{"title":"糖尿病黄斑水肿患者改用地塞米松治疗后,贝伐单抗良好应答者与无应答者的光学相干断层扫描生物标志物比较","authors":"Jeong Hyun Lee, Joo Young Shin, Jeeyun Ahn","doi":"10.3341/kjo.2022.0109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare volumetric optical coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers in bevacizumab responsive and bevacizumab refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) patients switched to the dexamethasone implant to ultimately identify possible prognostic indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of DME patients treated with bevacizumab were done. Patients were divided into those who showed response to bevacizumab (bevacizumab only group) and others who were switched to the dexamethasone implant due to lack of response to bevacizumab (switching group). Volumetric OCT biomarkers such as central macular thickness (CMT), inner and outer cystoid macular edema (CME) volume, serous retinal detachment (SRD) volume, retinal volume (CME + SRD volume) within the 6-mm Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study circle were calculated. OCT biomarkers were followed up throughout treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among total of 144 eyes, 113 patients were included in the bevacizumab only group and 31 patients were included in the switching group. Compared to the bevacizumab only group, the switching group showed higher baseline CMT (558.00 ± 209.60 µm vs. 454.96 ± 125.88 µm, p = 0.003), larger inner CME (6.02 ± 1.43 mm3 vs. 5.12 ± 0.87 mm3, p = 0.004) and SRD volume (0.32 ± 0.40 mm3 vs. 0.11 ± 0.09 mm3, p = 0.015) and higher proportion of patients with SRD (58.06% vs. 31.86%, p = 0.008). In the switching group, CMT, inner CME and SRD volume all showed significant reduction after switching to the dexamethasone implant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DME with large SRD and inner nuclear layer edema volume may be more effectively treated with the dexamethasone implant than bevacizumab.</p>","PeriodicalId":17883,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO","volume":"37 2","pages":"137-146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8d/12/kjo-2022-0109.PMC10151166.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarkers between Bevacizumab Good Responders and Nonresponders Who were Switched to Dexamethasone Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema.\",\"authors\":\"Jeong Hyun Lee, Joo Young Shin, Jeeyun Ahn\",\"doi\":\"10.3341/kjo.2022.0109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare volumetric optical coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers in bevacizumab responsive and bevacizumab refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) patients switched to the dexamethasone implant to ultimately identify possible prognostic indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of DME patients treated with bevacizumab were done. Patients were divided into those who showed response to bevacizumab (bevacizumab only group) and others who were switched to the dexamethasone implant due to lack of response to bevacizumab (switching group). Volumetric OCT biomarkers such as central macular thickness (CMT), inner and outer cystoid macular edema (CME) volume, serous retinal detachment (SRD) volume, retinal volume (CME + SRD volume) within the 6-mm Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study circle were calculated. OCT biomarkers were followed up throughout treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among total of 144 eyes, 113 patients were included in the bevacizumab only group and 31 patients were included in the switching group. Compared to the bevacizumab only group, the switching group showed higher baseline CMT (558.00 ± 209.60 µm vs. 454.96 ± 125.88 µm, p = 0.003), larger inner CME (6.02 ± 1.43 mm3 vs. 5.12 ± 0.87 mm3, p = 0.004) and SRD volume (0.32 ± 0.40 mm3 vs. 0.11 ± 0.09 mm3, p = 0.015) and higher proportion of patients with SRD (58.06% vs. 31.86%, p = 0.008). In the switching group, CMT, inner CME and SRD volume all showed significant reduction after switching to the dexamethasone implant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DME with large SRD and inner nuclear layer edema volume may be more effectively treated with the dexamethasone implant than bevacizumab.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO\",\"volume\":\"37 2\",\"pages\":\"137-146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8d/12/kjo-2022-0109.PMC10151166.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2022.0109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2022.0109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较贝伐珠单抗应答和贝伐珠单抗难治性糖尿病黄斑水肿(DME)患者的体积光学相干断层扫描(OCT)生物标志物,以最终确定可能的预后指标。方法:对使用贝伐单抗治疗的二甲醚患者进行回顾性分析。患者被分为对贝伐单抗有反应的患者(仅贝伐单抗组)和由于对贝伐单抗缺乏反应而改用地塞米松植入物的患者(切换组)。计算6 mm早期糖尿病视网膜病变治疗研究圈内黄斑中央厚度(CMT)、内外囊状黄斑水肿(CME)体积、浆液性视网膜脱离(SRD)体积、视网膜体积(CME + SRD体积)等体积OCT生物标志物。在整个治疗过程中随访OCT生物标志物。结果:144只眼中,仅贝伐单抗组113例,切换组31例。与单一贝伐单抗组相比,切换组的基线CMT(558.00±209.60µm vs. 454.96±125.88µm, p = 0.003)、内CME(6.02±1.43 mm3 vs. 5.12±0.87 mm3, p = 0.004)和SRD体积(0.32±0.40 mm3 vs. 0.11±0.09 mm3, p = 0.015)更高,SRD患者比例(58.06% vs. 31.86%, p = 0.008)更高。切换组CMT、内CME和SRD体积均在切换到地塞米松种植体后显著降低。结论:与贝伐单抗相比,地塞米松植入物治疗SRD大、内核层水肿体积大的二甲醚可能更有效。
Comparison of Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarkers between Bevacizumab Good Responders and Nonresponders Who were Switched to Dexamethasone Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema.
Purpose: To compare volumetric optical coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers in bevacizumab responsive and bevacizumab refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) patients switched to the dexamethasone implant to ultimately identify possible prognostic indicators.
Methods: Retrospective analysis of DME patients treated with bevacizumab were done. Patients were divided into those who showed response to bevacizumab (bevacizumab only group) and others who were switched to the dexamethasone implant due to lack of response to bevacizumab (switching group). Volumetric OCT biomarkers such as central macular thickness (CMT), inner and outer cystoid macular edema (CME) volume, serous retinal detachment (SRD) volume, retinal volume (CME + SRD volume) within the 6-mm Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study circle were calculated. OCT biomarkers were followed up throughout treatment.
Results: Among total of 144 eyes, 113 patients were included in the bevacizumab only group and 31 patients were included in the switching group. Compared to the bevacizumab only group, the switching group showed higher baseline CMT (558.00 ± 209.60 µm vs. 454.96 ± 125.88 µm, p = 0.003), larger inner CME (6.02 ± 1.43 mm3 vs. 5.12 ± 0.87 mm3, p = 0.004) and SRD volume (0.32 ± 0.40 mm3 vs. 0.11 ± 0.09 mm3, p = 0.015) and higher proportion of patients with SRD (58.06% vs. 31.86%, p = 0.008). In the switching group, CMT, inner CME and SRD volume all showed significant reduction after switching to the dexamethasone implant.
Conclusions: DME with large SRD and inner nuclear layer edema volume may be more effectively treated with the dexamethasone implant than bevacizumab.