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.

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

De Nadai, Katia;Parmeggiani, Francesco;
2020

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.
2020
Veritti, Daniele; Sarao, Valentina; De Nadai, Katia; Chizzolini, Marzio; Parmeggiani, Francesco; Perissin, Laura; Lanzetta, Paolo
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
jop.2018.0153.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 520.58 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
520.58 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2413546
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 17
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
social impact