| Title |
Conversion to aflibercept for diabetic macular edema unresponsive to ranibizumab or bevacizumab
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s81523 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laurence S Lim, Wei Yan Ng, Ranjana Mathur, Doric Wong, Edmund YM Wong, Ian Yeo, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung, Shu Yen Lee, Tien Yin Wong, Thanos D Papakostas, Leo A Kim |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to determine if eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) unresponsive to ranibizumab or bevacizumab would benefit from conversion to aflibercept. This study was conducted as a retrospective chart review of subjects with DME unresponsive to ranibizumab and/or bevacizumab and subsequently converted to aflibercept. In total, 21 eyes from 19 subjects of mean age 62±15 years were included. The majority of subjects were male (63%). The median number of ranibizumab or bevacizumab injections before switching to aflibercept was six, and the median number of aflibercept injections after switching was three. Median follow-up was 5 months after the switch. Mean central foveal thickness (CFT) was 453.52±143.39 mm immediately prior to the switch. Morphologically, intraretinal cysts were present in all cases. Mean CFT after the first injection decreased significantly to 362.57±92.82 mm (Wilcoxon signed-rank test; P<0.001). At the end of follow-up, the mean CFT was 324.17±98.76 mm (P<0.001). Mean visual acuity was 0.42±0.23 logMAR just prior to the switch, 0.39±0.31 logMAR after one aflibercept injection, and 0.37±0.22 log-MAR at the end of follow-up. The final visual acuity was significantly better than visual acuity before the switch (P=0.04). Eyes with DME unresponsive to multiple ranibizumab/bevacizumab injections demonstrate anatomical and visual improvement on conversion to aflibercept. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,816,184
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,617
of 3,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,625
of 277,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#63
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.