Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
AIDS Res Ther ; 20(1): 46, 2023 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37452370

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and injection frequency of intravitreal low-dose vs. intermediate-dose ganciclovir therapy in acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients exhibiting cytomegalovirus retinitis (CMVR). METHODS: A prospective, single-centre, double-blinded, randomized controlled interventional study was conducted. Fifty patients with a total of 67 included eyes were randomly divided into low-dose (0.4 mg ganciclovir per week) and intermediate-dose (1.0 mg ganciclovir per week) groups. The primary clinical outcomes were the changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to the end of treatment and the 12-month follow-up visit as well as the number of intravitreal injections. RESULTS: In both groups, the median BCVA, expressed as the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), improved significantly from baseline to the end of treatment (both p < 0.001), while vision loss from CMVR continued to occur at the 12-month visit. The mean number of injections was 5.8 in the low-dose group and 5.4 in the intermediate-dose group. No significant differences were detected between the two groups (p > 0.05). Regarding the location of CMVR, we found that Zone I lesions led to a worse visual outcome, more injections and a higher occurrence rate of complications than lesions in other zones (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and frequency of injections to treat CMVR in AIDS patients were not significantly different between low and intermediate doses. Zone I lesions were associated with a worse visual outcome, more injections and a higher occurrence rate of CMVR-related complications than lesions in other zones.


Subject(s)
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome , Cytomegalovirus Retinitis , HIV Infections , Humans , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Cytomegalovirus Retinitis/complications , Cytomegalovirus Retinitis/drug therapy , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/complications , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/drug therapy , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Ganciclovir/therapeutic use , Ganciclovir/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 930508, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36172537

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and the injection number of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) monotherapy vs. intravitreal ranibizumab plus dexamethasone (IVR + DEX) implants for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Methods: This prospective, control trial comprised 96 eyes of 96 patients with ME due to non-ischemic RVO divided into two groups. The IVR monotherapy group consisted of 61 patients (29 with CRVO and 32 with BRVO) treated with ranibizumab with three consecutive loading doses at a monthly + pro re nata (three + PRN) regimen. The IVR + DEX implant group consisted of 35 patients (19 with CRVO and 16 with BRVO) treated with intravitreal ranibizumab plus DEX implant. All eyes underwent best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, log MAR), central foveal thickness (CFT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). In case of recurrence, each group received initial medication. Results: At the 12-month visit, the mean log MAR BCVA that was improved from baseline was 0.23 with the IVR group and 0.30 with the IVR + DEX group. CFT decreased on average by 420 ± 292 µm with the IVR group and 393 ± 259 µm with the IVR + DEX implant group. No significant differences were detected in BCVA improvement and CFT reduction between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of injections was 5.4 in the IVR group and 3.9 in the IVR + DEX implant group (p < 0.001). The mean reinjection interval for patients with the IVR + DEX implant was 131.2 ± 8.9 days (range: 98-150). The incidence of high IOP and cataract progression were significantly higher in the IVR + DEX implant group than in the IVR group (both p < 0.001). Conclusion: In RVO-ME, the IVR + DEX implant did not have synergistic efficacy, providing further improvement in BCVA and a reduction in CFT. However, the IVR + DEX implant still had an advantage in reducing the number of injections and prolonging the time between injections.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...