Premium
Bevacizumab‐treated diabetic macular edema: a pilot yearlong analysis of anatomic and functional outcomes from a referral center in Portugal
Author(s) -
Leitão P.,
Bettencourt S.,
Trincão F.,
Santos P.,
SOUSA D.C.,
Genro V.,
Abegão Pinto L.,
Raposo J.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2017.0f029
Subject(s) - medicine , bevacizumab , diabetic macular edema , diabetic retinopathy , macular edema , ophthalmology , visual acuity , diabetes mellitus , retrospective cohort study , surgery , chemotherapy , endocrinology
Purpose There is high quality evidence that antiangiogenic drugs are a valuable option on diabetic macular edema ( DME ) treatment. However, evidence under real‐world conditions is lacking. This paradigmatic pilot study aims to characterize and discuss the 1‐year functional and anatomic response of intravitreal bevacizumab in DME . Methods Observational retrospective study. Clinical charts from consecutive patients referred from the Lisbon and Tagus valley region (Portugal) between Jan‐2014 and Dec‐2015 were reviewed. All patients who underwent intravitreal injection of bevacizumab for DME were analyzed. Efficacy outcomes were i) visual acuity ( VA ) improvement (i.e. halving the visual angle or doubling the decimal value), and ii) a 10% or higher decrease in central macular thickness ( CMT ), both after a 12‐months follow‐up period. Statistical analysis were performed using STATA . Results A total of 107 eyes of 84 patients, with a mean age of 66.0 ± 8.8 years were studied. Mean time elapsed since diabetes diagnosis was 19.1 ± 7.9 years, and mean HbA1c levels were 8.1 ± 1.2%. Baseline VA improved from 0.35 ± 0.22 at baseline to 0.39 ± 0.25 after 12 months ( P < 0.05). Also CMT significantly decreased from 464 ± 144 to 379 ± 144 μ m one year after injection. The rate of VA and CMT improvement was 31% and 48%, respectively. A non‐statistically significant trend was observed for better outcomes in patients who were concomitantly treated with either focal laser or intravitreal triancinolone. No differences were noted considering the loading dose. No major complications were observed. Conclusions This pilot study suggests intravitreal bevacizumab was effective in the DME treatment of our cohort, with a good safety profile. A longer follow‐up and larger sample will help building better evidence to DME management.