Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33150052›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020

Clinical Characterization of Suprachoroidal Injection Procedure Utilizing a Microinjector across Three Retinal Disorders.

Chen-Rei Wan, Barry Kapik, Charles C Wykoff, Christopher R Henry, Mark R Barakat, Milan Shah, Rafael V Andino, Thomas A Ciulla

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05038072 (Suprachoroidal Triamcinolone Acetonide for the Treatment of Macular Edema Associated With Retinal Vein Occlusion), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05038072 nacompletednot on this map

Suprachoroidal Triamcinolone Acetonide for the Treatment of Macular Edema Associated With Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorDamascus UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled16ConditionsMacular Edema, Retinal Vein OcclusionArmssuprachoroidal injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Chen-Rei WanClearside Biomedical, Alpharetta, GA, USA.
Barry KapikClearside Biomedical, Alpharetta, GA, USA.
Charles C WykoffRetina Consultants of Houston, Retina Consultants of America; Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital & Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, TX, USA.
Christopher R HenryRetina Consultants of Houston, Retina Consultants of America; Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital & Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, TX, USA.
Mark R BarakatRetinal Consultants of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Milan ShahMidwest Eye Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Rafael V AndinoClearside Biomedical, Alpharetta, GA, USA.
Thomas A CiullaClearside Biomedical, Alpharetta, GA, USA.
Clearside Biomedical (United States) · USCornell University · USMidwest Eye Institute · USRetina Consultants of Houston · USRetinal Consultants of Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study assessed physician-investigator experience with suprachoroidal (SC) injections, an investigational therapeutic administration technique using a 900 or 1100 µm microneedle to inject drugs into the SC space. Methods: Datasets from six clinical trials across three diseases (noninfectious uveitis; diabetic macula edema, and retinal vein occlusion) were assessed. In addition to a user survey, retrospective correlations were performed between procedural variables (needle length), and demographics, and ocular characteristics. Results: In the user survey, 84% (31/37) of physician-investigators did not perceive the SC injections to be meaningfully more challenging than other ocular injections. For the correlation analysis, the 900 µm needle was used for 71% (412/581) of baseline injections, and switching to the longer needle occured in the remaining 29% of baseline injections. No statistical correlations were found between needle lengths and age, race, disorder, refraction, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, retinal central subfield thickness, or lens status. Patient gender and needle length were statistically associated, with 76% (210/275) versus 66% (202/306) of injections administered with 900 µm needles for female and male gender, respectively. Injection quadrant correlated to needle length with 78% (214/275) of superotemporal quadrant injections administered with 900 µm needles, compared with 65% (73/113) of inferotemporal quadrant injections. Conclusions: Both the user survey and the correlation analysis demonstrated that SC injection is well accepted by physician-investigators, and the two needle lengths accommodate a wide range of anatomic and demographic variables. Translational Relevance: These results, along with the presented ex-vivo endoscopic imaging, suggest that SC injection could be readily adopted in clinical practice for targeted compartmentalized delivery of ocular therapeutics.

Indexed as

Macular EdemaRetinal DiseasesRetinal Vein OcclusionChoroidFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesmicroinjectormicroneedleSCSsuprachoroidal

Identifiers

PMID33150052
PMCPMC7585395
OpenAlexW3093766181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.