Cargando…

Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of an intravitreal ocriplasmin injection on visual function, measured using visual acuity (VA) and vision‐related quality of life. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of prespecified secondary end‐points in two multicentre, randomized, double‐masked, phase 3 clinical trials. A t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jackson, Timothy L., Verstraeten, Thomas, Duchateau, Luc, Lescrauwaet, Benedicte
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5901404/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28133919
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.13369
_version_ 1783314609208295424
author Jackson, Timothy L.
Verstraeten, Thomas
Duchateau, Luc
Lescrauwaet, Benedicte
author_facet Jackson, Timothy L.
Verstraeten, Thomas
Duchateau, Luc
Lescrauwaet, Benedicte
author_sort Jackson, Timothy L.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess the effect of an intravitreal ocriplasmin injection on visual function, measured using visual acuity (VA) and vision‐related quality of life. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of prespecified secondary end‐points in two multicentre, randomized, double‐masked, phase 3 clinical trials. A total of 652 participants with symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion were enrolled, of whom 464 received a single intravitreal injection of 125 μg ocriplasmin and 188 received a single intravitreal placebo injection. Based on principal components analysis results, visual function response (VFR) was defined as either a VA improvement of ≥2 lines; or an improvement in the composite score of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ‐25) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), estimated using the standard error of measurement approach; or an improvement in the VFQ‐25 driving subscale score exceeding the MCID. The main outcome measure was VFR at 6 months. RESULTS: A VFR occurred in 55.1% of the ocriplasmin group versus 34.2% of the placebo injection group (p < 0.0001). This comprised 23.7% versus 11.2% (p = 0.0003) with a ≥ 2‐line VA improvement, 35.9% versus 22.7% (p = 0.0016) for the VFQ‐25 composite score, and 10.2% versus 6.2% (p = 0.1697) for the driving subscale. CONCLUSION: Ocriplasmin produces a clinically meaningful visual function benefit.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5901404
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59014042018-04-24 Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole Jackson, Timothy L. Verstraeten, Thomas Duchateau, Luc Lescrauwaet, Benedicte Acta Ophthalmol Original Articles PURPOSE: To assess the effect of an intravitreal ocriplasmin injection on visual function, measured using visual acuity (VA) and vision‐related quality of life. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of prespecified secondary end‐points in two multicentre, randomized, double‐masked, phase 3 clinical trials. A total of 652 participants with symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion were enrolled, of whom 464 received a single intravitreal injection of 125 μg ocriplasmin and 188 received a single intravitreal placebo injection. Based on principal components analysis results, visual function response (VFR) was defined as either a VA improvement of ≥2 lines; or an improvement in the composite score of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ‐25) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), estimated using the standard error of measurement approach; or an improvement in the VFQ‐25 driving subscale score exceeding the MCID. The main outcome measure was VFR at 6 months. RESULTS: A VFR occurred in 55.1% of the ocriplasmin group versus 34.2% of the placebo injection group (p < 0.0001). This comprised 23.7% versus 11.2% (p = 0.0003) with a ≥ 2‐line VA improvement, 35.9% versus 22.7% (p = 0.0016) for the VFQ‐25 composite score, and 10.2% versus 6.2% (p = 0.1697) for the driving subscale. CONCLUSION: Ocriplasmin produces a clinically meaningful visual function benefit. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-01-30 2017-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5901404/ /pubmed/28133919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.13369 Text en © 2017 The Authors Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Jackson, Timothy L.
Verstraeten, Thomas
Duchateau, Luc
Lescrauwaet, Benedicte
Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole
title Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole
title_full Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole
title_fullStr Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole
title_full_unstemmed Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole
title_short Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole
title_sort visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5901404/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28133919
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.13369
work_keys_str_mv AT jacksontimothyl visualfunctionresponsetoocriplasminforthetreatmentofvitreomaculartractionandmacularhole
AT verstraetenthomas visualfunctionresponsetoocriplasminforthetreatmentofvitreomaculartractionandmacularhole
AT duchateauluc visualfunctionresponsetoocriplasminforthetreatmentofvitreomaculartractionandmacularhole
AT lescrauwaetbenedicte visualfunctionresponsetoocriplasminforthetreatmentofvitreomaculartractionandmacularhole