Limits...
Long-Term Follow-Up of Patient with Diabetic Macular Edema Receiving Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant.

Bertelmann T, Schulze S - Ophthalmol Ther (2015)

Bottom Line: The author presents here a patient with DME for around 20 years in both eyes, who had undergone pan-retinal and focal photocoagulation, and anti-VEGF therapy in both eyes without resolution of DME.In the current case, a benefit was demonstrated in the FAc implant-treated left eye at a time when the right eye was not responding to anti-VEGF injections.If a patient does not respond well to an anti-VEGF (i.e. first-line therapy) in one eye, the treating physician should consider switching the patient to a corticosteroid implant (such as FAc implant) in the fellow eye.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Philipps University, Baldingerstraße, 35043, Marburg, Germany, thomas.bertelmann@staff.uni-marburg.de.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This case study aims to evaluate outcomes following fluocinolone acetonide [FAc 0.2 μg/day; ILUVIEN(®) (Alimera Sciences Limited, Aldershot, UK)] implant in a patient with diabetic macular edema (DME) not responding to laser photocoagulation or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy and to compare FAc implant with anti-VEGF therapy in the fellow eye.

Case report: The author presents here a patient with DME for around 20 years in both eyes, who had undergone pan-retinal and focal photocoagulation, and anti-VEGF therapy in both eyes without resolution of DME. FAc implant in the left, and subsequently in the right eye, provided substantial improvements in edema and visual acuity.

Conclusion: In the current case, a benefit was demonstrated in the FAc implant-treated left eye at a time when the right eye was not responding to anti-VEGF injections. If a patient does not respond well to an anti-VEGF (i.e. first-line therapy) in one eye, the treating physician should consider switching the patient to a corticosteroid implant (such as FAc implant) in the fellow eye.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) before and after fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant. BCVA in a left eye and b right eye, and CMT in c left eye and d right eye following FAc implant. Red arrow indicates when the FAc implant was first inserted. ETDRS Early treatment Diabetic Retinopathy study
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4470980&req=5

Fig3: Changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) before and after fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant. BCVA in a left eye and b right eye, and CMT in c left eye and d right eye following FAc implant. Red arrow indicates when the FAc implant was first inserted. ETDRS Early treatment Diabetic Retinopathy study

Mentions: Best corrected visual acuity also increased rapidly following FAc implant in the left eye (Fig. 3; Table 1) improving from 0.3 at baseline to 0.5 after 1 month. This change was sustained through to month 9, although at month 13 BCVA decreased slightly to 0.4 as a result of cataract formation, which was confirmed by the return of BCVA to 0.5 1 day after phacoemulsification. The macula at this point still remained dry (see Fig. 1f).Fig. 3


Long-Term Follow-Up of Patient with Diabetic Macular Edema Receiving Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant.

Bertelmann T, Schulze S - Ophthalmol Ther (2015)

Changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) before and after fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant. BCVA in a left eye and b right eye, and CMT in c left eye and d right eye following FAc implant. Red arrow indicates when the FAc implant was first inserted. ETDRS Early treatment Diabetic Retinopathy study
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4470980&req=5

Fig3: Changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) before and after fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant. BCVA in a left eye and b right eye, and CMT in c left eye and d right eye following FAc implant. Red arrow indicates when the FAc implant was first inserted. ETDRS Early treatment Diabetic Retinopathy study
Mentions: Best corrected visual acuity also increased rapidly following FAc implant in the left eye (Fig. 3; Table 1) improving from 0.3 at baseline to 0.5 after 1 month. This change was sustained through to month 9, although at month 13 BCVA decreased slightly to 0.4 as a result of cataract formation, which was confirmed by the return of BCVA to 0.5 1 day after phacoemulsification. The macula at this point still remained dry (see Fig. 1f).Fig. 3

Bottom Line: The author presents here a patient with DME for around 20 years in both eyes, who had undergone pan-retinal and focal photocoagulation, and anti-VEGF therapy in both eyes without resolution of DME.In the current case, a benefit was demonstrated in the FAc implant-treated left eye at a time when the right eye was not responding to anti-VEGF injections.If a patient does not respond well to an anti-VEGF (i.e. first-line therapy) in one eye, the treating physician should consider switching the patient to a corticosteroid implant (such as FAc implant) in the fellow eye.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Philipps University, Baldingerstraße, 35043, Marburg, Germany, thomas.bertelmann@staff.uni-marburg.de.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This case study aims to evaluate outcomes following fluocinolone acetonide [FAc 0.2 μg/day; ILUVIEN(®) (Alimera Sciences Limited, Aldershot, UK)] implant in a patient with diabetic macular edema (DME) not responding to laser photocoagulation or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy and to compare FAc implant with anti-VEGF therapy in the fellow eye.

Case report: The author presents here a patient with DME for around 20 years in both eyes, who had undergone pan-retinal and focal photocoagulation, and anti-VEGF therapy in both eyes without resolution of DME. FAc implant in the left, and subsequently in the right eye, provided substantial improvements in edema and visual acuity.

Conclusion: In the current case, a benefit was demonstrated in the FAc implant-treated left eye at a time when the right eye was not responding to anti-VEGF injections. If a patient does not respond well to an anti-VEGF (i.e. first-line therapy) in one eye, the treating physician should consider switching the patient to a corticosteroid implant (such as FAc implant) in the fellow eye.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus