How should we be treating our DME patients? - Ophthalmology Times Europe

ADVERTISEMENT

SEARCH
  • home
  • about us
  • contact us
  • subscribe
  • media kit request
 

CATARACT

GLAUCOMA

REFRACTIVE

RETINA

Tweet!
How should we be treating our DME patients?
Literature review sheds light on current best practice


Ophthalmology Times Europe
Volume 5, Issue 1

Key iconKey Points

  • A team led by Dr Maeve O'Doherty and Miss Marie Hickey Dwyer performed a literature review of English language articles based on randomized controlled clinical trials in diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients, conducted between 1979 and 2007. The team reviewed the evidence for and against laser, vitrectomy, steroid therapy and anti-VEGF agents, in order to develop a set of key recommendations that would assist ophthalmologists in defining a treatment strategy for their DME patients.

The optimum treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) has still yet to be defined. While many surgeons believe in the power of the laser, others are beginning to advocate the benefits of drug therapies. The truth is, there is no one clear winner. Laser photocoagulation treatment is one of the oldest forms of treatment for DME; hence a wealth of data in support of its efficacy exists and, as such, it is still recommended as first-line treatment for DME. However, the success rates of laser therapy are far from perfect, thus a great deal of research has been conducted in the quest to find a suitable adjunct or alternative.



The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) allowed the clinical grading of DME for the first time.1 This crucial step forward not only aided in disease diagnosis, but it also helped doctors to track treatment effectiveness. The advent of optical coherence tomography (OCT), however, changed the face of diagnosis and tracking. Ophthalmologists can now identify DME even in the early stages and follow response to treatment by quantifying changes in central macular thickness (CMT), which often predates visual acuity improvements.2,3

The search for the answer begins

In a bid to help ophthalmologists define treatment strategies for their DME patients, a team led by Dr Maeve O'Doherty and Miss Marie Hickey Dwyer of Limerick Regional Hospital, Ireland, performed a literature review, evaluating the role of laser, steroid therapy, anti-angiogenics, and surgery in the treatment of DME.4

"Our aim was to arm ophthalmologists with knowledge from evidence-based research that would allow them to integrate recent ophthalmic advancements into their treatment regimes," said Dr O'Doherty. "Ultimately, we wanted to provide some clear treatment guidelines based on the patient's condition and based on the scientific evidence to date," she added.

The team performed a literature review of all English language articles from Medline and Cochrane database, confining the search to randomized controlled clinical trials in humans from 1979 to 2007. Thirty-one relevant articles were returned.

Laser therapy still the mainstay

"The ETDRS was a landmark study; not only did it help us to understand the nature of the disease, but it was also the first properly conducted randomized trial to establish the benefits of laser for the treatment of DME and proliferative diabetic retinopathy," explained Dr O'Doherty.

The evidence that laser treatment preserves vision in eyes with DME is now well documented; however no definitive consensus has been reached on the optimum laser type (argon, diode, dye, krypton) or technique.5–13 Although still considered the gold standard of DME treatment, laser therapy is not without its complications. Known adverse events include foveal burn, central visual field defect, colour vision abnormalities, retinal fibrosis, and spread of laser scars.12–14 A long-term study did find that, after five years, more than 50% of patients did not experience any laser-related complications; however, 21% were found to develop either subretinal fibrosis or atrophic creep, while hard exudates as well as all other complications were found to be more common in type 2 diabetics, thus resulting in a poorer outcome.13


On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest, how would you rate this article?
Your original vote has been tallied and is included in the ratings results.
View our top pages
Average rating for this page is: 7
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Rate this article
Your comments
Discuss on our forum
Follow us on Twitter

 

Survey
What's your view of online learning/education for ophthalmology?
It would help me do my job better
Europe is well served
Europe is poorly served
Needs to be nationally orientated
Needs to be European orientated
Would never use
It would help me do my job better
100%
Europe is well served
0%
Europe is poorly served
0%
Needs to be nationally orientated
0%
Needs to be European orientated
0%
Would never use
0%
View Results
Thank you for voting
Source: Ophthalmology Times Europe,
Click here