Chakraborty Somnath, Sheth Jay Umed
Department of Vitreoretinal Services, Retina Institute of Bengal, Siliguri, West Bengal, India.
Department of Vitreoretinal Services, Shantilal Shanghvi Eye Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Clin Ophthalmol. 2024 Oct 15;18:2897-2905. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S484731. eCollection 2024.
This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant (DEX) and Brolucizumab Injection in treating Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) with Hyperreflective Intraretinal Dots (HRID).
A single-center retrospective study in India included 40 eyes (20 per group) with controlled diabetes and HRID on optical coherence tomography. Patients received either DEX or Brolucizumab, with outcomes assessed at various intervals up to 24 weeks. Primary measures included Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA), Central Macular Thickness (CMT), and safety parameters.
Both treatment groups demonstrated comparable baseline characteristics. Both treatments significantly improved the BCVA at weeks 4, 12, and 24, with the DEX implant showing significantly better results at week 12 than brolucizumab (=0.04). In treatment-naïve eyes, BCVA improvements were similar across all time points. In recalcitrant DME eyes, DEX showed significant BCVA improvements at all time points, while brolucizumab showed significant improvements only at weeks 4 (=0.005) and 24 (=0.04). The CMT also improved with both treatments, with DEX showing superior reduction at weeks 4 (=0.003), 12 (=0.003), and 24 (=0.002) respectively. In treatment-naïve eyes, DEX showed consistently better CMT reductions. In refractory DME eyes, both treatments significantly reduced CMT, with DEX performing better at week 12 (=0.042). DEX required fewer injections (DEX: 1.5±0.61; brolucizumab: 2.4±0.82; =0.0002) and less supplementary laser treatment (DEX:8/20, 40% eyes; brolucizumab: 16/20, 80%; =0.01) compared to brolucizumab. No adverse events were observed in either group.
The study suggests the potential superiority of intravitreal DEX implant over brolucizumab in managing DME with HRID. DEX exhibited sustained positive responses in BCVA and CMT, requiring fewer injections and supplementary interventions. Future research should explore extended follow-up durations, personalized treatment strategies, and refined biomarkers to optimize DME management.
本回顾性研究旨在比较玻璃体内注射地塞米松植入物(DEX)和布罗利珠单抗治疗伴有高反射性视网膜内微点(HRID)的糖尿病性黄斑水肿(DME)的疗效和安全性。
在印度进行的一项单中心回顾性研究纳入了40只眼(每组20只眼),这些患者患有可控性糖尿病且光学相干断层扫描显示存在HRID。患者接受DEX或布罗利珠单抗治疗,并在长达24周的不同时间间隔评估治疗效果。主要测量指标包括最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、中心黄斑厚度(CMT)和安全性参数。
两个治疗组的基线特征具有可比性。两种治疗方法在第4周、12周和24周时均显著改善了BCVA,DEX植入物在第12周时的效果显著优于布罗利珠单抗(P = 0.04)。在初治眼中,所有时间点的BCVA改善情况相似。在难治性DME眼中,DEX在所有时间点均显示出显著的BCVA改善,而布罗利珠单抗仅在第4周(P = 0.005)和第24周(P = 0.04)显示出显著改善。两种治疗方法均使CMT得到改善,DEX在第4周(P = 0.003)、12周(P = 0.003)和24周(P = 0.002)时分别显示出更显著的降低。在初治眼中,DEX在降低CMT方面始终表现更好。在难治性DME眼中,两种治疗方法均显著降低了CMT,DEX在第12周时效果更好(P = 0.042)。与布罗利珠单抗相比,DEX所需的注射次数更少(DEX:1.5±0.61;布罗利珠单抗:2.4±0.82;P = 0.0002),辅助激光治疗更少(DEX:8/20,40%的眼;布罗利珠单抗:16/20,80%;P = 0.01)。两组均未观察到不良事件。
该研究表明,在治疗伴有HRID的DME方面,玻璃体内注射DEX植入物可能优于布罗利珠单抗。DEX在BCVA和CMT方面表现出持续的积极反应,所需的注射次数和辅助干预更少。未来的研究应探索更长的随访时间、个性化的治疗策略以及更精确的生物标志物,以优化DME的治疗。