TY - JOUR
T1 - Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema related to branch or central retinal vein occlusion
T2 - Twelve-month study results
AU - Haller, Julia A.
AU - Bandello, Francesco
AU - Belfort, Rubens
AU - Blumenkranz, Mark S.
AU - Gillies, Mark
AU - Heier, Jeffrey
AU - Loewenstein, Anat
AU - Yoon, Young Hee
AU - Jiao, Jenny
AU - Li, Xiao Yan
AU - Whitcup, Scott M.
PY - 2011/12
Y1 - 2011/12
N2 - Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 or 2 treatments with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) over 12 months in eyes with macular edema owing to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO). Design: Two identical, multicenter, prospective studies included a randomized, 6-month, double-masked, sham-controlled phase followed by a 6-month open-label extension. Participants: We included 1256 patients with vision loss owing to macular edema associated with BRVO or CRVO. Methods: At baseline, patients received DEX implant 0.7 mg (n = 421), DEX implant 0.35 mg (n = 412), or sham (n = 423) in the study eye. At day 180, patients could receive DEX implant 0.7 mg if best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 250 μm. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome for the open-label extension was safety; BCVA was also evaluated. Results: At day 180, 997 patients received open-label DEX implant. Except for cataract, the incidence of ocular adverse events was similar in patients who received their first or second DEX implant. Over 12 months, cataract progression occurred in 90 of 302 phakic eyes (29.8%) that received 2 DEX implant 0.7 mg injections versus 5 of 88 sham-treated phakic eyes (5.7%); cataract surgery was performed in 4 of 302 (1.3%) and 1 of 88 (1.1%) eyes, respectively. In the group receiving two 0.7-mg DEX implants (n = 341), a
AB - Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 or 2 treatments with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) over 12 months in eyes with macular edema owing to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO). Design: Two identical, multicenter, prospective studies included a randomized, 6-month, double-masked, sham-controlled phase followed by a 6-month open-label extension. Participants: We included 1256 patients with vision loss owing to macular edema associated with BRVO or CRVO. Methods: At baseline, patients received DEX implant 0.7 mg (n = 421), DEX implant 0.35 mg (n = 412), or sham (n = 423) in the study eye. At day 180, patients could receive DEX implant 0.7 mg if best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 250 μm. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome for the open-label extension was safety; BCVA was also evaluated. Results: At day 180, 997 patients received open-label DEX implant. Except for cataract, the incidence of ocular adverse events was similar in patients who received their first or second DEX implant. Over 12 months, cataract progression occurred in 90 of 302 phakic eyes (29.8%) that received 2 DEX implant 0.7 mg injections versus 5 of 88 sham-treated phakic eyes (5.7%); cataract surgery was performed in 4 of 302 (1.3%) and 1 of 88 (1.1%) eyes, respectively. In the group receiving two 0.7-mg DEX implants (n = 341), a
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052857441&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052857441&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.014
DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.014
M3 - Article
C2 - 21764136
AN - SCOPUS:80052857441
VL - 118
SP - 2453
EP - 2460
JO - Ophthalmology
JF - Ophthalmology
SN - 0161-6420
IS - 12
ER -