Prospective randomized subject-masked study of intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy versus dexamethasone implant monotherapy in the treatment of persistent diabetic macular edema
dc.contributor.author | Shah, Sanket U. | |
dc.contributor.author | Harless, Ashley | |
dc.contributor.author | Bleau, Laura | |
dc.contributor.author | Maturi, Raj K. | |
dc.contributor.department | Department of Ophthalmology, IU School of Medicine | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-01-31T16:18:09Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-01-31T16:18:09Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016-10 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: To compare intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy with intravitreal dexamethasone delayed delivery system monotherapy for persistent diabetic macular edema. Methods: Single-center, randomized, subject-masked study of eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema, defined as central subfield thickness (CST) >340 μm despite ≥3 anti–vascular endothelial growth factors injections within 5 months. The intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy (n = 23 eyes) and delayed delivery system monotherapy (n = 27 eyes) groups received treatments q1month and q3months, respectively. Results: Baseline best-corrected visual acuity and CST were similar in the two groups. At Month 7, the mean final best-corrected visual acuity (mean ± SD) was 65 ± 16 letters (mean Snellen visual acuity 20/50) and 64 ± 11 letters (20/50) (P = 0.619), the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity was +5.6 ± 6.1 and +5.8 ± 7.6 letters (P = 0.785), the mean final CST was 471 ± 157 and 336 ± 89 μm (P = 0.001), and the mean change in CST was −13 ± 105 and −122 ± 120 μm (P = 0.005) in the intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy and delayed delivery system monotherapy groups, respectively. The number of injections was 7.0 ± 0.2 and 2.7 ± 0.5 (P < 0.001) in the 2 groups. Conclusion: The two groups had similar best-corrected visual acuity gains. The delayed delivery system monotherapy group achieved a significantly greater reduction of CST compared with the intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy group, with a q3month interval of treatment, and had no recurrent edema at any visit. | en_US |
dc.eprint.version | Final published version | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Shah, S. U., Harless, A., Bleau, L., & Maturi, R. K. (2016). Prospective randomized subject-masked study of intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy versus dexamethasone implant monotherapy in the treatment of persistent diabetic macular edema. Retina, 36(10), 1986-1996. | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1805/11892 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins | en_US |
dc.relation.isversionof | 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001038 | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | Retina | en_US |
dc.rights | Publisher Policy | en_US |
dc.source | Publisher | en_US |
dc.subject | diabetic macular edema | en_US |
dc.subject | intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy | en_US |
dc.subject | dexamethasone implant monotherapy | en_US |
dc.title | Prospective randomized subject-masked study of intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy versus dexamethasone implant monotherapy in the treatment of persistent diabetic macular edema | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |