Ординатура / Офтальмология / Английские материалы / Diabetes and Ocular Disease Past, Present, and Future Therapies 2nd edition_Scott, Flynn, Smiddy_2009
.pdf
274 Diabetes and Ocular Disease
In the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study (Table 14.3) [58], among 9795 participants with type 2 diabetes, those treated with fenofibrate were less likely than controls to need laser treatment (5.2% vs. 3.6%, P < 0.001). However, the severity of diabetic retinopathy, indications for laser treatment, and type of laser treatment (focal or pan-retinal) were not reported.
The Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS), a randomized clinical trial of 2830 patients with type 2 diabetes, did not find atorvastatin to be effective in reducing diabetic retinopathy progression [68,69]. The study was limited by substantial missing data (only 65% had retinopathy status at baseline) and lack of photographic grading for diabetic retinopathy. There are several ongoing RCTs that may clarify the role of lipid reduction in diabetic retinopathy. The Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Endpoints in NIDDM (ASPEN) [70] will evaluate the effects of atorvastatin in diabetic retinopathy and the ACCORD-EYE study [53] will compare treatment to increase high density lipoprotein (HDL) and reduce low density lipoprotein (LDL) (fibrate + statin) with LDL reduction only (statin and placebo) on diabetic retinopathy.
SECONDARY INTERVENTION
Medical Interventions. Various other medical interventions for diabetic retinopathy are described in Table 14.3 and summarized below.
Antiplatelet Agents. With regards to the efficacy and safety of aspirin, the ETDRS showed that aspirin (650 mg/day) had no beneficial effect on diabetic retinopathy progression or loss of visual acuity in patients with diabetic macular edema or severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy during 9-years of follow-up [59,60]. Aspirin treatment was not associated with an increased rate of vitrectomy [59,60]. A smaller randomized clinical trial evaluating aspirin alone and in combination with dipyridamole reported a reduction in microaneurysms on fluorescein angiograms in both groups as compared to placebo [61]. A similar trend was seen in a small randomized clinical trial [62] evaluating ticlodipine although results were not statistically significant.
Protein Kinase C Inhibitors. In recent years, there has been significant interest in the use of protein kinase C (PKC) inhibitors for treatment of diabetic retinoipathy. Hyperglycemia induces synthesis of diacylglycerol in vascular cells, leading to activation of PKC isozymes, particularly PKC-ß. Excessive PKC activation is thought to be a key pathophysiological mechanism of diabetic retinopathy. The PKC-Diabetic Retinopathy Study evaluated the effects of ruboxistaurin, an orally active, selective PKC-ß inhibitor [63]. The study randomized 252 patients with moderate to severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy to receive ruboxistaurin (8, 16, or 32 mg) or placebo. No significant difference in diabetic retinopathy progression was seen after 36 months of follow-up, although patients treated with 32 mg of ruboxistaurin had a significant reduction in the risk of moderate visual loss. Treatment was well tolerated with few adverse events, largely mild gastrointestinal symptoms. A larger study, which randomized 685 patients, showed similar results [71].
Table 14.3. Randomized Controlled Trials of Medical Interventions in Diabetic Retinopathy
Author |
Diagnosis |
Intervention |
N |
Fenofibrate |
Type 2 DM |
Fenofibrate vs |
9795 |
Intervention and |
Total cholesterol |
placebo |
|
Event Lowering |
3 to 6.5 mmol/L and |
|
|
in Diabetes |
no lipid-lowering Rx |
|
|
(FIELD study) [58] |
at baseline |
|
|
ETDRS [59] |
Mild-to-severe |
Aspirin 650 md/day |
3711 |
Chew E, et al. [60] |
NPDR or early PDR |
vs placebo |
|
The DAMAD Study |
Early diabetic |
Aspirin (330 mg tds) |
475 |
Group [61] |
retinopathy |
alone vs Aspirin + |
|
|
(type 1 and |
dipyridamole |
|
|
type 2 DM) |
(75 mg tds) vs |
|
|
|
placebo |
|
The Ticlopidine |
NPDR |
Ticlopidine |
435 |
Microangiopathy |
|
hydrochloride |
|
of Diabetes study |
|
(antiplatelet agent) |
|
(TIMAD) [62] |
|
vs. placebo |
|
Outcome |
Comment |
Follow up |
Treatment ↓ reported |
Not main endpoint. Large |
5 yrs |
need for retinal laser |
loss of data. Severity of DR, |
|
photocoagulation |
indication for laser and the |
|
(5.2%vs 3.6%, P = 0.0003). |
type of laser (focal or |
|
|
panretinal) not reported. |
|
VH in 32% aspirin vs. 30% |
Aspirin had no effect on DR |
3 yrs |
placebo, P = 0.48)*. |
incidence/progression, VH, |
|
No difference in the |
or need for vitrectomy. |
|
severity of vitreous/ |
|
|
preretinal hemorrhages |
|
|
(P = 0.11)* or rate of |
|
|
resolution (P = 0.86) |
|
|
Aspirin alone and aspirin |
Loss to follow-up of 10% |
3 yrs |
+ dipyridamole ↓ mean |
patients. |
|
yearly increases in MA on |
|
|
FFA (Aspirin-alone group |
|
|
(0.69 ± 5.1); aspirin + |
|
|
dipyridamole (0.34 ± 3.0), |
|
|
placebo (1.44 ± 4.5) |
|
|
(P = 0.02) |
|
|
Treatment ↓ yearly MA |
Adverse reactions included |
3 yrs |
progression on FFA |
neutropenia (severe in one |
|
(0.23 ± 6.66 vs |
case), diarrhea, and rash. |
|
1.57 ± 5.29; P = 0.03). |
|
|
Treatment ↓ progression to |
|
|
PDR (P = 0.056)* |
|
|
(Continued)
Table 14.3. (Continued)
Author |
Diagnosis |
Intervention |
N |
Cullen JF, et al. [57] |
Exudative diabetic |
Atromid-S |
|
|
maculopathy |
(clofibrate) |
|
The PKC-DRS Study |
Moderately severe to |
Ruboxistaurin RBX |
252 |
Group [63] |
very severe NPDR |
(8, 16, or 32 mg/day) |
|
|
(ETDRS severity |
vs placebo |
|
|
level between 47B - |
|
|
|
53E), VA ≥20/125 and |
|
|
|
no previous scatter |
|
|
|
photocoagulation |
|
|
PKC-DRS2 Study |
Moderately severe to |
Ruboxistaurin 32 |
685 |
Group |
very severe NPDR |
mg/day vs placebo |
|
|
(ETDRS severity |
|
|
|
level between 47B - |
|
|
|
53E), VA ≥20/125 and |
|
|
|
no previous scatter |
|
|
|
photocoagulation) |
|
|
PKC-DME Study [64] |
DME > 300 microns |
Ruboxistaurin |
686 |
|
from center. (ETDRS |
32 md/day |
|
|
severity level 20–47A, |
|
|
|
VA ≥75 ETDRS letters |
|
|
|
and no previous laser) |
|
|
Outcome |
Comment |
Follow up |
|
|
|
↓ hard exudates but |
Lacked power. |
1 yr |
no statistical |
|
|
improvement in VA |
|
|
No significant effect on |
RBX ↓ of SMVL was only seen |
36 to 46 |
progression DR. |
in eyes with definite DME at |
months |
32 mg RBX delayed |
baseline (10% RBX vs. 25% |
|
occurrence of MVL |
placebo, P = 0.017). |
|
(P = 0.038) and SMVL |
|
|
(P = 0.226)*. |
|
|
In multivariable Cox |
|
|
proportional hazard |
|
|
analysis, RBX 32 mg ↓ risk |
|
|
of MVL vs. placebo (hazard |
|
|
ratio 0.37 [95% CI 0.17–0.80], |
|
|
P = 0.012). |
|
|
No significant effect on progression DR. Treatment ↓ risk of sustained MVL (5.5% treated vs 9.1% placebo, P = 0.034)
No significant effect on progression to sight threatening DME or need for focal laser.
3 yrs
Variation in application focal |
3 yrs |
laser between centers. 32 mg |
|
RBX reduced progression |
|
of DME vs placebo in |
|
secondary analysis (P = 0.054 |
|
unadjusted) |
|
The Sorbinol |
Type 1 diabetics |
oral sorbinil |
497 |
No significant effect on |
Hypersensitivity reaction in |
41 |
Retinopathy Trial [65] |
|
250 mg vs placebo |
|
progression DR (28% |
7% sorbinil treated group. |
months |
|
|
|
|
sorbinil vs. 32% placebo; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
P = 0.344)*. |
|
|
Gardner TW, et al. |
DME (no |
astemizole, an |
63 |
No effect on retinal |
54/63 patients (86%) |
1-yr |
[66] |
previous macular |
antihistamine, |
|
thickening or HEx |
completed 1 year of follow up |
|
|
photocoagulation) |
versus placebo |
|
(photographs graded by |
|
|
|
|
|
|
modified ETDRS protocol) |
|
|
Grant MB, et al. [67] |
Severe NPDR or early |
Max tolerated |
23 |
Treatment ↓ progression |
Thyroxine replacement |
15 |
|
non-high-risk PDR |
doses octreotide |
|
to high risk PDR needing |
therapy needed in all |
months |
|
|
(200–5,000 μg/day |
|
PRP (1/22 eyes treated vs |
treated patients |
|
|
|
subcutaneously vs |
|
9/24 controls, P<0.006) |
|
|
|
|
conventional treat- |
|
Octreotide ↓ progression |
|
|
|
|
ment |
|
DR (27% vs 42% controls; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
P = 0.0605)*. |
|
|
VH = vitreous hemorrhage; NPDR = nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, NV = neovascularization; NVD = neovascularization of the disk, PDR = proliferative diabetic retinopathy, DME = diabetic macular edema, PRP = panretinal photocoagulation; RR = risk reduction; MVL = moderate visual loss, SVL = severe visual loss; Hex = hard exudates, vs. = versus; BP = blood pressure.
278 Diabetes and Ocular Disease
The PKC-Diabetic Macular Edema Study reported no significant reduction in progression of diabetic retinopathy or incidence of diabetic macular edema in 686 patients with mild to moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy with no prior laser therapy [64,72]. However, there was a trend for a reduction in clinically significant diabetic macular edema among patients treated with 32 mg ruboxistaurin (P = 0.041), with a larger effect when patients with HbA1c levels of 10% or greater were excluded (P = 0.019).
Aldose Reductase Inhibitors. The rate controlling enzyme in the polyol pathway of glucose metabolism is aldose reductase. Excess glucose is converted into fructose and sorbitol in the retina and may play a key role in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. Two aldose reductase inhibitors, sorbinil (Pfizer, New York, NY) and tolrestat (Wyeth-Ayerst, St. Davids, PA) showed no statistically significant effect in reducing diabetic retinopathy incidence or progression in RCTs of 3 to 5 years duration [65]. About 7% of the patients assigned to sorbinil in one randomized clinical trial developed a hypersensitivity reaction in the first 3 months [65].
Growth Hormone/Insulin-like Growth Factor Inhibitors. Studies showing improvements in diabetic retinopathy following surgical hypophysectomy [73,74], and of elevated serum and ocular levels of insulin-like growth factor in patients with severe diabetic retinopathy led to researchers investigating the use of agents inhibiting the growth hormone–insulin-like growth factor pathway for prevention of diabetic retinopathy [75]. A small randomized clinical trial over 15 months among 23 patients reported reduction in retinopathy severity with octreotide, a synthetic analogue of somatostatin that blocks growth hormone [67], but another trial conducted over 1 year among 20 patients [76] evaluating continuous subcutaneous infusion of octreotide found no significant benefits. Two larger trials currently evaluating extended release octreotide injection [77,78] have reported inconclusive preliminary results [79], with significant adverse effects (e.g., diarrhoea, cholelithiasis, hypoglycemic episodes).
Laser and Surgical Interventions for Severe Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
Panretinal Laser Photocoagulation. There is strong evidence that panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) is useful for treating severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy and proliferative diabetic retinopathy [80] (Table 14.4). Two landmark clinical trials, the Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) [80,81] and the ETDRS [82], provide high-quality data on the effectiveness and safety of PRP on clinically relevant outcomes.
The DRS randomized 1758 patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy in at least one eye or bilateral severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy to PRP or no treatment. At 2 years, severe visual loss (visual acuity <5/200 on two successive visits) was seen in 6.4% of treated versus 15.9% of untreated eyes, with the greatest benefit in eyes with high-risk characteristics (new vessels at the optic disc or vitreous hemorrhage with new vessels elsewhere), in which the risk of severe visual
Table 14.4. Randomized Controlled Trials of Laser Treatment in Nonproliferative and Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic |
|||||
Macular Edema |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Study |
N |
Retinopathy severity Intervention |
Outcome |
Comments |
Follow up |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NonProliferative and Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy |
|
|
||
Rohan et al. |
2243 |
NPDR/PDR (± DME) |
Peripheral PRP |
PRP ↓ risk of blindness in eyes |
Review/Meta- |
|
|
± focal laser vs |
with PDR by 61% (combined |
analysis of 5 |
|
|
observation |
“best estimate” based on |
trials [83] |
|
|
|
5 RCTs including Diabetic |
|
|
|
|
Retinopathy Study and British |
|
|
|
|
Multicenter Study) |
Diabetic |
1742 |
Severe NPDR |
Peripheral PRP |
PRP ↓ risk of SVL by 52% at 2 yrs |
Retinopathy |
|
(bilateral) or PDR |
± focal laser vs |
90/650 (14%) treated vs 171/519 |
Study (DRS) [81] |
|
(± DME |
observation |
(33%) deferred treatment RR |
|
|
|
|
0.42 (0.34 to 0.53) |
|
|
|
|
Eyes with “high risk” features |
|
|
|
|
had most benefit (57% ↓ |
|
|
|
|
risk SVL) |
Early Treatment |
3711 |
mild-to-severe |
One eye of each |
SVL in 2.6% treated vs 3.7% |
Diabetic |
|
NPDR or early PDR |
patient assigned |
deferred treatment |
Retinopathy |
|
(± DME in both |
to early PRP ± |
PRP ↓ risk vitrectomy |
Study (ETDRS) |
|
eyes) |
focal vs deferral |
(2.3% treated vs 4% deferred) |
[84,85] |
|
|
of treatment |
↓ risk of SVL or vitrectomy |
|
|
|
|
4% with early photocoagulation |
|
|
|
|
vs 6% in deferred group |
British |
107 |
PDR (bilateral |
Xenon-arc laser |
PRP ↓ risk of blindness 5% |
Multicenter |
|
symmetrical) |
photocoagulation vs |
vs 17% observed RR 0.29 |
study [86] |
|
|
observation |
(0.11 to 0.77) |
Criteria for study inclusion, |
1 to 5 yrs |
quality assessment, baseline |
|
comparability and adverse |
|
effects of included studies |
|
not described |
|
Decreased VA and |
5 yrs |
constriction of peripheral |
|
visual field in some eyes |
|
Eyes assigned to deferral |
5 yrs |
of PRP did not receive any |
|
focal laser for any coexsistant |
|
DME, until the positive |
|
results of macular treatment |
|
were released |
|
Large loss to FU (28%) |
5 to 7 yrs |
Only 77 completed the |
|
5 yr follow-up. |
|
No intention to treat analysis |
|
(Continued)
Table 14.4. (Continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Study |
N |
Retinopathy severity |
Intervention |
Outcome |
Comments |
Follow up |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patients with NVD at entry had |
|
|
|
|
|
|
greatest difference. Treated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
eyes that became blind had |
|
|
|
|
|
|
less treatment than those that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
retained vision. |
|
|
British |
99 |
NPDR |
Peripheral xenon arc |
PRP ↓ visual deterioration |
Large loss to FU |
5 yrs |
Multicenter |
|
|
laser vs observation |
32% treated vs 55% controls |
No intention to treat analysis |
|
Study [87] |
|
|
|
RR 0.49 (0.32 to 0.74) |
|
|
Hercules BL, |
94 |
Symmetrical PDR |
PRP vs observation |
PRP ↓ risk of blindness |
Incomplete masking |
3 yrs |
et al. [88] |
|
involving optic disc |
|
7%(7/94) compared to 38% |
No ITA |
|
|
|
|
|
(36/94) RR 0.19 (0.09 to 0.41) |
|
|
Patz A, et al. [89] |
66 |
NPDR (+ DME) |
PRP vs observation |
Treatment ↓ visual deterioration |
Poorly specified criteria |
26 |
|
|
|
|
(6% treated vs 63% controls) RR |
Loss not specified |
months |
|
|
|
|
0.10 (0.04 to 0.26) |
|
|
Lövestam- |
81 |
Severe NPDR and |
All participants |
35% (14/40) eyes treated for |
Time-point for PRP not |
2.9 ± |
Adrian, M [90] |
|
PDR in type 1 |
treated with PRP. |
severe NPDR developed NV. |
randomly assigned. |
1.5 yrs |
(2003) |
|
diabetes patients |
(one randomly |
VH less frequent in treated |
Adverse outcomes not |
|
|
|
|
selected eye per |
eyes with severe NPDR vs PDR |
assessed. Inclusion/exclusion |
|
|
|
|
patient entered into |
(2/40 vs 12/41; P = 0.007). |
criteria, blinding, intention to |
|
|
|
|
study) |
↓ vitrectomy for VH in eyes |
treat analysis not specified. |
|
|
|
|
|
treated for severe NPDR |
Coexistent CSME was treated |
|
|
|
|
|
(1/40 versus 6/41; P = 0.052). |
with macular laser |
|
|
|
|
|
↓ visual impairment in eyes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
treated for severe NPDR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
compared to PDR (4/40 vs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/40; P = 0.056). |
|
|
Diabetic Macular Edema |
|
|
|
|
ETDRS [91] |
2244 |
Bilateral DME (mild- |
Focal argon laser |
Treatment ↓ moderate visual |
|
|
to-moderate NPDR) |
(754 eyes) vs |
loss (RR 0.50 (0.47 to 0.53). |
|
|
|
observation |
Benefits most marked in |
|
|
|
(1490 eyes). |
eyes with CSME, particularly |
|
|
|
|
if the center of the macula |
|
|
|
|
was involved or imminently |
|
|
|
|
threatened (subgroup analysis) |
Blankenship GW, |
39 |
Bilateral symmet- |
Grid argon laser vs |
Visual deterioration in 7/30 |
et al. [93] |
|
rical DME (mod- |
observation |
(23%) eyes with laser vs 13/30 |
|
|
severe NPDR) |
|
(43%) eyes with no treatment; |
|
|
|
|
RR 0.54, (CI 0.25 to 1.16)* |
Olk RJ, et al. [94] |
92 |
Diffuse DME ± |
Modified grid argon |
Treatment ↓ risk of moderate |
|
|
CSME |
laser vs observation |
visual loss by 50% to 70%. Loss |
|
|
|
|
of VA reduced compared with |
|
|
|
|
no treatment at 1 yr (RR 0.84) |
|
|
|
|
and at 2 yrs (RR 0.78, CI 0.60 to |
|
|
|
|
0.96) |
Interim report |
76 |
Bilateral |
Xenon-arc laser |
8 treated vs 18 control eyes |
of a multicenter |
|
symmetrical DME |
vs observation |
blind. |
controlled study |
|
|
|
Prognosis was best in those |
[95] |
|
|
|
with initial VA ≥ 6/24 |
Ladas ID, et al. |
42 |
Diffuse DME (NPDR) |
Modified grid argon |
Trend for improved VA with |
[96] |
|
|
laser vs observation |
treatment at 1 and 2yrs. No dif- |
|
|
|
|
ference in VA at 3 years. * |
3 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
Only 44 patients at 2 yrs, |
3 yrs |
and 25 after 3yrs |
|
No masking. |
3 yrs |
Poor characterization of |
|
groups. |
|
DME = diabetic macular edema; CSME = clinically significant macular edema; PRP = panretinal laser photocoagulation; VA = visual acuity; VF = visual fields; MVL = moderate visual loss, SVL = severe visual loss; VH = vitreous hemorrhage; NPDR = nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, NV = neovascularization; NVD = neovascularization of the disk, PDR = proliferative diabetic retinopathy, RR = risk reduction; CI = confidence intervals (95%); vs. = versus; BP = blood pressure.
282 Diabetes and Ocular Disease
loss was reduced by 50% [80]. The ETDRS [82] randomized 3711 patients with less severe diabetic retinopathy and visual acuity >20/100 to early PRP or deferral (4-monthly observation, and treatment if high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy developed). Early PRP treatment decreased the risk of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy by 50% as compared to deferral, although the incidence of severe visual loss was low in both early and deferral groups (2.6% vs. 3.7%).
The effectiveness of PRP has been confirmed by other RCTs [86–88] and a meta-analysis with a combined data of 2243 patients [83].
There are well-known adverse effects of PRP. These include visual field constriction (important for driving [97,98]), reduced night vision, color vision changes, reduced contrast sensitivity, inadvertent laser burn, macular edema exacerbation, acute glaucoma, and traction retinal detachment [99]. The possibility of visual loss immediately following PRP is also well recognized. The DRS reported vision loss of 2 to 4 lines within 6 weeks of PRP in 10% to 23% of patients versus 6% for controls [100].
Surgical Vitrectomy for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy. Vitrectomy is used for treatment of eyes with advanced diabetic retinopathy, including proliferative diabetic retinopathy with nonclearing vitreous hemorrhage or fibrosis, areas of traction involving or threatening the macula, and more recently, persistent diabetic macular edema with vitreous traction (Table 14.5) [101]. The Diabetic Retinopathy Vitrectomy Study (DRVS) randomized 616 eyes with recent vitreous hemorrhage and visual acuity ≤5/200 for at least 1 month to early vitrectomy within 6 months or observation [102–105]. After 2 years follow-up, 25% of the early vitrectomy group versus 15% of the observation group had ≥20/40 vision, with the benefits maintained at 4 years and longer in type 1 diabetes. The DRVS also randomized 381 eyes with severe proliferative diabetic retinopathy and visual acuity >10/200 to early vitrectomy or conventional management. Treatment increased the probability of visual acuity ≥20/40.
The indications of vitrectomy have expanded in the last few years because of advances in vitrectomy, including wide-field viewing, endolaser treatment, heavy liquids, and bimanual instrumentation to manipulate the retina [112].
Laser and Surgical interventions for Diabetic Macular Edema
Focal Laser Photocoagulation. There is high quality evidence that focal laser photocoagulation preserves vision in eyes with diabetic macular edema. The ETDRS [91] randomized 1490 eyes with diabetic macular edema to receive focal laser treatment or observation. At 3 years, treatment significantly reduced moderate visual loss as compared with observation [91], with the greatest benefits in eyes with clinically significant diabetic macular edema [113]. However, there remains limited evidence that the type (argon, diode, dye, krypton) or method of laser used influences outcomes [92,114–116].
Adverse effects of focal laser treatment are well documented, and include inadvertent foveal burn, central visual field defect, color vision abnormalities, subretinal fibrosis, and spread of laser scars.
Table 14.5. Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Interventions in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema |
||||||
Author |
Diagnosis |
Intervention |
N |
Outcome |
Comment |
Follow up |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy |
|
|
|
|
Diabetic Retinopathy |
Recent severe diabetic |
Early vitrectomy vs. |
616 eyes |
Early surgery ↑ recovery |
Vitrectomy Study |
vitreous hemorrhage |
deferral of vitrectomy |
|
of VA ≥10/20 (25% vs 15% |
[102,105] |
reducing VA ≤ 5/200 at |
for 1 year |
|
deferred group) |
|
least 1 month |
|
|
Trend for more frequent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loss of LP with early |
|
|
|
|
surgery (25% vs 19%) |
|
|
|
|
Greatest benefit ↑ VA |
|
|
|
|
≥10/20 in type 1 DM with |
|
|
|
|
more severe PDR (36% vs |
|
|
|
|
12% deferred group) and |
|
|
|
|
proportion losing LP was |
|
|
|
|
similar (28% vs 26%) |
Diabetic Retinopathy |
Advanced PDR |
Early vitrectomy |
370 eyes |
Early surgery ↑ proportion |
Vitrectomy Study |
with fibrovascular |
vs. conventional |
|
of eyes with VA≥10/20 |
[102,105] |
proliferation, and VA |
management |
|
(44% vs 28% conventional |
|
≥10/200 |
|
|
treatment) |
|
|
|
|
No difference in |
|
|
|
|
proportion with loss of |
|
|
|
|
vision to light perception |
|
|
|
|
or less |
4 yrs
Most benefit in |
4 yrs |
patients with very |
|
advanced PDR. No |
|
benefit in group with |
|
less severe NV |
|
(Continued)
