Suppr超能文献

玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗与阿柏西普治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿采用“治疗-延长”方案的2年疗效比较——其有效性及问题

Comparison of 2-Year Outcomes between Intravitreal Ranibizumab and Intravitreal Aflibercept for Diabetic Macular Edema with "Treat-and-Extend" Regimen-Its Usefulness and Problems.

作者信息

Chujo Shinichiro, Sugimoto Masahiko, Sasaki Taku, Matsui Yoshitsugu, Kato Kumiko, Ichio Atsushi, Miyata Ryohei, Matsubara Hisashi, Kondo Mineo

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu 514-8507, Japan.

出版信息

J Clin Med. 2020 Sep 2;9(9):2848. doi: 10.3390/jcm9092848.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To compare the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) performed with the treat-and-extend (TAE) regimen on eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 125 eyes of 125 treatment-naïve DME patients who received anti-VEGF injections at three consecutive monthly intervals as the loading phase. The changes in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), diabetic retinopathy severity scale (DRSS), and total injection numbers were compared between the two anti-VEGF agents.

RESULTS

Among 125 eyes, 26 eyes completed the treatment with the TAE regimen for 24 months (20.8%). Thirteen eyes of 13 patients (mean age, 70.9 ± 6.0 years) received intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg ranibizumab, and 13 eyes of 13 patients (65.9 ± 8.6 years) received 2 mg aflibercept. No significant differences were detected in the baseline demographics. At 24 months, BCVA was significantly improved in both groups; from 0.31 ± 0.19 to 0.10 ± 0.12 logMAR units for IVR and 0.41 ± 0.19 to 0.16 ± 0.28 logMAR units for IVA ( = 1.29 × 10). CRT was significantly reduced in both groups; 440.9 ± 69.3 to 307.5 ± 66.4 μm for IVR and 473.9 ± 71.5 to 317.8 ± 71.2 μm for IVA ( = 3.55 × 10). No significant differences were detected in the improvements of BCVA, CRT in both groups, and the total injection numbers for 24 months (11.0 ± 1.2 for the IVA group and 12.0 ± 1.0 the IVR group). DRSS was significantly improved in both groups ( = 0.0004 for IVR and = 0.009 for IVA).

CONCLUSION

No significant differences were detected in the improvements of BCVA or CRT and injection numbers between the IVR and IVA groups treated with the TAE regimen. These results indicate that the results of the treatment with both agents with the TAE regimen were equally effective, but only 20.8% of patients completed 24 months of continuous treatment with the TAE regimen. There are no significant differences regarding effectiveness between the IVR and IVA groups treated with the TAE regimen for DME eyes.

摘要

背景

比较雷珠单抗玻璃体腔注射(IVR)和阿柏西普玻璃体腔注射(IVA)采用治疗-延长(TAE)方案治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(DME)眼的疗效。

患者与方法

这是一项回顾性研究,纳入125例初治DME患者的125只眼,在负荷期连续3个月每月接受一次抗VEGF注射。比较两种抗VEGF药物治疗后最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、中心视网膜厚度(CRT)、糖尿病视网膜病变严重程度量表(DRSS)及总注射次数的变化。

结果

125只眼中,26只眼(20.8%)完成了24个月的TAE方案治疗。13例患者(平均年龄70.9±6.0岁)的13只眼接受了0.5mg雷珠单抗玻璃体腔注射,13例患者(65.9±8.6岁)的13只眼接受了2mg阿柏西普玻璃体腔注射。两组基线人口统计学特征无显著差异。24个月时,两组BCVA均显著改善;IVR组从0.31±0.19 logMAR单位提高到0.10±0.12 logMAR单位,IVA组从0.41±0.19 logMAR单位提高到0.16±0.28 logMAR单位(=1.29×10)。两组CRT均显著降低;IVR组从440.9±69.3μm降至307.5±66.4μm,IVA组从473.9±71.5μm降至317.8±71.2μm(=3.55×10)。两组BCVA、CRT改善情况及24个月总注射次数(IVA组11.0±1.2次,IVR组12.0±1.0次)均无显著差异。两组DRSS均显著改善(IVR组=0.0004,IVA组=0.009)。

结论

采用TAE方案治疗的IVR组和IVA组在BCVA、CRT改善及注射次数方面无显著差异。这些结果表明,两种药物采用TAE方案治疗的效果同样有效,但只有20.8%的患者完成了24个月的TAE方案持续治疗。对于DME眼,采用TAE方案治疗的IVR组和IVA组在疗效方面无显著差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验