Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Journal of Ocular Ph...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Article . 2013 . Peer-reviewed
License: Mary Ann Liebert TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

A Comparison Between the Fluocinolone Acetonide (Retisert) and Dexamethasone (Ozurdex) Intravitreal Implants in Uveitis

Authors: Cheryl A, Arcinue; Olga M, Cerón; C Stephen, Foster;

A Comparison Between the Fluocinolone Acetonide (Retisert) and Dexamethasone (Ozurdex) Intravitreal Implants in Uveitis

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the fluocinolone acetonide (Retisert) implant compared with the dexamethasone (Ozurdex) implant in patients with noninfectious uveitis.Comparative case series.Twenty-seven eyes received either the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) (n=16) or dexamethasone (n=11) implant.Chart review of patients at the Massachusetts Eye Research and Surgery Institution (MERSI) was done and patients were selected and matched according to age, sex, and type of uveitis. Eyes that received either the FA or dexamethasone implant, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 2 years, were included.The recurrence rate of uveitis after implantation.There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic characteristics. The majority of cases were idiopathic panuveitis, with 36.4% and 31.3% of eyes in the Ozurdex and Retisert groups, respectively. Recurrence rates of uveitis were 1.7 and 0.5 per 100 person-months in the Retisert and Ozurdex groups, respectively, with Retisert-implanted eyes 3.16 times more at risk of recurrence; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.41). No significant differences were seen in terms of improvement in inflammatory score and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The median survival time for a second implant was 13 and 28 months for the Ozurdex and Retisert groups, respectively (P=0.0028). Eyes with the Ozurdex were 5 times more likely to receive a second implant (P=0.02). No eyes in the Ozurdex group needed additional glaucoma medications, surgery, or laser compared to 44% of eyes in the Retisert group. Eyes with the Retisert implant had a statistically higher rate of having more glaucoma medications, surgery, or laser (P=0.02). In the Ozurdex group, 50% of phakic eyes at baseline had cataract progression and subsequent surgery compared with 100% of Retisert phakic eyes. Eyes with the Retisert implant are 4.7 times more at risk of cataract progression (P=0.04).The dexamethasone (Ozurdex) implant seems comparable to the fluocinolone acetonide (Retisert) implant in preventing recurrence of noninfectious uveitis and in improving inflammation and BCVA. However, there were higher rates of cataract progression and need for glaucoma medications, laser, and surgery with the Retisert implant.

Keywords

Adult, Drug Implants, Male, Time Factors, Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Middle Aged, Cataract, Dexamethasone, Uveitis, Treatment Outcome, Fluocinolone Acetonide, Intravitreal Injections, Disease Progression, Secondary Prevention, Humans, Female, Glucocorticoids, Aged, Follow-Up Studies, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    123
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
123
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 1%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!