Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: To report the long-term functional, anatomical and safety outcomes of 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide 0.19mg in patients with persistent or recurrent diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: Retrospective, observational, single-center study of patients with recurrent or persistent DME. All patients received 0.2 μg/day of fluocinolone acetonide 0.19mg, and data were collected at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 after implantation. Outcomes measured included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and safety outcomes. Results: A total of 28 eyes from 28 patients were included. The mean age was 66.5 years (95% CI 62.8– 70.2) with a mean duration of DME of 8.8 years (95% CI 7.7– 10.0). Only two eyes were phakic. Mean follow-up was 25.4 months (95% CI 21.2– 29.6). Mean BCVA at baseline was 48.6 ETDRS letters (95% CI 41.3– 55.8) and improved as early as month 1 of follow-up with a mean gain in BCVA of 7.8 (95% CI 4.3– 11.3) ETDRS letters (p< 0.001). Statistically significant improvements in BCVA were also observed at months 6, 12 and 24. At baseline, patients had a mean CMT of 530.5μm (95% CI 463.0– 598.0), and a decrease in CMT was observed, starting at the first month of follow-up (mean CMT reduction of − 170.5μm, 95% CI − 223.8– − 117.1; p< 0.001). Statistically significant decreases in CMT were also observed at months 6, 12, 24, and 36, with the maximum decrease observed at month 12 (p< 0.001). Mean IOP at baseline was 16.4mmHg (95% CI 15.3– 17.5) and nine eyes (32.1%) had an IOP ≥ 21mmHg during follow-up. Conclusion: Our results support the effectiveness and safety profile of fluocinolone acetonide. Although additional long-term real-world evidence is required, fluocinolone acetonide may represent a safe strategy for daily, low-dose, sustained and localized release to the posterior segment of the eye, providing both functional and anatomical benefits in DME.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soares et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: