other hand, additional laser allows a decrease in the need for additional injections to control the edema. Delaying in 6 months the beginning of the laser sessions, instead of starting it closer to the IVR treatment, also does not seem to result in any difference (Elman et al., 2010; Elman et al., 2011). Compared with laser alone, IVR, associated or not with laser, demonstrates therapeutic superiority (Elman et al., 2010; Elman et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2010). In addition, IVR may provide some short-term benefits in eyes receiving pan-retinal photocoagulation for DR and laser for DME by reduce the risk of short-term exacerbation of macular edema (Googe et al., 2011). The approval of ranibizumab by the European Medicines Agency led a panel of experts to elaborate the first guidelines for its clinical use. Their recommendation is to use ranibizumab in monotherapy when visual impairment due to center-involving DME. Center-involving DME with no vision loss and no center-involving DME cases should follow the ETDRS guidelines. Injections are given on a monthly basis until normal VA or VA stability is achieved. If VA deteriorates again after treatment interruption, monthly injections should be reinitiated until a new stabilization is achieved. Addition of laser is neither recommended nor rejected; for now it is up to the physician’s discretion. Non-responders to the therapy should discontinue it and try other treatment options (Bandello et al., 2012). Updates to these guidelines may occur as more results from longer-term studies become available. 7.4 Intravitreal pegaptanib sodium Pegaptanib (Macugen®, Pfizer Inc. and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc.) is a VEGF aptamer that binds to the VEGF-165 isomer inhibiting the interaction with its receptors. It is an approved treatment for age-related macular degeneration and an off-label treatment for DME. In terms of dosage, there are some indications that a 0.3 mg can be more effective than 1 and 3 mg, although differences between 0.3 and 1 mg are very small (Cunningham et al., 2005). In patients with DME, center-involving or not, a regiment of multiple injections of pegaptanib (0.3 mg), 6 or more weeks apart, with the possibility of focal/grid photocoagulation after the 18th week, demonstrates significantly better outcomes than sham (Loftus et al., 2011; Sultan et al., 2011), even as primary therapy (Cunningham et al., 2005). The visual benefits appear to be more outstanding than the anatomical ones. This beneficial visual effect can be observed in 6 weeks after the first injection and persists for at least 2 years, although slightly better during the 1st year of treatment (Sultan et al., 2011). Also, pegaptanib decreases the need for additional laser therapy (Sultan et al., 2011).
A retrospective study suggests that, as primary therapy, pegaptanib, in 6 month, may be significantly superior to both laser and combination of pegaptanib with laser (Querques et al., 2009a). 7.5 Intravitreal aflibercept Aflibercept (VEGF Trap-Eye®, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals) is a fully human recombinant fusion protein composed by the VEGF receptors domains and the Fc region of human IgG1, which binds to all VEGF-A isoforms and also to placental growth factor (Holash et al., 2002). Animal studies suggest that it has theoretical advantages over ranibizumab and bevacizumab, including a longer life span and a higher binding affinity to VEGF-A. The DA VINCI phase 2 Study has recently shown some primary good results using aflibercept in DME patients. VEGF Trap-Eye (0.5 and 2 mg), in various retreatment schedules, shows significant and clinically relevant VA improvement, as well as macular edema reduction, which are superior to laser, for at least 6 months (Do et al., 2011). 7.6 Safety of anti-VEFG Therapies The overall safety profile is similar between bevacizumab, ranibizumab and pegaptanib sodium and consistent with that observed in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with these VEGF inhibitors (Brown et al., 2006; Singerman et al., 2008). The incidence of drug-related ocular adverse effects is low, even with multiple injections. The great majority of reported ocular adverse is transient, mild to moderate in severity and considered injection-related (Ahmadieh et al., 2008; Cunningham et al., 2005; Do et al., 2011; Elman et al., 2010; Elman et al., 2011; Faghihi et al., 2008; Googe et al., 2011; Lam et al., 2009; Massin et al., 2010; Michaelides et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2011; Paccola et al., 2008; Scott et al., 2007; Shahin and El-Lakkany, 2010; Soheilian et al., 2009; Sultan et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2011). The most frequent are eye pain (up to 31% reported), conjunctival hemorrhage (up to 22%), and punctate keratitis (up to 18%). Other adverse effects also reported, are endophthalmitis (0.080,4%/injection), retinal detachment (<1%), vitreous hemorrhage (up to 5%), cataract formation and progression (up to 14%), IOP elevation (up to 17%), and transient mild anterior chamber reaction (up to 20%). Regarding systemic side effects, the use of systemic VEGF inhibitors has been associated to cardiovascular events, cerebrovascular accidents, hypertension, and thromboembolic events. Because of the compromised blood–retinal barrier in diabetic patients, there is a potential higher risk of the passage of these drugs into the systemic circulation (Bhisitkul, 2006; Simo and Hernandez, 2008).
8 Vitrectomy 8.1 Techniques There are reports in the literature of lower risk of macular edema development in diabetic patients with a posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) (Nasrallah et al., 1988), cases of reabsorption of macular edema after a spontaneous PVD (Hikichi et al., 1997) and a successful first trial with vitrectomy in 10 patients with DME and thickened taut posterior hyaloid (Lewis et al., 1992). Consequently, intraocular interventions through pars plana vitrectomy have been proposed as an alternative approach for DME treatment. Induction of PVD by removal or detachment of posterior hyaloid is the main intervention. Triamcinolone acetonide can be used to facilitate the identification of vitreous remnants. Another technique, usually used after PVD induction, is the ILM peeling, a process that can be facilitated by the use of dyes (such as indocyanine green, trypan blue and, more recently, brilliant blue). 8.2 Mechanism of action The mechanism by which vitrectomy may work is not fully understood. It is speculated that PVD removes local exacerbation factors, such as vitreous traction, and improves oxygen concentration on retinal cells. Also, the absence of the vitreous gel is thought to increase the transport of cytokines (such as VEGF) from the retina into the vitreous cavity (Stefansson, 2001, 2009). It is speculated that normal ILM acts as a selective membrane. In DME it gets thicker, thus reducing its permeability (Saravia, 2011). With its removal, this disturbance could be resolved, therefore helping the resolution of the macular edema, for example, by further speeding up the clearance of cytokines from the retina. Also, absence of ILM may activate the repair mechanisms of Müller cells and can eliminate a reservoir of growth factors in residual vitreous cortex that remains adherent to the ILM after surgical vitreous separation (Hoerauf et al., 2011; Sonoda et al., 2004). 8.3 Efficacy In general, the vitrectomy results in DME eyes are not satisfactory. It has been suggested that benefits may be limited to patients with vitreomacular traction and/or taut thickened posterior hyaloid (Laidlaw, 2008). In diffuse DME cases with no evidence of macular traction, regardless the technique, the benefits are limited and appear slowly (Bardak et al., 2006; Doi et al., 2012; Kumar et al., 2007). In cases of persistent DME after laser therapy, vitrectomy, with or without ILM peeling, can provide some benefits, mainly in younger patients. However, the improvement, eventually superior to laser, persists for no longer than 1 year (Bahadir et al., 2005; Stolba et al., 2005; Yanyali et al., 2006), after which laser seems to provide better results (Patel et al., 2006a; Thomas et al., 2005).
Curiously, some retrospective studies, unlike randomized studies, suggest better visual outcomes with vitrectomy in eyes with diffuse DME with no macular traction, with the effectiveness maintained for years (Kumagai et al., 2009; Shimonagano et al., 2007b). It is not clear if ILM peeling is necessary. Several studies report no significant benefit over PVD induction alone (Bahadir et al., 2005; Bardak et al., 2006; Figueroa et al., 2008; Mochizuki et al., 2006; Patel et al., 2006b; Shiba et al., 2009). However, in cystoid-type DME cases, while PVD induction alone seems to provide no benefit, adding ILM peeling may lead to a reduction of the macular edema and a better VA stabilization; in eyes with preexisting PVD, ILM peeling may actually increase the VA (Hoerauf et al., 2011). According to a nonrandomized study, a few factors may predict the therapeutic response to vitrectomy. Greater VA improvement was associated with worse baseline VA and epiretinal membrane removal. Greater reduction in macular thickness was associated with worse baseline VA, greater preoperative retinal thickness, removal of ILM, and vitreoretinal abnormalities (Flaxel et al., 2010). 8.4 Safety In surgery there is always a potential risk of complications. The most frequently reported complications related to vitrectomy, with or without ILM removal, are cataract formation (usually not evident before the 1st year), retinal tears, (rhegmatogenous) retinal detachments, epiretinal membrane formation, vitreous hemorrhage, cell flare in the anterior chamber, lamellar macular hole formation, hard exudates deposits in the center of the macula, glaucoma, choroidal detachment, fibrinoid syndrome, and macular ischemia (Bhagat et al., 2009; Stolba et al., 2005; Yanyali et al., 2005). The incidence of intra and postoperative complications does not seem to differ among the different techniques, except when triamcinolone acetonide is used, leading to an IOP increase (Shiba et al., 2009). As for the long term effects of mechanical injury of ILM peeling, surgical skills are very important, but the ILM staining long-term effects are still unknown. Indocyanine green dye is potentially toxic to the retina (Gandorfer et al., 2001; Haritoglou et al., 2001). Despite no toxicity reports with a 0.5 mg/ml dose in a minimum contact time, due to concerns, indocyanine green is no longer recommended to assist the ILM peeling. 9 Other potential pharmacological therapeutics Ruboxistaurin is a specific protein kinase C beta inhibitor and therefore leads to VEGFinduced leakage reduction. In an oral 32-mg/day dosage, it reduces the retinal vascular leakage, the progression to sight-threatening CSME and consequent rate of VA loss in eyes with severe DME. The clinical benefit may be more prominent in cases of severe macular edema (Aiello et al., 2007; Aiello et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2009; Strom et al., 2005). It is well tolerated, unlike multitarget kinase inhibitors, which are associated with more frequent adverse events (Campochiaro, 2004) Infliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody specific for human anti–tumor necrosis factor. The short-term outcomes of intravenous infliximab (5 mg/kg) in laser-refractory DME eyes, with severe VA impairment, are promising (Sfikakis et al., 2010). The safety is unknown; however,
postmarketing surveillance data in thousands of patients treated with infliximab for other conditions show an excellent safety profile (Sfikakis, 2010). There are some evidences that the intravitreal approach may not provide the same performance and may actually lead to more serious ocular adverse effects (Wu et al., 2011). Sirolimus, also known as rapamycin, is a macrolide that, in complex with the immunophilin FK binding protein 12, inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin, which is a key point of convergence for multiple intracellular regulatory pathways. This results, among others, in the inhibition of the expression and signaling of VEGF, inhibition of the activity of protein kinase C, and down regulation of the hypoxia-inducible factor 1α. The first randomized, dose-escalation study of sirolimus in DME patients suggests that both intraocular and subconjunctival injections (220 to 1760 µg) can provide therapeutic effects and are well-tolerated (Dugel et al., 2012). Due to potential surgical complications of vitrectomy, a few intravitreal drugs (such as autologous plasmin and tissue plasminogen activator) have been used to induce PVD without the need for vitrectomy. In diffuse DME, intravitreal autologous plasmin is able to reduce the macular thickening and improve VA, either as a primary treatment or in laser-refractory cases (Diaz-Llopis et al., 2009; Diaz-Llopis et al., 2008). The efficacy and toxicity is dose-dependent and a 0.4 IU dosage was demonstrated to be sufficient to separate the posterior vitreous cortex from the ILM without retinal toxicity (Azzolini et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2004). Intravitreal tissue plasminogen activator (25 µg) is able to induce PVD in patients with refractory DME, but without therapeutic benefit (Abrishami et al., 2011). However, the benefits from PVD induction are known to appear slowly and the study has a very short follow-up period, so it is expected that therapeutic responses may occur over time. Diclofenac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, inhibits the cyclooxygenase and lipooxygenase pathways. A recent report shows that short-term outcomes of intravenous diclofenac (500 µg) in diffuse DME eyes are promising, with comparable anatomical results to IVTA and no IOP increase. In 12 weeks, the functional improvement is lower compared with IVTA, but it is possible that with longer follow-up it may be at least identical (Elbendary and Shahin, 2011). Other drugs that also have shown interesting results are topical difluprednate eye drops (0.05%) (Nakano Goto et al., 2011; Nakano et al., 2010) and topical dexamethasone-cyclodextrin eye drops (Tanito et al., 2011). In addition, oral fenofibrate (200 mg/day) may be an adjuvant to photocoagulation, since it can reduce the need for laser treatment (Keech et al., 2007). 10 Conclusions and future directions This review tried to gather as much evidence as possible concerning the treatment of DME in an attempt to analyze the results of recently used therapies and, if possible, predict the future trends in the following years. The literature search method for this review was based on online Medline Pubmed database searches, the last one in January 2012. Randomized studies results, as the most reliable source of scientific evidence, were privileged. A meta-analysis is very difficult to perform, due to several limitations. Besides limitations inherent to short sample sizes and follow-up periods, there
Do, D.V., Schmidt-Erfurth, U., Gonzalez, V.H., Gordon, C.M., Tolentino, M., Berliner, A.J., Vitti, R., Ruckert, R., Sandbrink, R., Stein, D., Yang, K., Beckmann, K., Heier, J.S., 2011. The DA VINCI Study: phase 2 primary results of VEGF Trap-Eye in patients with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 118, 1819-1826. Doi, N., Sakamoto, T., Sonoda, Y., Yasuda, M., Yonemoto, K., Arimura, N., Uchino, E., Ishibashi, T., 2012. Comparative study of vitrectomy versus intravitreous triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema on randomized paired-eyes. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology 250, 71-78. Driot, J.Y., Novack, G.D., Rittenhouse, K.D., Milazzo, C., Pearson, P.A., 2004. Ocular pharmacokinetics of fluocinolone acetonide after Retisert intravitreal implantation in rabbits over a 1-year period. Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 20, 269-275. Dugel, P.U., Blumenkranz, M.S., Haller, J.A., Williams, G.A., Solley, W.A., Kleinman, D.M., Naor, J., 2012. A Randomized, Dose-Escalation Study of Subconjunctival and Intravitreal Injections of Sirolimus in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema. Ophthalmology 119, 124–131. Edelman, J.L., Lutz, D., Castro, M.R., 2005. Corticosteroids inhibit VEGF-induced vascular leakage in a rabbit model of blood-retinal and blood-aqueous barrier breakdown. Experimental eye research 80, 249-258. Ehrlich, R., Harris, A., Ciulla, T.A., Kheradiya, N., Winston, D.M., Wirostko, B., 2010. Diabetic macular oedema: physical, physiological and molecular factors contribute to this pathological process. Acta ophthalmologica 88, 279-291. Elbendary, A.M., Shahin, M.M., 2011. Intravitreal diclofenac versus intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Retina 31, 2058-2064. Elman, M.J., Aiello, L.P., Beck, R.W., Bressler, N.M., Bressler, S.B., Edwards, A.R., Ferris, F.L., 3rd, Friedman, S.M., Glassman, A.R., Miller, K.M., Scott, I.U., Stockdale, C.R., Sun, J.K., 2010. Randomized trial evaluating ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 117, 1064-1077 e1035. Elman, M.J., Bressler, N.M., Qin, H., Beck, R.W., Ferris, F.L., 3rd, Friedman, S.M., Glassman, A.R., Scott, I.U., Stockdale, C.R., Sun, J.K., 2011. Expanded 2-year follow-up of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 118, 609-614. Entezari, M., Ahmadieh, H., Dehghan, M.H., Ramezani, A., Bassirnia, N., Anissian, A., 2005. Posterior sub-tenon triamcinolone for refractory diabetic macular edema: a randomized clinical trial. European journal of ophthalmology 15, 746-750.
ETDRS, 1985. Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report number 1. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study research group. Archives of ophthalmology 103, 1796-1806. ETDRS, 1987. Treatment techniques and clinical guidelines for photocoagulation of diabetic macular edema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Report Number 2. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology 94, 761-774. Faghihi, H., Roohipoor, R., Mohammadi, S.F., Hojat-Jalali, K., Mirshahi, A., Lashay, A., Piri, N., Faghihi, S., 2008. Intravitreal bevacizumab versus combined bevacizumab-triamcinolone versus macular laser photocoagulation in diabetic macular edema. European journal of ophthalmology 18, 941-948. Fard, M.A., Yazdanei Abyane, A., Malihi, M., 2011. Prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema (thickening) after cataract surgery: prospective randomized study. European journal of ophthalmology 21, 276-281. Ferris, F.L., 3rd, Patz, A., 1984. Macular edema. A complication of diabetic retinopathy. Survey of ophthalmology 28 Suppl, 452-461. Figueira, J., Khan, J., Nunes, S., Sivaprasad, S., Rosa, A., de Abreu, J.F., Cunha-Vaz, J.G., Chong, N.V., 2009. Prospective randomised controlled trial comparing sub-threshold micropulse diode laser photocoagulation and conventional green laser for clinically significant diabetic macular oedema. The British journal of ophthalmology 93, 1341-1344. Figueroa, M.S., Contreras, I., Noval, S., 2008. Surgical and anatomical outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy for diffuse nontractional diabetic macular edema. Retina 28, 420-426. Flaxel, C.J., Edwards, A.R., Aiello, L.P., Arrigg, P.G., Beck, R.W., Bressler, N.M., Bressler, S.B., Ferris, F.L., 3rd, Gupta, S.K., Haller, J.A., Lazarus, H.S., Qin, H., 2010. Factors associated with visual acuity outcomes after vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema: diabetic retinopathy clinical research network. Retina 30, 1488-1495. Fong, D.S., Strauber, S.F., Aiello, L.P., Beck, R.W., Callanan, D.G., Danis, R.P., Davis, M.D., Feman, S.S., Ferris, F., Friedman, S.M., Garcia, C.A., Glassman, A.R., Han, D.P., Le, D., Kollman, C., Lauer, A.K., Recchia, F.M., Solomon, S.D., 2007. Comparison of the modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study and mild macular grid laser photocoagulation strategies for diabetic macular edema. Archives of ophthalmology 125, 469-480. Freeman, W.R., Green, R.L., Smith, R.E., 1987. Echographic localization of corticosteroids after periocular injection. American journal of ophthalmology 103, 281-288. Funatsu, H., Noma, H., Mimura, T., Eguchi, S., Hori, S., 2009. Association of vitreous inflammatory factors with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 116, 73-79. Gandorfer, A., Haritoglou, C., Gass, C.A., Ulbig, M.W., Kampik, A., 2001. Indocyanine green-assisted peeling of the internal limiting membrane may cause retinal damage. American journal of ophthalmology 132, 431-433.
Gibran, S.K., Khan, K., Jungkim, S., Cleary, P.E., 2007. Optical coherence tomographic pattern may predict visual outcome after intravitreal triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 114, 890-894. Gillies, M.C., McAllister, I.L., Zhu, M., Wong, W., Louis, D., Arnold, J.J., Wong, T.Y., 2010. Pretreatment with intravitreal triamcinolone before laser for diabetic macular edema: 6month results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 51, 2322-2328. Gillies, M.C., McAllister, I.L., Zhu, M., Wong, W., Louis, D., Arnold, J.J., Wong, T.Y., 2011. Intravitreal triamcinolone prior to laser treatment of diabetic macular edema: 24-month results of a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology 118, 866-872. Gillies, M.C., Simpson, J.M., Gaston, C., Hunt, G., Ali, H., Zhu, M., Sutter, F., 2009. Fiveyear results of a randomized trial with open-label extension of triamcinolone acetonide for refractory diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 116, 2182-2187. Gillies, M.C., Sutter, F.K., Simpson, J.M., Larsson, J., Ali, H., Zhu, M., 2006. Intravitreal triamcinolone for refractory diabetic macular edema: two-year results of a double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology 113, 1533-1538. Googe, J., Brucker, A.J., Bressler, N.M., Qin, H., Aiello, L.P., Antoszyk, A., Beck, R.W., Bressler, S.B., Ferris, F.L., 3rd, Glassman, A.R., Marcus, D., Stockdale, C.R., 2011. Randomized trial evaluating short-term effects of intravitreal ranibizumab or triamcinolone acetonide on macular edema after focal/grid laser for diabetic macular edema in eyes also receiving panretinal photocoagulation. Retina 31, 1009-1027. Gupta, V., Gupta, A., Kaur, R., Narang, S., Dogra, M.R., 2001. Efficacy of various laser wavelengths in the treatment of clinically significant macular edema in diabetics. Ophthalmic surgery and lasers 32, 397-405. Haller, J.A., Kuppermann, B.D., Blumenkranz, M.S., Williams, G.A., Weinberg, D.V., Chou, C., Whitcup, S.M., 2010. Randomized controlled trial of an intravitreous dexamethasone drug delivery system in patients with diabetic macular edema. Archives of ophthalmology 128, 289-296. Haritoglou, C., Gass, C.A., Schaumberger, M., Ehrt, O., Gandorfer, A., Kampik, A., 2001. Macular changes after peeling of the internal limiting membrane in macular hole surgery. American journal of ophthalmology 132, 363-368. Hauser, D., Bukelman, A., Pokroy, R., Katz, H., Len, A., Thein, R., Parness-Yossifon, R., Pollack, A., 2008. Intravitreal triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema: comparison of 1, 2, and 4 mg. Retina 28, 825-830. Hikichi, T., Fujio, N., Akiba, J., Azuma, Y., Takahashi, M., Yoshida, A., 1997. Association between the short-term natural history of diabetic macular edema and the vitreomacular relationship in type II diabetes mellitus. Ophthalmology 104, 473-478.
Hoerauf, H., Bruggemann, A., Muecke, M., Luke, J., Muller, M., Stefansson, E., Hammes, H.P., Weiss, C., 2011. Pars plana vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema. Internal limiting membrane delamination vs posterior hyaloid removal. A prospective randomized trial. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology 249, 997-1008. Holash, J., Davis, S., Papadopoulos, N., Croll, S.D., Ho, L., Russell, M., Boland, P., Leidich, R., Hylton, D., Burova, E., Ioffe, E., Huang, T., Radziejewski, C., Bailey, K., Fandl, J.P., Daly, T., Wiegand, S.J., Yancopoulos, G.D., Rudge, J.S., 2002. VEGF-Trap: a VEGF blocker with potent antitumor effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 11393-11398. Isaac, D.L., Abud, M.B., Frantz, K.A., Rassi, A.R., Avila, M., 2012. Comparing intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and bevacizumab injections for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema: a randomized double-blind study. Acta ophthalmologica 90, 56-60. Jaffe, G.J., Yang, C.H., Guo, H., Denny, J.P., Lima, C., Ashton, P., 2000. Safety and pharmacokinetics of an intraocular fluocinolone acetonide sustained delivery device. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 41, 3569-3575. Jain, A., Collen, J., Kaines, A., Hubschman, J.P., Schwartz, S., 2010. Short-duration focal pattern grid macular photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema: four-month outcomes. Retina 30, 1622-1626. Jonas, J.B., Kamppeter, B.A., Harder, B., Vossmerbaeumer, U., Sauder, G., Spandau, U.H., 2006. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for diabetic macular edema: a prospective, randomized study. Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 22, 200-207. Jonas, J.B., Kreissig, I., Degenring, R., 2003. Intraocular pressure after intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide. The British journal of ophthalmology 87, 24-27. Jonas, J.B., Martus, P., Degenring, R.F., Kreissig, I., Akkoyun, I., 2005. Predictive factors for visual acuity after intravitreal triamcinolone treatment for diabetic macular edema. Archives of ophthalmology 123, 1338-1343. Kang, S.W., Park, C.Y., Ham, D.I., 2004. The correlation between fluorescein angiographic and optical coherence tomographic features in clinically significant diabetic macular edema. American journal of ophthalmology 137, 313-322. Kang, S.W., Sa, H.S., Cho, H.Y., Kim, J.I., 2006. Macular grid photocoagulation after intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for diffuse diabetic macular edema. Archives of ophthalmology 124, 653-658. Keech, A.C., Mitchell, P., Summanen, P.A., O'Day, J., Davis, T.M., Moffitt, M.S., Taskinen, M.R., Simes, R.J., Tse, D., Williamson, E., Merrifield, A., Laatikainen, L.T., d'Emden, M.C., Crimet, D.C., O'Connell, R.L., Colman, P.G., 2007. Effect of fenofibrate on the need for
laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy (FIELD study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 370, 1687-1697. Khairallah, M., Brahim, R., Allagui, M., Chachia, N., 1996. Comparative effects of argon green and krypton red laser photocoagulation for patients with diabetic exudative maculopathy. The British journal of ophthalmology 80, 319-322. Kim, B.Y., Smith, S.D., Kaiser, P.K., 2006. Optical coherence tomographic patterns of diabetic macular edema. American journal of ophthalmology 142, 405-412. Kim, J.E., Pollack, J.S., Miller, D.G., Mittra, R.A., Spaide, R.F., 2008. ISIS-DME: a prospective, randomized, dose-escalation intravitreal steroid injection study for refractory diabetic macular edema. Retina 28, 735-740. Klein, R., Klein, B.E., Moss, S.E., Cruickshanks, K.J., 1995. The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy. XV. The long-term incidence of macular edema. Ophthalmology 102, 7-16. Klein, R., Klein, B.E., Moss, S.E., Cruickshanks, K.J., 1998. The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy: XVII. The 14-year incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy and associated risk factors in type 1 diabetes. Ophthalmology 105, 1801-1815. Klein, R., Knudtson, M.D., Lee, K.E., Gangnon, R., Klein, B.E., 2009a. The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy XXIII: the twenty-five-year incidence of macular edema in persons with type 1 diabetes. Ophthalmology 116, 497-503. Klein, R., Lee, K.E., Knudtson, M.D., Gangnon, R.E., Klein, B.E., 2009b. Changes in visual impairment prevalence by period of diagnosis of diabetes: the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy. Ophthalmology 116, 1937-1942. Koga, T., Mawatari, Y., Inumaru, J., Fukushima, M., Tanihara, H., 2005. Trans-Tenon's retrobulbar triamcinolone acetonide infusion for refractory diabetic macular edema after vitrectomy. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology 243, 1247-1252. Kook, D., Wolf, A., Kreutzer, T., Neubauer, A., Strauss, R., Ulbig, M., Kampik, A., Haritoglou, C., 2008. Long-term effect of intravitreal bevacizumab (avastin) in patients with chronic diffuse diabetic macular edema. Retina 28, 1053-1060. Kumagai, K., Furukawa, M., Ogino, N., Larson, E., Iwaki, M., Tachi, N., 2009. Long-term follow-up of vitrectomy for diffuse nontractional diabetic macular edema. Retina 29, 464-472. Kumar, A., Sinha, S., Azad, R., Sharma, Y.R., Vohra, R., 2007. Comparative evaluation of vitrectomy and dye-enhanced ILM peel with grid laser in diffuse diabetic macular edema. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology 245, 360-368. Kumar, V., Ghosh, B., Mehta, D.K., Goel, N., 2010. Functional outcome of subthreshold versus threshold diode laser photocoagulation in diabetic macular oedema. Eye (Lond) 24, 14591465.
Kuo, H.K., Wu, P.C., Chen, Y.H., Cheng, L.S., 2009. Laser photocoagulation combined with subtenon injection of triamcinolone acetonide for diabetic cystoid macular edema. Chang Gung medical journal 32, 172-181. Ladas, I.D., Theodossiadis, G.P., 1993. Long-term effectiveness of modified grid laser photocoagulation for diffuse diabetic macular edema. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 71, 393-397. Laidlaw, D.A., 2008. Vitrectomy for diabetic macular oedema. Eye (Lond) 22, 1337-1341. Lam, D.S., Chan, C.K., Mohamed, S., Lai, T.Y., Lee, V.Y., Liu, D.T., Li, K.K., Li, P.S., Shanmugam, M.P., 2007a. Intravitreal triamcinolone plus sequential grid laser versus triamcinolone or laser alone for treating diabetic macular edema: six-month outcomes. Ophthalmology 114, 2162-2167. Lam, D.S., Chan, C.K., Mohamed, S., Lai, T.Y., Li, K.K., Li, P.S., Tsang, C.W., Chan, W.M., Shanmugam, M.P., 2007b. A prospective randomised trial of different doses of intravitreal triamcinolone for diabetic macular oedema. The British journal of ophthalmology 91, 199-203. Lam, D.S., Lai, T.Y., Lee, V.Y., Chan, C.K., Liu, D.T., Mohamed, S., Li, C.L., 2009. Efficacy of 1.25 MG versus 2.5 MG intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema: sixmonth results of a randomized controlled trial. Retina 29, 292-299. Lanzagorta-Aresti, A., Palacios-Pozo, E., Menezo Rozalen, J.L., Navea-Tejerina, A., 2009. Prevention of vision loss after cataract surgery in diabetic macular edema with intravitreal bevacizumab: a pilot study. Retina 29, 530-535. Larsson, J., Kifley, A., Zhu, M., Wang, J.J., Mitchell, P., Sutter, F.K., Gillies, M.C., 2009. Rapid reduction of hard exudates in eyes with diabetic retinopathy after intravitreal triamcinolone: data from a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Acta ophthalmologica 87, 275-280. Laursen, M.L., Moeller, F., Sander, B., Sjoelie, A.K., 2004. Subthreshold micropulse diode laser treatment in diabetic macular oedema. The British journal of ophthalmology 88, 1173-1179. Lavinsky, D., Cardillo, J.A., Melo, L.A., Jr., Dare, A., Farah, M.E., Belfort, R., Jr., 2011. Randomized clinical trial evaluating mETDRS versus normal or high-density micropulse photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 52, 4314-4323. Lee, H.Y., Lee, S.Y., Park, J.S., 2009. Comparison of photocoagulation with combined intravitreal triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema. Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO 23, 153-158. Lewis, H., Abrams, G.W., Blumenkranz, M.S., Campo, R.V., 1992. Vitrectomy for diabetic macular traction and edema associated with posterior hyaloidal traction. Ophthalmology 99, 753-759. Lim, J.W., Lee, H.K., Shin, M.C., 2012. Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab alone or combined with triamcinolone versus triamcinolone in diabetic macular edema: a randomized
clinical trial. Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde 227, 100-106. Loftus, J.V., Sultan, M.B., Pleil, A.M., 2011. Changes in visionand health-related quality of life in patients with diabetic macular edema treated with pegaptanib sodium or sham. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 52, 7498-7505. Maia, O.O., Jr., Takahashi, B.S., Costa, R.A., Scott, I.U., Takahashi, W.Y., 2009. Combined laser and intravitreal triamcinolone for proliferative diabetic retinopathy and macular edema: one-year results of a randomized clinical trial. American journal of ophthalmology 147, 291-297 e292. Marey, H.M., Ellakwa, A.F., 2011. Intravitreal bevacizumab alone or combined with triamcinolone acetonide as the primary treatment for diabetic macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol 5, 1011-1016. Martidis, A., Duker, J.S., Greenberg, P.B., Rogers, A.H., Puliafito, C.A., Reichel, E., Baumal, C., 2002. Intravitreal triamcinolone for refractory diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 109, 920-927. Massin, P., Bandello, F., Garweg, J.G., Hansen, L.L., Harding, S.P., Larsen, M., Mitchell, P., Sharp, D., Wolf-Schnurrbusch, U.E., Gekkieva, M., Weichselberger, A., Wolf, S., 2010. Safety and efficacy of ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema (RESOLVE Study): a 12-month, randomized, controlled, double-masked, multicenter phase II study. Diabetes care 33, 2399-2405. Matsumoto, M., Yoshimura, N., Honda, Y., 1994. Increased production of transforming growth factor-beta 2 from cultured human retinal pigment epithelial cells by photocoagulation. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 35, 4245-4252. Michaelides, M., Kaines, A., Hamilton, R.D., Fraser-Bell, S., Rajendram, R., Quhill, F., Boos, C.J., Xing, W., Egan, C., Peto, T., Bunce, C., Leslie, R.D., Hykin, P.G., 2010. A prospective randomized trial of intravitreal bevacizumab or laser therapy in the management of diabetic macular edema (BOLT study) 12-month data: report 2. Ophthalmology 117, 1078-1086 e1072. Mirshahi, A., Shenazandi, H., Lashay, A., Faghihi, H., Alimahmoudi, A., Dianat, S., 2010. Intravitreal triamcinolone as an adjunct to standard laser therapy in coexisting high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy and clinically significant macular edema. Retina 30, 254-259. Mitchell, P., Bandello, F., Schmidt-Erfurth, U., Lang, G.E., Massin, P., Schlingemann, R.O., Sutter, F., Simader, C., Burian, G., Gerstner, O., Weichselberger, A., 2011. The RESTORE study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 118, 615-625. Mochizuki, Y., Hata, Y., Enaida, H., Yoshiyama, K., Miyazaki, M., Ueno, A., Murata, T., Sakamoto, T., Kubota, T., Ishibashi, T., 2006. Evaluating adjunctive surgical procedures during vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema. Retina 26, 143-148.
Mohamed, S., Leung, G.M., Chan, C.K., Lai, T.Y., Lee, V.Y., Liu, D.T., Li, K.K., Li, P.S., Lam, D.S., 2009. Factors associated with variability in response of diabetic macular oedema after intravitreal triamcinolone. Clinical & experimental ophthalmology 37, 602-608. Mueller, A.J., Jian, G., Banker, A.S., Rahhal, F.M., Capparelli, E., Freeman, W.R., 1998. The effect of deep posterior subtenon injection of corticosteroids on intraocular pressure. American journal of ophthalmology 125, 158-163. Muqit, M.M., Gray, J.C., Marcellino, G.R., Henson, D.B., Young, L.B., Patton, N., Charles, S.J., Turner, G.S., Stanga, P.E., 2010. Barely visible 10-millisecond pascal laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema: observations of clinical effect and burn localization. American journal of ophthalmology 149, 979-986 e972. Nakano Goto, S., Yamamoto, T., Kirii, E., Abe, S., Yamashita, H., 2011. Treatment of diffuse diabetic macular oedema using steroid eye drops. Acta ophthalmologica. Nakano, S., Yamamoto, T., Kirii, E., Abe, S., Yamashita, H., 2010. Steroid eye drop treatment (difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion) is effective in reducing refractory diabetic macular edema. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology 248, 805-810. Narayan, K.M., Boyle, J.P., Geiss, L.S., Saaddine, J.B., Thompson, T.J., 2006. Impact of recent increase in incidence on future diabetes burden: U.S., 2005-2050. Diabetes care 29, 21142116. Nasrallah, F.P., Jalkh, A.E., Van Coppenolle, F., Kado, M., Trempe, C.L., McMeel, J.W., Schepens, C.L., 1988. The role of the vitreous in diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 95, 1335-1339. Network, D.R.C.R., 2008. A randomized trial comparing intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and focal/grid photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 115, 14471449, 1449 e1441-1410. Nguyen, Q.D., Shah, S.M., Heier, J.S., Do, D.V., Lim, J., Boyer, D., Abraham, P., Campochiaro, P.A., 2009. Primary End Point (Six Months) Results of the Ranibizumab for Edema of the mAcula in diabetes (READ-2) study. Ophthalmology 116, 2175-2181 e2171. Nguyen, Q.D., Shah, S.M., Khwaja, A.A., Channa, R., Hatef, E., Do, D.V., Boyer, D., Heier, J.S., Abraham, P., Thach, A.B., Lit, E.S., Foster, B.S., Kruger, E., Dugel, P., Chang, T., Das, A., Ciulla, T.A., Pollack, J.S., Lim, J.I., Eliott, D., Campochiaro, P.A., 2010. Two-year outcomes of the ranibizumab for edema of the mAcula in diabetes (READ-2) study. Ophthalmology 117, 2146-2151. Norlaili, M., Bakiah, S., Zunaina, E., 2011. Intravitreal triamcinolone versus laser photocoagulation as a primary treatment for diabetic macular oedema - a comparative pilot study. BMC ophthalmology 11, 36.
Ockrim, Z.K., Sivaprasad, S., Falk, S., Roghani, S., Bunce, C., Gregor, Z., Hykin, P., 2008. Intravitreal triamcinolone versus laser photocoagulation for persistent diabetic macular oedema. The British journal of ophthalmology 92, 795-799. Ogata, N., Tombran-Tink, J., Jo, N., Mrazek, D., Matsumura, M., 2001. Upregulation of pigment epithelium-derived factor after laser photocoagulation. American journal of ophthalmology 132, 427-429. Olk, R.J., 1986. Modified grid argon (blue-green) laser photocoagulation for diffuse diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 93, 938-950. Olk, R.J., 1990. Argon green (514 nm) versus krypton red (647 nm) modified grid laser photocoagulation for diffuse diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 97, 1101-1112; discussion 1112-1103. Otani, T., Kishi, S., Maruyama, Y., 1999. Patterns of diabetic macular edema with optical coherence tomography. American journal of ophthalmology 127, 688-693. Ozdemir, H., Karacorlu, M., Karacorlu, S.A., 2005. Regression of serous macular detachment after intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide in patients with diabetic macular edema. American journal of ophthalmology 140, 251-255. Ozturk, B.T., Kerimoglu, H., Bozkurt, B., Okudan, S., 2011. Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab treatment for diabetic macular edema. Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 27, 373-377. Paccola, L., Costa, R.A., Folgosa, M.S., Barbosa, J.C., Scott, I.U., Jorge, R., 2008. Intravitreal triamcinolone versus bevacizumab for treatment of refractory diabetic macular oedema (IBEME study). The British journal of ophthalmology 92, 76-80. Patel, J.I., Hykin, P.G., Schadt, M., Luong, V., Bunce, C., Fitzke, F., Gregor, Z.J., 2006a. Diabetic macular oedema: pilot randomised trial of pars plana vitrectomy vs macular argon photocoagulation. Eye (Lond) 20, 873-881. Patel, J.I., Hykin, P.G., Schadt, M., Luong, V., Fitzke, F., Gregor, Z.J., 2006b. Pars plana vitrectomy with and without peeling of the inner limiting membrane for diabetic macular edema. Retina 26, 5-13. Pearson, P.A., Comstock, T.L., Ip, M., Callanan, D., Morse, L.S., Ashton, P., Levy, B., Mann, E.S., Eliott, D., 2011. Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema: a 3-year multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Ophthalmology 118, 1580-1587. Querques, G., Bux, A.V., Fusco, A.R., Iaculli, C., Delle Noci, N., 2009a. Pegaptanib Sodium versus Pegaptanib Sodium Combined with Macular Laser Photocoagulation or Laser Alone for Diabetic Macular Edema. Journal of ophthalmology 2009, 672178.
Querques, G., Bux, A.V., Martinelli, D., Iaculli, C., Del Curatolo, M.V., Delle Noci, N., 2009b. Short-term fluctuation of diabetic macular edema after intravitreal ranibizumab injection. Retina 29, 1274-1281. Saravia, M., 2011. Persistent diffuse diabetic macular edema. The role of the internal limiting membrane as a selective membrane: the oncotic theory. Medical hypotheses 76, 858-860. Sato, H., Naito, T., Matsushita, S., Takebayashi, M., Shiota, H., 2008. Efficacy of subTenon's capsule injection of triamcinolone acetonide for refractory diabetic macular edema after vitrectomy. The journal of medical investigation : JMI 55, 279-282. Scott, I.U., Edwards, A.R., Beck, R.W., Bressler, N.M., Chan, C.K., Elman, M.J., Friedman, S.M., Greven, C.M., Maturi, R.K., Pieramici, D.J., Shami, M., Singerman, L.J., Stockdale, C.R., 2007. A phase II randomized clinical trial of intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 114, 1860-1867. Sears, J.E., Hoppe, G., 2005. Triamcinolone acetonide destabilizes VEGF mRNA in Muller cells under continuous cobalt stimulation. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 46, 43364341. Sfikakis, P.P., 2010. The first decade of biologic TNF antagonists in clinical practice: lessons learned, unresolved issues and future directions. Current directions in autoimmunity 11, 180-210. Sfikakis, P.P., Grigoropoulos, V., Emfietzoglou, I., Theodossiadis, G., Tentolouris, N., Delicha, E., Katsiari, C., Alexiadou, K., Hatziagelaki, E., Theodossiadis, P.G., 2010. Infliximab for diabetic macular edema refractory to laser photocoagulation: a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, crossover, 32-week study. Diabetes care 33, 1523-1528. Shahin, M.M., El-Lakkany, R.S., 2010. A prospective, randomized comparison of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide versus intravitreal bevacizumab (avastin) in diffuse diabetic macular edema. Middle East African journal of ophthalmology 17, 250-253. Shiba, T., Kamura, Y., Yagi, F., Sato, Y., 2009. Comparison of surgical procedures for vitreous surgery in diabetic macular edema. Japanese journal of ophthalmology 53, 120-124. Shimonagano, Y., Doi, N., Noda, Y., Uemura, A., Sakamoto, T., 2007a. Recurrence of diabetic macular edema after intravitreous injection of triamcinolone following vitrectomy. Japanese journal of ophthalmology 51, 278-284. Shimonagano, Y., Makiuchi, R., Miyazaki, M., Doi, N., Uemura, A., Sakamoto, T., 2007b. Results of visual acuity and foveal thickness in diabetic macular edema after vitrectomy. Japanese journal of ophthalmology 51, 204-209. Shimura, M., Yasuda, K., Nakazawa, T., Shiono, T., Sakamoto, T., Nishida, K., 2009. Drug reflux during posterior subtenon infusion of triamcinolone acetonide in diffuse diabetic macular edema not only brings insufficient reduction but also causes elevation of intraocular pressure. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology 247, 907-912.
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
0;&:*-68D*-50&6*8B0/> HD #1 1 2$ .$#"$ 65 $'$+"+11#"111'"#O 2!+"+1112&<0"O /03@/"# 0 3 A+"+11 1"# - 4 # # ($ $ " $ ! "0$"""#!"""$#"" $ $"""!" &" "# !$!"# "" "$ 0$#!"$"" " !M 6$"$## $% "!!$ ##!!#"!##$#E!5C #!$$"" !$ 4 <$ % $3 7 +"+11 #B$MM"$ !+$ "!#!#"##)#&" $! E")$D# $ $$ "+11 #1)$ 8+ # # " !" '$% !"" "!"!" "! " 4 $##$" $ ! " 3$#!!!"$"$"$ %"" $#% )$%$ #3$#!$ $"" !$ 4<$ % $ 3 7 + "+11 # 6 $ " $ $# # $%" ! $ ##!!#0$""$ $#"# !#""" $ ! "! D# $ $ ) $ "+11 #1)$ , &"!$!$$"! " )! "'$ !B $"L$!0$"!!$"!# #$!-'!!-,"++"8#)!&' #!/ *$""" $"" + Q4# QD$ Q&"!$# 0 !"$% + Q> Q0!$ Q0@ $% %!A D$" Q5$ "M " )MM## " )M Q-! " !#!"'$ Q0! #"-! "% QB#"!$! "#!#"$ @ $"<A Q/!$ #)! $ "<@!! "A %$ "<@!! "A )" Q6! "<($% )"!"!$$! $ D!$"!#$ $#$"+11$ #
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