RESUMO
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with and without previous vitrectomy. The medical records of 28 eyes (11 vitrectomized and 17 nonvitrectomized) of 28 patients (mean age, 59.0 ± 9.6 years; male to female ratio 1 : 1) who were diagnosed with DME and had received IVR treatment were reviewed retrospectively. The indications of vitrectomy in 11 vitrectomized eyes were intravitreal hemorrhage (n = 8) and epiretinal membrane (n = 3). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and total macular volume (TMV) were measured at baseline and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of the follow-up. The number of IVR injections, the duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injection, and the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at baseline were also recorded. Baseline demographics, HbA1c, BCVA, CMT, and TMV values were similar between two groups (p > 0.05). The duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injections was similar in both groups (16 ± 5 months vs. 13 ± 4 months, respectively; p=0.11). IVR injection was performed 6.3 times in vitrectomized eyes and 6.1 times in nonvitrectomized eyes during the 24-month period (p > 0.05). The mean BCVA improved significantly during the 24-month period in both groups. The improvements in BCVA, in CMT, and in TMV were more significant at month 6 (p=0.036) group, at month 12 (p=0.013), at month 12 (p=0.021), and month 24 (p=0.021) in nonvitrectomized eyes, respectively, while there was no difference in improvements of BCVA, CMT, and TMV in vitrectomized group at each visit. Treatment effected by time in terms of BCVA, CMT, and TMV values in all groups (p=0.0004, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, respectively), not by time-group interaction and group (all p values >0.05). In conclusion, IVR treatment for DME is equally effective in both groups. However, the response to treatment is seen earlier in nonvitrectomized eyes compared to vitrectomized eyes.
RESUMO
Objective: To report a case of acquired reactive perforating collagenosis (ARPC) triggered by an intravitreal ranibizumab injection that was successfully treated by switching to aflibercept (AFL). Methods: A 73-year-old Caucasian man with an occult choroidal neovascular membrane in the right eye received three-monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injections. Two weeks after the second ranibizumab injection, he complained about a generalized, excessively pruriginous eruption that was further exacerbated by the third injection. On the basis of clinical and histological findings, he was diagnosed with ARPC and treated with narrow band ultraviolet-B (NBUVB) phototherapy. Results: He was subsequently switched to intravitreal AFL injections administered according to a pro re nata regimen. Following NBUVB phototherapy, three additional AFL injections were required. Still, the reactive perforating collagenosis was in remission and the choroidal neovascular membrane was inactive. Conclusions: Our case is the first report of ARPC after ranibizumab injections. Both the skin lesions and the choroidal neovascular membrane were successfully treated after switching to AFL.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implants as mono or combination therapy for macular edema in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) with real-life conditions, and to detect factors that influence final visual acuity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five eyes with macular edema secondary to RVO underwent assessments for central macular thickness (CMT), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), adverse events, and also morphologic changes in optical coherence tomography at an interval of 4-8 weeks after at least one DEX implant. RESULTS: Seventeen eyes with branch RVO and 8 eyes with central RVO were eligible for the study. The mean follow-up duration was 17 months (range, 12-26 months). Both mean BCVA (p=0.009) and CMT (p=0.006) improved significantly, and visual gains of ≥3 lines were achieved in 32% and ≥2 lines in 52% at the end of the follow-up period. The most powerful individual predictor of final visual acuity was baseline BCVA (r2=0.611, p<0.001, stepwise multiple regression), but the most efficient model was the combination of the ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity and baseline BCVA (r2=0.766, p<0.001, stepwise multiple regression). Complication rates were very low after repeated DEX implants. CONCLUSION: DEX implant seems to be an effective and safe treatment for macular edema in RVO despite negative real-life factors, and visual outcomes are associated with baseline visual acuity and EZ integrity.