May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant to Treat Diabetic Macular Edema: 2–year Results of a Multi–Center Clinical Trial
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • P. Pearson
    Ophthalmology Univ of Kentucky, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
  • B. Levy
    Bausch & Lomb Inc., Rochester, NY
  • Fluconolone Acetonide Implant Study Group
    Ophthalmology Univ of Kentucky, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  P. Pearson, Control Delivery Systems Inc. P; Bausch & Lomb Inc. C; B. Levy, Bausch & Lomb Inc. E.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 4673. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      P. Pearson, B. Levy, Fluconolone Acetonide Implant Study Group; Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant to Treat Diabetic Macular Edema: 2–year Results of a Multi–Center Clinical Trial . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):4673.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: A multi–center, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of a sustained release fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Methods: One hundred and ninety–seven patients were randomized to receive either a 0.59mg fluocinolone implant or standard of care (repeat laser or observation) in a 2:1 ratio. Outcome measures included resolution of at the center of the macula, diabetic retinopathy scores, visual acuity and safety. Results: At 12 months post–implantation, 57.0% eyes receiving the implant versus 20.3% of eyes receiving standard of care had no evidence of edema at the center of the macula (p<0.001). Moreover, 55.6% of eyes receiving the implant demonstrated a 2–step improvement in retinal thickness at the center of the macula compared to 17.2% of eyes receiving standard of care (p<0.001). A greater proportion of device–implant eyes (16.8%) demonstrated a greater than one step decrease in the diabetic retinopathy severity scores compared to 5.0% of eyes receiving standard of care (p=0.002). At 12 months, there was no difference in visual acuity between the eyes receiving the implant and standard of care (p=0.16). The most common adverse events in the device–implanted eyes included serious cataract progression (43.1%) and a serious intraocular pressure rise (8.6%); five eyes (3.9%) required filtering procedures. Conclusions: At 12 months, the fluocinolone acetonide implant resulted in resolution of edema at the center of the macula in a significant proportion of the eyes studied. Intraocular pressure and lens clarity must be closely monitored in this patient population. The two year extended follow–up results will be presented.

Keywords: diabetic retinopathy • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled • vitreoretinal surgery 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×