2019Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsRequires access

Dexamethasone Implant Produces Better Outcomes than Oral Acetazolamide in Patients with Cystoid Macular Edema Secondary to Retinitis Pigmentosa

Daniele Veritti, Valentina Sarao, Katia De Nadai, Marzio Chizzolini, Francesco Parmeggiani, L. Perissin, Paolo Lanzetta

Open publisher page 26 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of intravitreal dexamethasone implant versus oral acetazolamide in patients with cystoid macular edema (CME) secondary to retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Design: Multicenter, prospective, propensity-score-matched, comparative study. Methods: Eyes with RP and CME were treated either with intravitreal dexamethasone implant or with oral acetazolamide (500 mg/day). Patients were evaluated monthly and followed up for 12 months. Primary outcome measures were changes in central retinal thickness and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Adverse events were recorded. Results: Propensity score matching resulted in 2 groups of 30 eyes each. All patients completed 12 months of follow-up. Mean central retinal thickness decreased from 535 μm at baseline to 208 μm at month 12 in the dexamethasone implant group and from 519 to 339 μm in the oral acetazolamide group ( P < 0.001, Student's t -test). Mean BCVA average change from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) was −0.084 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (+4.2 letters) in the dexamethasone implant group and −0.032 (+1.6 letters) in the oral acetazolamide group ( P < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). Patients in the dexamethasone implant group required on average 1.7 treatments during 1 year of therapy. Conclusions: In this study, intravitreal dexamethasone implant produced better anatomic and functional improvements over oral acetazolamide in patients affected by CME secondary to RP. Larger, randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm these data.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of intravitreal dexamethasone implant versus oral acetazolamide in patients with cystoid macular edema (CME) secondary to retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Design: Multicenter, prospective, propensity-score-matched, comparative study. Methods: Eyes with RP and CME were treated either with intravitreal dexamethasone implant or with oral acetazolamide (500 mg/day). Patients were evaluated monthly and followed up for 12 months. Primary outcome measures were changes in central retinal thickness and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Adverse events were recorded. Results: Propensity score matching resulted in 2 groups of 30 eyes each. All patients completed 12 months of follow-up. Mean central retinal thickness decreased from 535 μm at baseline to 208 μm at month 12 in the dexamethasone implant group and from 519 to 339 μm in the oral acetazolamide group ( P < 0.001, Student's t -test). Mean BCVA average change from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) was −0.084 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (+4.2 letters) in the dexamethasone implant group and −0.032 (+1.6 letters) in the oral acetazolamide group ( P < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). Patients in the dexamethasone implant group required on average 1.7 treatments during 1 year of therapy. Conclusions: In this study, intravitreal dexamethasone implant produced better anatomic and functional improvements over oral acetazolamide in patients affected by CME secondary to RP. Larger, randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm these data.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 26 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of intravitreal dexamethasone implant versus oral acetazolamide in patients with cystoid macular edema (CME) secondary to retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Design: Multicenter, prospective, propensity-score-matched, comparative study. Methods: Eyes with RP and CME were treated either with intravitreal dexamethasone implant or with oral acetazolamide (500 mg/day). Patients were evaluated monthly and followed up for 12 months. Primary outcome measures were changes in central retinal thickness and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Adverse events were recorded. Results: Propensity score matching resulted in 2 groups of 30 eyes each. All patients completed 12 months of follow-up. Mean central retinal thickness decreased from 535 μm at baseline to 208 μm at month 12 in the dexamethasone implant group and from 519 to 339 μm in the oral acetazolamide group ( P < 0.001, Student's t -test). Mean BCVA average change from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) was −0.084 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (+4.2 letters) in the dexamethasone implant group and −0.032 (+1.6 letters) in the oral acetazolamide group ( P < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). Patients in the dexamethasone implant group required on average 1.7 treatments during 1 year of therapy. Conclusions: In this study, intravitreal dexamethasone implant produced better anatomic and functional improvements over oral acetazolamide in patients affected by CME secondary to RP. Larger, randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm these data.

Key concepts: Medicine, Dexamethasone, Acetazolamide, Macular edema, Ophthalmology, Visual acuity, Implant, Retinitis pigmentosa

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Dexamethasone Implant Produces Better Outcomes than Oral Acetazolamide in Patients with Cystoid Macular Edema Secondary to Retinitis Pigmentosa — Research Paper | ScholarLens