International ophthalmology · 2023
Clinical outcomes of different regimens of intravitreal Conbercept for the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathological myopia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Song Li, Luo Chunyun, Zheng Yu, Sha Xiangyin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical outcomes of two intravitreal injection regimens of Conbercept used to treat choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathological myopia (PM-CNV).
METHODS: A total of 72 eyes of 72 patients were treated: 39 eyes received a single injection followed by treatment pro re nata (1 + PRN); 33 eyes first received 3 consecutive monthly injections (3 + PRN) then followed by PRN. After initial injection, patients were followed up for 12 months.
RESULTS: The mean age of 72 patients was 45.3 ± 5.1 years, with the mean diopter of -10.62 ± 3.24D. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.86 ± 0.23 LogMAR with 1 + PRN and 0.90 ± 0.19 LogMAR with 3 + PRN at baseline (P = 0.422), 0.36 ± 0.07 and 0.33 ± 0.05 LogMAR at month 3 (P = 0.026); and 0.33 ± 0.03 and 0.32 ± 0.02 LogMAR at month 12 (P = 0.096). The central retinal thickness (CRT) was 333.5 ± 22.7 μm with 1 + PRN and 341.2 ± 20.9 μm with 3 + PRN at baseline (P = 0.139), 281.53 ± 10.28 and 273.15 ± 13.24 μm at month 3 (P = 0.004); 266.83 ± 8.14 and 264.91 ± 9.27 μm at month 12 (P = 0.350). The number of injections in the 1 + PRN group was significantly lower than that observed in the 3 + PRN group (2.15 ± 1.06 versus 3.36 ± 0.74; P < 0.001). During the follow-up, no serious ocular complications and adverse reactions related to Conbercept and injections occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Both injection regimens resulted in similar visual outcomes in PM-CNV patients. The 1 + PRN regimen had fewer injections and might be more suitable in this patient population.
METHODS: A total of 72 eyes of 72 patients were treated: 39 eyes received a single injection followed by treatment pro re nata (1 + PRN); 33 eyes first received 3 consecutive monthly injections (3 + PRN) then followed by PRN. After initial injection, patients were followed up for 12 months.
RESULTS: The mean age of 72 patients was 45.3 ± 5.1 years, with the mean diopter of -10.62 ± 3.24D. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.86 ± 0.23 LogMAR with 1 + PRN and 0.90 ± 0.19 LogMAR with 3 + PRN at baseline (P = 0.422), 0.36 ± 0.07 and 0.33 ± 0.05 LogMAR at month 3 (P = 0.026); and 0.33 ± 0.03 and 0.32 ± 0.02 LogMAR at month 12 (P = 0.096). The central retinal thickness (CRT) was 333.5 ± 22.7 μm with 1 + PRN and 341.2 ± 20.9 μm with 3 + PRN at baseline (P = 0.139), 281.53 ± 10.28 and 273.15 ± 13.24 μm at month 3 (P = 0.004); 266.83 ± 8.14 and 264.91 ± 9.27 μm at month 12 (P = 0.350). The number of injections in the 1 + PRN group was significantly lower than that observed in the 3 + PRN group (2.15 ± 1.06 versus 3.36 ± 0.74; P < 0.001). During the follow-up, no serious ocular complications and adverse reactions related to Conbercept and injections occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Both injection regimens resulted in similar visual outcomes in PM-CNV patients. The 1 + PRN regimen had fewer injections and might be more suitable in this patient population.