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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |