RESUMEN
The aim of this study was the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of unilateral subretinal injection of the adeno-associated vector (AAV) serotypes 2 and 4 (AAV2/4) RPE65-RPE65 vector in patients with Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) associated with RPE65 gene deficiency. We evaluated ocular and general tolerance and visual function up to 1 year after vector administration in the most severely affected eye in nine patients with retinal degeneration associated with mutations in the RPE65 gene. Patients received either low (1.22 × 1010 to 2 × 1010 vector genomes [vg]) or high (between 3.27 × 1010 and 4.8 × 1010 vg) vector doses. An ancillary study, in which six of the original nine patients participated, extended the follow-up period to 2-3.5 years. All patients showed good ophthalmological and general tolerance to the rAAV2/4-RPE65-RPE65 vector. We observed a trend toward improved visual acuity in patients with nystagmus, stabilization and improvement of the visual field, and cortical activation along visual pathways during fMRI analysis. OCT analysis after vector administration revealed no retinal thinning, except in cases of macular detachment. Our findings show that the rAAV2/4.RPE65.RPE65 vector was well tolerated in nine patients with RPE65-associated LCA. Efficacy parameters varied between patients during follow-up.
Asunto(s)
Dependovirus/genética , Terapia Genética , Vectores Genéticos/genética , Amaurosis Congénita de Leber/genética , cis-trans-Isomerasas/genética , Adolescente , Adulto , Análisis de Varianza , Niño , Estudios de Seguimiento , Terapia Genética/métodos , Humanos , Amaurosis Congénita de Leber/diagnóstico , Amaurosis Congénita de Leber/metabolismo , Amaurosis Congénita de Leber/terapia , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Tomografía de Coherencia Óptica , Campos Visuales , Adulto Joven , cis-trans-Isomerasas/metabolismoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: After idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) removal, it is unclear whether the internal limiting membrane (ILM) should be removed. The objective was to assess if active ILM peeling after iERM removal could induce microscotomas. METHODS: The PEELING study is a national randomised clinical trial. When no spontaneous ILM peeling occurred, patients were randomised either to the ILM peeling or no ILM peeling group. Groups were compared at the month 1 (M1), M6 and M12 visits in terms of microperimetry, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography findings. The primary outcome was the difference in microscotoma number between baseline and M6. RESULTS: 213 patients were included, 101 experienced spontaneous ILM peeling and 100 were randomised to the ILM peeling (n=51) or no ILM peeling group (n=49). The difference in microscotoma number between both groups was significant at M1 (3.9 more microscotomas in ILM peeling group, (0.8;7.0) p=0.0155) but not at M6 (2.1 more microscotomas in ILM peeling group (-0.5;4.7) p=0.1155). Only in the no ILM peeling group, the number of microscotomas significantly decreased and the mean retinal sensitivity significantly improved. The ERM recurred in nine patients in the no ILM peeling group (19.6%) versus zero in the ILM peeling group (p=0.0008): two of them underwent revision surgery. There was no difference in mean BCVA and microperimetry between patients experiencing or not a recurrence at M12. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous ILM peeling is very common. Active ILM peeling prevents anatomical ERM recurrence but may induce retinal impairments and delay visual recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02146144.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Cataract surgery is the most common surgical procedure performed in France. While the incidence of intraoperative complications affecting visual prognosis is extremely low, given the large number of patients operated on, the absolute number of patients affected by complications is quite high. Complication rates are significantly higher when ophthalmology residents (ORs) perform the surgery. Although lack of experience remains the main risk factor, sleep deprivation may adversely affect ORs' successful surgery rate. The value of the EyeSi® surgical simulator in initial training has been demonstrated to increase cataract surgery safety through the transfer of surgical skills from the simulator to the operating room. However, there is no consensus regarding how much training is needed before the first-time ORs are allowed to operate. There is also no scientific evidence that sleep deprivation is associated with a decrease in surgical performance. Establishing a validated protocol for cataract surgery training using the EyeSi surgical simulator (referred to further as the EyeSi) and identifying risk factors for intraoperative complications related to sleep deprivation will improve cataract surgery safety and lead to the reorganization of our healthcare systems. METHODS AND PLANNED OUTCOMES: This multi-centre educational cohort study will include two distinct axes which will both aim to reduce the risks of cataract surgery. Enrollment will include 16 first-year ORs for Axis 1 and 25 experienced residents for Axis 2, all from the University Hospitals of Nantes, Tours, Angers and Rennes. Axis 1 will focus on investigating the learning curve of first-year ORs using the EyeSi, following the training program recommended by the "College des Ophtalmologistes Universitaires de France" in order to set up a future "licence to operate." Axis 2 will evaluate the impact of sleep deprivation on the surgical performance of experienced ORs using the EyeSi. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT05722080.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The epiretinal membrane (ERM) is a degenerative condition associated with age, which can cause loss of vision and/or metamorphopsia. The treatment of symptomatic ERM involves surgical removal including a vitrectomy followed by peeling of the ERM using a microforceps. As the internal limiting membrane (ILM) is adherent to the ERM, it is sometimes removed with it (spontaneous peeling). If ILM remains in place, it can be removed to reduce ERM recurrence. However, it is important to clarify the safety of ILM peeling, while it increases surgical risks and cause histological disorganization of the retina that can lead to microscotomas, may be responsible for definitive visual discomfort. METHODS: PEELING is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, and multicentered trial with two parallel arms. This study investigates the benefit/risk ratio of active ILM peeling among individuals undergoing ERM surgery without spontaneous ILM peeling. Randomization is done in the operating room after ERM removal if ILM remains in place. After randomization, the two groups-"active peeling of the ILM" and "no peeling of the ILM"-are compared during a total of three follow-up visits scheduled at month 1, month 6, and month 12. Primary endpoint is the difference in microscotomas before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Patients with spontaneous peeling are not randomized and are included in the ancillary study with the same follow-up visits and the same examinations as the principal study. Relevant inclusion criteria involve individuals aged > 18 years living with idiopathic symptomatic ERM, including pseudophakic patients with transparent posterior capsule or open capsule or lensed patients with age-related cataracts. The calculated sample size corresponds to 53 randomized eyes (one eye/patient) per arm that means 106 randomized eyes (106 randomized patients) in total and a maximum of 222 included patients (116 spontaneous peeling). DISCUSSION: ILM peeling is often practiced in ERM surgery to reduce ERM recurrence. It does not impair postoperative visual acuity, but it increases the surgical risks and causes anatomical damages. If active ILM peeling is significantly associated with more microscotomas, it may contraindicate the ILM peeling during primitive idiopathic ERM surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02146144. Registered on 22 May 2014. Recruitment is still ongoing.
Asunto(s)
Membrana Epirretinal/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Oftalmológicos/efectos adversos , Escotoma/etiología , Campos Visuales , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Estudios Prospectivos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Escotoma/diagnóstico , Escotoma/fisiopatología , Método Simple Ciego , Tomografía de Coherencia Óptica , Agudeza Visual/fisiología , Pruebas del Campo Visual , VitrectomíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Whether they are injected peri- or intraocularly, corticosteroids are still essential tools in the therapeutic arsenal for treating inflammatory macular oedema. A few years ago, however, only triamcinolone acetonide was available to ophthalmologists. While this compound was initially developed for rheumatological or dermatological use, it has been increasingly deployed in ophthalmology, despite still being off-label. In 2011, the system for delivery of dexamethasone from a biodegradable, injectable implant into the vitreous cavity obtained approval for use in inflammatory macular oedema. While the efficacy and safety of triamcinolone in macular oedema, including inflammatory oedema, have already been studied, there are currently no publications on subconjunctival triamcinolone injections, which are simple, effective and well tolerated. To date, the dexamethasone 700 µg implant has been authorized for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis, but there have been no studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different peri- and intraocular strategies, including the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. METHODS: This protocol is therefore designed to compare the efficacy and safety of peri- and intraocular corticosteroid injections in the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. In this ongoing study, 142 patients will be included, and the oedematous eye will be randomised to treatment with either subconjunctival triamcinolone injection or an intravitreal implant containing 700 µg dexamethasone. Follow-up is planned for 6 months with monthly visits. Each visit will include visual acuity measurement, a slit lamp examination, fundoscopy, intraocular pressure measurement, laser flare measurement (if available) and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will have a real impact on public health if it is shown that a Kenacort retard® (i.e. triamcinolone) injection costing just 2.84 and performed in the physician's office (with no additional overhead costs) is at least as effective as the dexamethasone 700 µg implant (Ozurdex®; costing approximately 960 with the injection performed in a dedicated room), with no increased side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02556424. Registered on 22 September 2015.