Cargando…
The USER Study: A Chart Review of Patients Receiving a 0.2 µg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema
INTRODUCTION: To determine anatomical, functional, and intraocular pressure (IOP) responses to diabetic macular edema (DME) treatments pre- and post-0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant administration compared with baseline and the preceding 3 years. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cha...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6393252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30560505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-018-0155-5 |
_version_ | 1783398645720154112 |
---|---|
author | Eaton, Alexander Koh, Sean S. Jimenez, Jaime Riemann, Christopher D. |
author_facet | Eaton, Alexander Koh, Sean S. Jimenez, Jaime Riemann, Christopher D. |
author_sort | Eaton, Alexander |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: To determine anatomical, functional, and intraocular pressure (IOP) responses to diabetic macular edema (DME) treatments pre- and post-0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant administration compared with baseline and the preceding 3 years. METHODS: This was a retrospective, chart review, cohort study in four U.S. centers. Patients received the 0.2 µg/day FAc implant for the treatment of DME in at least one eye before January 1, 2016. DME treatments administered up to 36 months pre-FAc implant and up to 24 months post-FAc implant were recorded, and treatment frequency was calculated. Visual acuity (VA) was assessed using a Snellen eye chart and converted to early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) letters, and central subfield thickness (CST) was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Treatment frequency, mean VA, mean CST, percentage of patients with CST of ≤ 300 µm, mean IOP, IOP events, and IOP treatments pre- and post-FAc implant administration were measured. Positive and negative predictive values for the IOP response to prior steroid therapy were also determined. RESULTS: In total, 160 eyes of 130 patients were studied. VA was maintained at pre-FAc levels from baseline to month 24, despite a significant reduction in treatment frequency from one treatment every 2.9 months pre-FAc implant to one treatment every 14.3 months post-FAc implant. Patients with better baseline VA required fewer DME treatments post-FAc than did patients with worse baseline VA. The majority of patients did not require additional DME treatment during the post-FAc follow-up period. A significant reduction in CST and an increase in the percentage of patients with CST of ≤ 300 µm were seen up to month 21 post-FAc implant. Pre-FAc implant IOP was maintained during the post-FAc implant period; increased IOP with prior steroid therapy was found to be highly predictive of increased IOP post-FAc implant. CONCLUSION: The results of this study confirm the positive safety and efficacy profile of the FAc implant and demonstrate for the first time the effectiveness of the U.S. label indication of FAc in reducing the incidence of post-treatment pressure elevation. The FAc implant significantly reduced treatment burden in the overall population without significantly increasing the risk of steroid-induced pressure elevation. FUNDING: Alimera Sciences. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6393252 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63932522019-03-15 The USER Study: A Chart Review of Patients Receiving a 0.2 µg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema Eaton, Alexander Koh, Sean S. Jimenez, Jaime Riemann, Christopher D. Ophthalmol Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: To determine anatomical, functional, and intraocular pressure (IOP) responses to diabetic macular edema (DME) treatments pre- and post-0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant administration compared with baseline and the preceding 3 years. METHODS: This was a retrospective, chart review, cohort study in four U.S. centers. Patients received the 0.2 µg/day FAc implant for the treatment of DME in at least one eye before January 1, 2016. DME treatments administered up to 36 months pre-FAc implant and up to 24 months post-FAc implant were recorded, and treatment frequency was calculated. Visual acuity (VA) was assessed using a Snellen eye chart and converted to early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) letters, and central subfield thickness (CST) was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Treatment frequency, mean VA, mean CST, percentage of patients with CST of ≤ 300 µm, mean IOP, IOP events, and IOP treatments pre- and post-FAc implant administration were measured. Positive and negative predictive values for the IOP response to prior steroid therapy were also determined. RESULTS: In total, 160 eyes of 130 patients were studied. VA was maintained at pre-FAc levels from baseline to month 24, despite a significant reduction in treatment frequency from one treatment every 2.9 months pre-FAc implant to one treatment every 14.3 months post-FAc implant. Patients with better baseline VA required fewer DME treatments post-FAc than did patients with worse baseline VA. The majority of patients did not require additional DME treatment during the post-FAc follow-up period. A significant reduction in CST and an increase in the percentage of patients with CST of ≤ 300 µm were seen up to month 21 post-FAc implant. Pre-FAc implant IOP was maintained during the post-FAc implant period; increased IOP with prior steroid therapy was found to be highly predictive of increased IOP post-FAc implant. CONCLUSION: The results of this study confirm the positive safety and efficacy profile of the FAc implant and demonstrate for the first time the effectiveness of the U.S. label indication of FAc in reducing the incidence of post-treatment pressure elevation. The FAc implant significantly reduced treatment burden in the overall population without significantly increasing the risk of steroid-induced pressure elevation. FUNDING: Alimera Sciences. Springer Healthcare 2018-12-17 2019-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6393252/ /pubmed/30560505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-018-0155-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Eaton, Alexander Koh, Sean S. Jimenez, Jaime Riemann, Christopher D. The USER Study: A Chart Review of Patients Receiving a 0.2 µg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema |
title | The USER Study: A Chart Review of Patients Receiving a 0.2 µg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema |
title_full | The USER Study: A Chart Review of Patients Receiving a 0.2 µg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema |
title_fullStr | The USER Study: A Chart Review of Patients Receiving a 0.2 µg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema |
title_full_unstemmed | The USER Study: A Chart Review of Patients Receiving a 0.2 µg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema |
title_short | The USER Study: A Chart Review of Patients Receiving a 0.2 µg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema |
title_sort | user study: a chart review of patients receiving a 0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide implant for diabetic macular edema |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6393252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30560505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-018-0155-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT eatonalexander theuserstudyachartreviewofpatientsreceivinga02μgdayfluocinoloneacetonideimplantfordiabeticmacularedema AT kohseans theuserstudyachartreviewofpatientsreceivinga02μgdayfluocinoloneacetonideimplantfordiabeticmacularedema AT jimenezjaime theuserstudyachartreviewofpatientsreceivinga02μgdayfluocinoloneacetonideimplantfordiabeticmacularedema AT riemannchristopherd theuserstudyachartreviewofpatientsreceivinga02μgdayfluocinoloneacetonideimplantfordiabeticmacularedema AT eatonalexander userstudyachartreviewofpatientsreceivinga02μgdayfluocinoloneacetonideimplantfordiabeticmacularedema AT kohseans userstudyachartreviewofpatientsreceivinga02μgdayfluocinoloneacetonideimplantfordiabeticmacularedema AT jimenezjaime userstudyachartreviewofpatientsreceivinga02μgdayfluocinoloneacetonideimplantfordiabeticmacularedema AT riemannchristopherd userstudyachartreviewofpatientsreceivinga02μgdayfluocinoloneacetonideimplantfordiabeticmacularedema |