ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2025
Efficacy of aflibercept in vitrectomized vs. non-vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema: a prospective study.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of visual impairment in patients with diabetes. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are the first-line treatment for DME, with aflibercept having demonstrated favorable outcomes in comparative studies. However, data on the efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy in vitrectomized eyes are inconclusive. Corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone (DEX) implant, may be used for refractory cases. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) in patients with DME with or without prior pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and to evaluate the outcomes of DEX implantation in refractory cases.
methodsThis prospective single-center study included 46 eyes with center-involved DME. Eyes were divided into PPV and intact vitreous body (non-PPV) groups. All patients received IVA injections following the DRCR.net Protocol T. After six monthly injections, eyes refractory to IVA treatment were switched to DEX implant (refractory group). In the non-refractory group IVA injections were administered as needed (PRN) until month 12. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CSFT) were measured at baseline; at 1 week; monthly through month 6 in all eyes; monthly through month 12 in the non-refractory group; and at 2 months after DEX implantation in the refractory group.
resultsThere were 23 eyes each in the PPV and non-PPV groups. Overall, 13 (28.3%) eyes were refractory to IVA (8 PPV, 5 non-PPV; p > 0.05). The median number of IVA injections among PPV and non-PPV eyes in the non-refractory group over 12 months showed no significant difference (PPV: 10; non-PPV: 9.5; p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in BCVA (PPV: +7.0 letters; non-PPV: +11.1 letters; both p < 0.01) and CSFT (PPV: - 182.5 μm; non-PPV: - 190.4 μm; both p < 0.01) at 12 months. In refractory cases, DEX implantation resulted in a significant CSFT reduction (-259.1 μm, p < 0.01) but not BCVA improvement.
conclusionIVA is effective for DME regardless of vitreous status, with similar efficacy and treatment frequency in vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes. DEX implantation produces anatomical benefits in IVA-refractory cases, although visual gains are limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.