Search

Aims: In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the effectiveness of serum amino-terminal proCNP (NT-proCNP) levels in predicting coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients., Methods: We recruited 73 patients with T2DM in the study. Additionally, we grouped the patients according to their status of diabetic retinopathy (DR) as no DR, non-proliferative DR, or proliferative DR. Serum NT-proCNP levels of the patients were measured and their atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk scores were calculated., Results: There was no significant difference in terms of NT-proCNP levels between the groups (p = 0.3) and in terms of CHD and ASCVD risk scores (p = 0.4 and p = 0.4, respectively). In the correlation analysis, a significant correlation was observed between the NT-proCNP levels and the ASCVD risk score (r = 0.373; p = 0.008 among the entire cohort and r = 0.555; p = 0.01 in the non-proliferative-DR group), smoking status (r = 0.280; p = 0.03 among the entire cohort and r = 0.362; p = 0.035 in the non-proliferative-DR group), sBP (r = 0.278; p = 0.038 among the entire cohort), and dBP (r = 0.284; p = 0.034 among the entire cohort and r = 0.482; p = 0.004 in the proliferative-DR group). In the ROC analysis, we found that the NT-proCNP level predicted a high ASCVD risk score with 83.3% sensitivity and 70.8% specificity and a very high ASCVD risk score with 100% sensitivity and 69.2% specificity among the proliferative-DR patients. No cut-off value was calculated for the prediction of high and very-high ASCVD risk scores in patients with non-proliferative DR. Similarly, no cut-off value was revealed for the prediction of established coronary artery disease in all groups., Conclusions: Our study revealed a significant association between NT-proCNP levels and high ASCVD risk scores in patients with proliferative DR., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: We aimed to compare visual and anatomical outcome in vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes treated with dexamethasone (DEX) implant due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO)., Design: Multicenter, retrospective, interventional study., Participants: 236 eyes from 234 patients with DMO with or without previous vitrectomy performed with follow-up of 12 months., Methods: Records were reviewed for cases of DMO treated with DEX implant in vitrectomized and not vitrectomized eyes. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfoveal thickness (CST), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded at baseline and 12 months after treatment with DEX implants. Correlations between vitreous status and visual and anatomical outcome, as well as safety profile were analysed., Main Outcome Measures: BCVA and CST over follow-up period., Secondary Outcomes: cataract rate formation, intraocular pressure increase, number of implants needed., Results: The non-vitrectomized group included 130 eyes (55.1%), the vitrectomized group included 106 eyes (44.9%). The groups were well balanced for age and gender (p = 0.540, and p = 0.053, respectively). Both groups showed statistically significant improvement in BCVA and CST (for all groups: p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of change in vision (p = 0.89) and anatomy (p = 0.65). The mean number of DEX implants given during follow-up was 3.5 in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.81)., Conclusion: We demonstrated similar anatomical and functional efficacy of DEX implant in non-vitrectomized and vitrectomized eyes. Its efficacy was not influenced by full vitrectomy for diabetic retinopathy complications. Safety profile was well balanced between groups., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.)

To analyze functional and anatomical response patterns to dexamethasone (DEX) implant in diabetic macular edema (DME), to describe proportion of responders and non-responders, and to propose a new DME grading system. Retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study. Naïve and non-naïve DME patients were treated with DEX, with visual acuity (VA) ≥ 0.2 logMAR and central subfield thickness (CST) of ≥ 300 µm. Functional and anatomical responses were graded after 2 and 4 months, and categorized as early and stable improvement, early and progressive improvement, pendular response, delayed improvement, and persistent non-response. 417 eyes were included (175 treatment naïve eyes). Compared to non-naïve eyes, naïve eyes showed a very good functional response (VA gain ≥ 10 letters) more frequently after 2 and 4 months (56% and 57% [naïve] vs. 33% and 28% [non-naïve], p < 0.001). A VA gain < 5 letters (non-response) after 2 and 4 months was seen in 18% and 16% of naïve eyes, and in 49% and 53% of non-naïve eyes (p < 0.001). A lack of anatomical response was rare in both groups, but more frequently in non-naïve eyes (12% vs. 4%, p = 0.003). Functionally and anatomically, naïve eyes showed most frequently an early and stable improvement (functionally: 77/175 44%; anatomically: 123/175 eyes, 70%). Most non-naïve eyes experienced no significant improvement functionally (97/242 eyes, 40%), despite a mostly early and stable improvement anatomical response pattern (102/242 eyes, 42%). Functional but not anatomical response patterns were influenced by baseline VA. Naïve and non-naïve eyes show different functional and anatomical response patterns to DEX implant. Functional non-responders are rare in naïve eyes, whereas anatomical non-response is unusual in both groups.

Purpose: To investigate clinical baseline characteristics and optical coherence tomography biomarkers predicting visual loss during observation in eyes with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and good baseline visual acuity (VA)., Methods: A sub-analysis of a 12-month, retrospective study, including patients with baseline VA ≤0.1 logMAR (≥20/25 Snellen) and centre-involving DMO. The primary outcome measure was the correlation between baseline characteristics and VA loss ≥10 letters during follow-up., Results: A total of 249 eyes were included in the initial study, of which 147 eyes were observed and 80 eyes received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment at baseline. Visual acuity (VA) loss ≥10 letters occurred in 21.8% (observed cohort) and in 24.3% (treated cohort), respectively. Within observed eyes, presence of hyperreflective foci [HRF; odds ratio (OR): 3.18, p = 0.046], and disorganization of inner retina layers (DRIL; OR: 2.71, p = 0.026) were associated with a higher risk of VA loss ≥10 letters. In observed eyes with a combined presence of HRF, DRIL and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption, the risk of VA loss was further increased (OR: 3.86, p = 0.034). In eyes with combined presence of DRIL, HRF and EZ disruption, risk of VA loss was 46.7% (7/15 eyes) in the observed cohort, and 26.3% (5/19 eyes) in the treated cohort (p = 0.26)., Conclusion: Patients with DMO and good baseline VA, managed by observation, are of increased risk for VA loss if DRIL, HRF and EZ disruption are present at baseline. Earlier treatment with anti-VEGF in these patients may potentially decrease the risk of VA loss at 12 months., (© 2020 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologicas published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Purpose: To investigate disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRIL) as a biomarker in eyes with diabetic macular oedema (DME) treated by intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant., Methods: Multicentre, retrospective study including eyes with DME treated with DEX implant and follow-up of 12 months after the first injection. OCT scans were evaluated for the presence of DRIL and other structural features. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) were recorded at baseline and at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Correlation between DRIL at baseline and outcomes after DEX treatment and the change in DRIL were analysed., Results: A total of 177 eyes (177 patients; naïve, n = 131; refractory, n = 46) were included. Patients without DRIL at baseline gained significantly more vision and enjoyed greater reduction in CST over 12 months (both p = 0.03). DRIL at the boundary between the ganglion cell-inner plexiform complex and inner nuclear layer improved in 48/64 eyes (75%, p < 0.001), while DRIL between the inner nuclear layer and outer plexiform layer improved in 27/77 eyes (35%, p = 0.004)., Conclusions: This is the first study to show that DEX implant has the potential to ameliorate DRIL. Patients without DRIL at baseline have a favourable outcome. DRIL may serve a robust biomarker in DME treated by DEX implant., (© 2019 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To provide 2-year follow-up data on eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) that were non-responsive after three initial anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections, comparing functional and anatomical outcomes under continued anti-VEGF therapy versus dexamethasone (DEX) implant., Methods: Multicenter, retrospective chart review comparing eyes with treatment-naïve DME and a suboptimal response to a loading phase of anti-VEGF therapy (3 injections given monthly) which were then treated with (a) further anti-VEGF (n = 72) or (b) initially switched to DEX implant (n = 38). Main outcome measures were change in visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) from the end of the loading phase to 24 months., Results: In 79% of the 12-month study population (87/110 eyes), 24-month data were available. One quarter of eyes in each group switched treatments during the second year. Eyes that were switched early to DEX implant maintained the functional and anatomical improvements at 24 months which were seen in the first year (from month 3: + 8.9 letters, - 214 µm). Eyes that were switched from anti-VEGF therapy to steroids in the second year improved VA and reduced CST at 24 months (from month 12: + 6.8 letters, p = 0.023; - 226 µm, p = 0.004). In eyes continued on anti-VEGF therapy, VA and CST were stable at 24 months (from month 3: + 2.8 letters, p = 0.254; - 24 µm, p = 0.243). Eyes that were non-responsive to anti-VEGF therapy for 12 months had similar chances to experience a VA gain from further therapy as eyes that were non-responsive for 3 months only (23.8 vs. 31.0%, p = 0.344)., Conclusions: The beneficial effect of an early switch to DEX implant in DME non-responders seen at month 12 was maintained during the second year. A later switch from anti-VEGF to steroids still provided significant improvement. Eyes continued on anti-VEGF over a period of 24 months maintained vision. A quarter of eyes, which had not improved vision at 12 months, exhibited a delayed response to treatment.

Aim: Main failure of diabetic tractional retinal detachment (TRD) surgery is the development of proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR), causing higher re-detachment rates. We investigated whether the use of dexamethasone (DEX) implant at the end of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with silicone oil tamponade might have an impact on these outcomes., Design: Comparative, nonrandomized, retrospective study., Participants: A total of 148 eyes from 148 patients that underwent PPV with silicone oil tamponade for diabetic TRD (with DEX implant, n = 52; without DEX implant, n = 96)., Methods: Consecutive patients' records were reviewed for time between TRD diagnosis and surgery; lens status before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months; retina attachment rate after primary PPV; change in postoperative PVR severity; rate of re-detachment at 6, 12, and 24 months; use of IOP lowering treatment after 6, 12, and 24 months; surgery details; intra- and postoperative complications. Correlations between outcome measures, postoperative PVR severity, and re-detachment rates were analyzed., Main Outcome Measures: Change in postoperative PVR severity and retinal re-detachment rates with and without the adjuvant use of DEX implant., Results: Retinal re-detachment rates were significantly higher in the group of patients that did not receive DEX implant [11/96 (11.5%) vs. 0/52 (0%), p = 0.049; 11/84 (12.9%) vs. 4/52 (7.7%), p = 0.007; 14/71 (19.7%) vs. 5/52 (10%) p < 0.001 at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively]. PVR severity correlated with retinal status at 12 and 24 months (p = 0.018 and p = 0.027, respectively). The difference in PVR severity between the two groups was statistically significant at 6, 12, and 24 months (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: DEX implant at the end of PPV in patients with diabetic TRD improves PVR severity and decreases re-detachment rates. This should be considered as an option in the customized treatment of TRD.

Aims: To describe and compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of untreated and treated diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with very good baseline visual acuity (VA) in a real-world setting., Methods: A 12-month, retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study, including DME patients with baseline visual acuity (VA) ≤ 0.1 logMAR (≥ 20/25 Snellen) and central subfield thickness (CST) > 250 µm with intra- and/or subretinal fluid seen on optical coherence tomography., Results: A total of 249 eyes were included, of which 155 were treated and 94 were non-treated during follow-up. Most eyes maintained vision (VA gain or VA loss < 5 letters) at 12 months (treated: 58.1%; non-treated: 73.4%). In non-treated eyes with stable VA within the first 6 months, VA was maintained throughout the follow-up in most cases (86.3%). In non-treated eyes with VA loss ≥ 5 letters within 6 months (36.7%), further observation led to worse visual outcome than treatment (- 4.2 vs. - 7.8 letters, p = 0.013). In eyes in which treatment was initiated at baseline (n = 102), treatment with 8-12 anti-VEGF injections led to better visual outcome compared to treatment with less injections (- 0.3 ± 3.6 letters vs. - 3.8 ± 6.2 letters, p = 0.003)., Conclusion: In a real-world setting, the majority of DME patients with very good VA maintained vision at 12 months, regardless of whether the DME was treated or not. This study supports close observation of eyes with DME and very good VA with consideration of treatment when a one line drop in vision is observed.

Purpose: To investigate efficacy and safety of repeated dexamethasone (DEX) implants over 24 months, in diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes that were treatment naive compared with eyes refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment, in a real-life environment., Methods: This multicenter international retrospective study assessed best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness (CST) of naive and refractory eyes to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections treated with dexamethasone implants. Safety data (intraocular pressure rise and cataract surgery) were recorded., Results: A total of 130 eyes from 125 patients were included. Baseline best-corrected visual acuity and CST were similar for naive (n = 71) and refractory eyes (n = 59). Both groups improved significantly in vision after 24 months (P < 0.001). However, naive eyes gained statistically significantly more vision than refractory eyes (+11.3 ± 10.0 vs. 7.3 ± 2.7 letters, P = 0.01) and were more likely to gain ≥10 letters (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.19-9.24, P = 0.02). At 6, 12, and 24 months, CST was significantly decreased compared with baseline in both naive and refractory eyes; however, CST was higher in refractory eyes than in naive eyes (CST 279 ± 61 vs. 313 ± 125 μm, P = 0.10)., Conclusion: Over a follow-up of 24 months, vision improved in diabetic macular edema eyes after treatment with dexamethasone implants, both in eyes that were treatment naive and eyes refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment; however, improvement was greater in naive eyes.

Aims: To compare functional and anatomical outcomes of continued anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy versus dexamethasone (DEX) implant in eyes with refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) after three initial anti-VEGF injections in a real-world setting., Methods: To be included in this retrospective multicenter, case-control study, eyes were required: (1) to present with early refractory DME, as defined by visual acuity (VA) gain ≤ 5 letters or reduction in central subfield thickness (CST) ≤ 20%, after a loading phase of anti-VEGF therapy (three monthly injections) and (2) to treat further with (a) anti-VEGF therapy or (b) DEX implant. Main outcome measures were change in visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) at 12 months. Due to imbalanced baseline characteristics, a matched anti-VEGF group was formed by only keeping eyes with similar baseline characteristics as those in the DEX group., Results: A total of 110 eyes from 105 patients were included (anti-VEGF group: 72 eyes, DEX group: 38 eyes). Mean change in VA at 12 months was - 0.4 ± 10.8 letters (anti-VEGF group), and + 6.1 ± 10.6 letters (DEX group) (P = 0.004). Over the same period, mean change in CST was + 18.3 ± 145.9 µm (anti-VEGF group) and - 92.8 ± 173.6 µm (DEX group) (P < 0.001). Eyes in the DEX group were more likely to gain ≥ 10 letters (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.19-11.61, P = 0.024) at month 12., Conclusions: In a real-world setting, eyes with DME considered refractory to anti-VEGF therapy after three monthly injections which were switched to DEX implant and had better visual and anatomical outcomes at 12 months than those that continued treatment with anti-VEGF therapy.