Optical Coherence Tomography versus Stereoscopic Fundus Photography or Biomicroscopy for Diagnosing Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review.

Optical Coherence Tomography versus Stereoscopic Fundus Photography or Biomicroscopy for Diagnosing Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review.

Virgili G, Menchini F, Dimastrogiovanni AF, Rapizzi E, Menchini U, Bandello F, Chiodini RG.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; the.

PURPOSE: To review systematically the sensitivity and specificity of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for diagnosing macular edema attributable to diabetic retinopathy compared with well-established gold standard tests such as fundus stereophotography or contact and noncontact fundus biomicroscopy.

METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched electronically and six major ophthalmic journals from 1998 to 2006 were hand searched. Two reviewers independently assessed trial searches, studied quality with the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) checklist, and extracted data. The target disease was clinically significant macular edema (CSME) according to Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) criteria. A bivariate model was used to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and fit a summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS: Fifteen studies were considered eligible. These studies were of good quality for most items of the QUADAS checklist, but most studies did not report masking of examiners and did not describe how withdrawals and undetermined results were treated. Seven studies included healthy control subjects, which could have artificially enhanced OCT diagnostic performance. All but one study included both eyes of the patients without taking into account the within-subject correlation in statistical analyses. Sensitivity and specificity data could be extracted from only 6 of 15 studies, because appropriate cross tabulations of index and reference tests were not reported by the others. In five of these studies, central retinal thickness cutoffs between 230 and 300 mum were adopted to define abnormal OCT results and considered the central type of CSME only, whereas in one study a complex algorithm accounting for extrafoveal CSME was used. The design of one study was case-control and was excluded from the meta-analysis. The expected operating point on the summary ROC, a pooled estimate of all studies, corresponded to a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.86), a specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.93), a positive likelihood ratio of 6.5 (95% CI: 4.0-10.7), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.24 (95% CI: 0.17-0.32). These values suggest a good overall performance of OCT for diagnosing CSME.

CONCLUSIONS: OCT performs well compared with fundus stereophotography or biomicroscopy to diagnose diabetic macular edema. The quality of reporting of such studies should be improved, and authors should present cross tabulations of index and reference test results. Data adjusted for within-subject correlation should also be provided, although this issue represents a challenge for systematic reviewers.

PubMed

Intravitreal bevacizumab with or without triamcinolone for refractory diabetic macular edema

Intravitreal bevacizumab with or without triamcinolone for refractory diabetic macular edema; a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007 Oct 5

Ahmadieh H, Ramezani A, Shoeibi N, Bijanzadeh B, Tabatabaei A, Azarmina M, Soheilian M, Keshavarzi G, Mohebbi MR.

Ophthalmic Research Center, Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shaheed Beheshti Medical University, Tehran, Iran.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of three intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (IVB) alone or combined with triamcinolone (IVT) in the first injection for treatment of refractory diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS: In this prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, 115 eyes of 101 patients with refractory DME were included. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three study arms: 1) three injections of IVB (1.25 mg/0.05 ml) at 6-week intervals, 2) combined IVB and IVT (1.25 mg/0.05 ml and 2 mg/0.05 ml respectively) followed by two injections of IVB at 6-week intervals, and 3) sham injection (control group). The primary outcome measure was change in central macular thickness (CMT). Secondary outcome measures were change in best-corrected logMAR visual acuity (BCVA ) and incidence of potential adverse events.

RESULTS: Central macular thickness was reduced significantly in both the IVB and IVB/IVT groups. At week 24, CMT change compared to the baseline was -95.7 mum (95% CI, -172.2 to -19.26) in the IVB group, -92.1 mum (95% CI, -154.4 to -29.7) in the IVB/IVT group, and 34.9 mum (95% CI, 7.9 to 61.9) in the control group.

There was a significant difference between the IVB and control groups (P = 0.012) and between the IVB/IVT and control groups (P = 0.022). Improvement of BCVA was initiated at weeks 6 and 12 in the IVB/IVT and IVB groups respectively. In terms of BCVA change compared to the baseline at 24 weeks, the differences between the IVB and control groups (P = 0.01) and also between the IVB/IVT and control groups (P = 0.006) were significant.

No significant differences were detected in the changes of CMT and BCVA between the IVB and IVB/IVT groups (P = 0.99). Anterior chamber reaction was noticed in eight (19.5%) and seven (18.9%) eyes respectively in the IVB and IVB/IVT groups the day after injection, and it resolved with no sequel. Elevation of IOP occurred in three eyes (8.1%) in the IVB/IVT group.

CONCLUSION: Three consecutive intravitreal injections of bevacizumab had a beneficial effect on refractory DME in terms of CMT reduction and BCVA improvement. Addition of triamcinolone in the first injection seemed to induce earlier visual improvement; however, it did not show any significant additive effect later during follow-up.

PMID: 17917738 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]