English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The last decade has witnessed important advances in retinal drug discovery, administered intravitreally, allowing high intraocular concentration and low systemic passage. However, local and systemic adverse events have been described and should be discussed before proposing treatment. In diabetes mellitus specifically, the choice of molecule and treatment regimen should limit the therapeutic burden, avoiding the need for frequent ophthalmological appointments, in patients receiving multi-disciplinary care. We aim to review and discuss the risk/benefit ratio of the main intravitreal therapies currently proposed for diabetic macular edema (DME), and how these treatments could be tailored to each individual patient. Anti-VEGF injections and steroid implants are currently the two therapeutic options proposed in cases of DME. New molecules in these two classes have recently been approved and are currently being studied under phase IV observations to establish their efficacy and tolerance. The preferred therapeutic option is determined based on the ocular condition and the patient profile. As new treatments are developed, new adverse events will also enter into consideration, and retinal physicians must therefore be able to call on a range of therapeutic options and question the risk/benefit ratio of each of them before proposing a treatment.

Do new drugs for diabetic macular edema offer a safer option?