RESUMO
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept with dexamethasone implant in the treatment of macular edema (ME) associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR) or retinal vein occlusion (RVO). METHODS: A comprehensive search of studies comparing dexamethasone and aflibercept in patients with ME was conducted at PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the beginning of library to April 16, 2021. Extracting the data including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), number of injections and serious adverse events (SAEs) from the final qualified articles. RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meta-analysis of the included studies. RESULTS: Totally 7 studies with 369 eyes were included. The causes of ME in the final screening study included RVO and DR. Compared with the aflibercept treatment group, the BCVA of the dexamethasone implant treatment group showed no significant difference in the follow-up for 3mo [mean difference (MD): -0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.11, 0.02; P=0.17] and 12mo (MD: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.38, 0.37; P=0.98), but it was slightly worse than the aflibercept group at 6mo (MD: 0.12, 95%CI: 0.03, 0.21; P=0.008). In terms of CRT reduction, there was no significant difference between the two groups at 3mo (MD: -28.14, 95%CI: -79.95, 23.67; P=0.29), 6mo (MD: 27.67, 95%CI: -84.89, 140.24; P=0.63), and 12mo (MD: -59.00, 95%CI: -127.37, 9.37; P=0.09). However, dexamethasone implant had fewer injections, but more adverse events such as elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and cataract. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal injection of aflibercept and dexamethasone implant can both effectively increase BCVA and reduce CRT. Compared with aflibercept, dexamethasone implant is not inferior in improving vision and reducing CRT in the initial treatment period (3mo) and long-term treatment period (12mo). Besides, it has fewer injections and more likely to cause elevated IOP and cataract.
RESUMO
AIM: To quantitatively detect aqueous levels of angiopoietin-like (ANGPTL)3, ANGPTL4, and ANGPTL6 and investigate their correlation with optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) findings in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 23 patients (27 eyes) with type 2 diabetes and 16 control subjects (20 eyes). All patients underwent OCTA imaging and ultra-wide field fundus photography. Diabetic patients were categorized into two groups according to the presence or absence of diabetic retinopathy (DME group, 14 patients, 16 eyes); and non-diabetic retinopathy (NDR) group, 9 patients, 11 eyes, respectively. Aqueous levels of ANGPTL3, ANGPTL4, and ANGPTL6 were assessed using suspension array technology, and foveal-centered 3×3 mm2 OCTA scans were automatically graded to determine the central, inner, and full vessel density (CVD, IVD, FVD); central, inner, and full perfusion density (CPD, IPD, FPD), foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area, FAZ perimeter, and FAZ circularity index (FAZ-CI) on superficial capillary plexuses. Additionally, central subfield thickness (CST), cube volume (CV), and cube average thickness (CAT) were measured in a model of macular cube 512×128. RESULTS: Aqueous ANGPTL3 levels were not significantly different among the three groups (P>0.05). ANGPTL4 levels were significantly higher in the DME group than the control and NDR groups (P<0.0001 and P<0.001), while ANGPTL6 levels were significantly higher in the DME group than the control group (P<0.05). In the whole cohort, the aqueous ANGPTL3 levels correlated negatively with the IVD, FVD, IPD, and FPD, and positively with the CV and CAT. The aqueous ANGPTL4 levels correlated negatively with the CVD, IVD, FVD, CPD, IPD, and FPD, and positively with the FAZ perimeter, CST, CV, and CAT. The aqueous ANGPTL6 levels correlated negatively with the IVD, FVD, IPD, FPD, FAZ-CI and positively with CST, CV, CAT. CONCLUSION: ANGPTL4 and ANGPTL6 may be associated with vascular leakage in DME and may represent good targets for DME therapy. In addition, OCTA metrics may be useful for evaluating macular ischemia in DME.
RESUMO
Preterm infants face increased rates of mortality and developmental complications, which are a burden on children's parents (and caregivers), who suffer from exhaustion and situational uncertainty. This case focused on an extremely-low-birth-weight (908 gm) premature infant with initial unstable vital signs complicated by a grade 4 intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) that led to partial brain atrophy and enlarged brain ventricles. A poor neurological outcome was expected due to the high risk of cerebral palsy and impaired cognitive abilities. Long-term healthcare for this critical infant was causing tremendous physical, emotional, and financial strains on the family. The parents suffered from worries over the poor prognosis, resulting in stress, sleep disorders, and relationship difficulties with the healthcare professionals. Considering the poor prognosis of the infant, the parents faced a medical dilemma between choosing aggressive treatment and withdrawal of treatment, which led to stress and sleep disorders. Differences between the parents and health professionals regarding disease severity perception and treatment opinions further strained their mutual relationship. To ameliorate this issue, the author implemented family-centered care (the FOCUS family intervention) to help the patient and his family. This intervention is designed to increase family involvement, foster an optimistic attitude and effective stress coping techniques, and reduce uncertainty and negative emotions. For the patient, we provided symptom-relief management to improve abnormal muscle tone and development delay. Our intervention ameliorated the negative emotions, insomnia symptoms, and imbalanced family relationships and improved the life quality of the caregivers. Furthermore, the intervention enhanced the patient's autoregulatory ability, and both physical and neurological development. This case study is expected to provide experience in critical care for premature infants with a poor prognosis and their family using a FOCUS family intervention as well as to improve the quality of healthcare delivery in intensive clinical settings.
