RESUMO
Objective: To assess the efficacy of simvastatin 80 mg/day versus placebo in patients with noninfectious nonanterior uveitis receiving prednisolone ≥ 10 mg/day. Design: Randomized, double-masked, controlled trial. Subjects: Adult patients with noninfectious nonanterior uveitis on oral prednisolone dose of ≥ 10 mg/day. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive either simvastatin 80 mg/day or placebo. A total of 32 patients were enrolled (16 in each arm), all of whom completed the primary end point, and 21 reached the 2-year visit (secondary end points). Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was mean reduction in the daily prednisolone dose at 12 months follow-up. Secondary end points were mean reduction in prednisolone dose at 24 months, percent of patients with a reduction in second-line immunomodulatory agents, time to disease relapse, and adverse events. Results: Our results show that simvastatin 80 mg/day did not have a significant corticosteroid-sparing effect at 12 months (estimate: 3.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.15 to 15.38; P = 0.54). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to prednisolone dose or change in dose at 12 and 24 months. There was no difference between the 2 groups in percent of patients with reduction in second-line agent by 24 months. Among patients who achieved disease quiescence, the median time to first relapse was longer for those receiving simvastatin (38 weeks, 95% CI: 14-54) than placebo (14 weeks, 95% CI: 12-52), although this was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in adverse events or serious adverse events between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Simvastatin 80 mg/day did not have an effect on the dose reduction of corticosteroids or conventional immunomodulatory drugs at 1 and 2 years. The results suggest that it may extend the time to disease relapse among those who achieve disease quiescence. Financial Disclosures: The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
RESUMO
In the United Arab Emirates, retinopathy has been shown to be present in 19% of the diabetic population, with diabetes identified in up to 40% of individuals aged over 55 years. Despite the prevalence of diabetic retinal diseases, there are no unified national guidelines on the management of diabetic macular edema (DME). These published guidelines are based on evidence taken from the literature and published trials of therapies, and consensus opinion of a representative expert panel with an interest in this condition, convened by the Emirates Society of Ophthalmology. The aim is to provide evidence-based, clinical guidance for the best management of different aspects of DME, with a special focus on vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Treatment should be initiated in patients with best-corrected visual acuity 20/30 or worse, and/or features of DME as seen on optical coherence tomography (OCT) with central retinal thickness (CRT) of at least 300 µm or in symptomatic patients with vision better than 20/25, and/or CRT less than 300 µm where there are OCT features consistent with center-involving macular edema. The treatment of DME is effective irrespective of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, and treatment must not be denied or delayed in order to optimize systemic parameters. All ophthalmic treatment options should be discussed with the patient for better compliance and expectations. Non-center-involving DME can be initially observed until progression toward the center is documented. Macular laser no longer has a primary role in center-involving DME, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy should be considered as first-line treatment for all patients, unless contraindicated. If anti-VEGF is contraindicated, a steroid dexamethasone implant can be considered for first-line treatment. Recommendations for the treatment of DME in special circumstances and in relapsing and refractory DME are also discussed.