Aflibercept 5+PRN with retinal laser photocoagulation is more effective than retinal laser photocoagulation alone and aflibercept 3+PRN with retinal laser photocoagulation in patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema: a 12-month clinical trial
Shuting Li,Yuan Tao,Mengyao Yang,Hui Zhao,Mingwei Si,Wenxuan Cui,Hong Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2024.1286736
IF: 6.055
2024-02-23
Frontiers in Endocrinology
Abstract:Objective: This study aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of retinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) alone, PRP with aflibercept 3+PRN, and PRP with aflibercept 5+PRN in patients with both high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: Overall, 170 patients with high-risk PDR and DME (170 eyes from 170 patients) who visited our ophthalmology clinic from December 2018 to December 2020 were divided into the PRP (n=58), aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP (n=53), and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP (n= 59) groups. General information, such as age, sex, and eye category, was obtained. Moreover, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), baseline central macular foveal thickness (CFT), microaneurysm (MA), area of neovascularization (NV), area of hard exudate (HE), and cytokine levels in atrial fluid before and after treatment, were assessed. The χ 2 test was used for comparison between groups for statistical data. Analysis of variance was used for the statistical description of measurement data, independent samples were analyzed using Student's t -test, and Student–Newman–Keuls test was used for group comparisons. Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. Results: After treatment, no significant improvement in the BCVA (logMAR) of patients in the PRP group was observed. The BCVA (log MAR) decreased from 0.72 ± 0.17 and 0.74 ± 0.17 to 0.50 ± 0.13 and 0.53 ± 0.17 in PRP with aflibercept 5+PRN and PRP with aflibercept 3+PRN groups, respectively, with a statistically significant difference compared to those in the PRP group (P 0.05). The CFT in the PRP-only group decreased slightly from 361.80 ± 36.70 μm to 353.86 ± 40.88 μm, with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05), whereas the CFT in the aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups decreased from 356.57 ± 37.57 μm and 358.17 ± 44.66 μm to 284.87 ± 31.52 μm and 303.19 ± 37.00 μm, respectively, with statistically significant differences before and after treatment (P<0.05 for both groups). Statistically significant differences were observed in CFT between the three groups after treatment (P<0.05 in all cases). The number of MA (pcs) in the PRP, aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP, and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups decreased from 118.34 ± 27.96, 118.60 ± 33.34, and 116.59 ± 28.95 to 92.95 ± 29.04, 44.60 ± 20.73, and 54.26 ± 25.43, respectively. The two-way comparison of the three groups revealed statistically significant differences in MA (P<0.05 in all cases). In the three groups, NV decreased from 1.00 ± 0.21 mm2, 1.01 ± 0.18 mm2, and 0.98 ± 0.20 mm2 before treatment to 0.49 ± 0.17 mm2, 0.31 ± 0.16 mm2, and 0.38 ± 0.14 mm2, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05 in all cases). After 12 months of treatment, 13, 18, and 18 patients had reduced HE area in the PRP-only, aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP, and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P 0.05). Conclusion: Aflibercept 5+PRN combined with PRP was safe and effective in treating patients with high-risk PDR and DME, and was more effective than PRP-only and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP in improving CFT and MA.
endocrinology & metabolism