...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical ophthalmology >Effectiveness of 190 μg Fluocinolone Acetonide and 700 μg Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants in Diabetic Macular Edema Using the Area-Under-the-Curve Method: The CONSTANT Analysis
【24h】

Effectiveness of 190 μg Fluocinolone Acetonide and 700 μg Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants in Diabetic Macular Edema Using the Area-Under-the-Curve Method: The CONSTANT Analysis

机译:190μg氟氨酮丙酮酮和700μg地塞米松含有700μg的含有曲目中的脊髓手术植入物的有效性,使用该区域曲线方法:恒定分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose: Calculations of area-under-the-curve (AUC) provide the average letters gained across the entire treatment period, which may be a better estimate of long-term effectiveness than single time-point outcomes, particularly when it comes to sustained-release therapies. Materials and Methods: The AUC method was used to compare the efficacy of the 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (total dose of 0.19 mg; FAc) and dexamethasone (DEX) 700 μg implants based on published data from their respective Phase 3 FAME (Fluocinolone Acetonide for Macular Edema) and MEAD pivotal clinical trials in diabetic macular edema (DME). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) letter scores were collated from the FAME trial and compared with those reported in MEAD. The trapezoidal rule was then used to calculate AUC, based on BCVA letter score, from baseline to Month 36 (FAME)/Month 39 (MEAD) and presented as an overall mean visual acuity change per day. Results: Treatment with either the FAc or DEX implant resulted in an improved BCVA over the treatment period compared with sham. This effect was statistically greater (p=0.029) for the FAc implant than the DEX implant (5.2 vs 3.5 letters/day, respectively) and even greater in the recurrent DME subgroup (p 0.001; 6.9 vs 3.5 letters/day, respectively). Conclusion: Although direct comparisons between trial cohorts cannot be performed, this analysis indicated that, in their respective pivotal clinical trial cohorts, treatment with the FAc implant provides better long-term visual acuity outcomes and a lower treatment burden than achieved with the DEX implant.
机译:目的:曲线(AUC)的计算提供整个治疗期间所获得的平均字母,这可能比单个时间点结果更好地估计长期效率,特别是在持续的时候 - 释放疗法。材料和方法:AUC方法用于比较0.2μg/天的氟氨酮丙酮酮(0.19 mg; FAC)和地塞米松(DEX)700μg植入物的疗效基于从其各自的相位3名称(Fluocinolone丙酮酸酯为黄斑水肿)和甲型糖尿病黄斑水肿(DME)中的米德枢轴临床试验。从名人的试验中,与米德报道的那些相比,最佳纠正的视力(BCVA)的最佳视力(BCVA)的信念分数。然后基于BCVA字母评分,从基线到第36(名称)/月39(蜂蜜)的基准,梯形规则用于计算AUC,并作为每天的总体平均视力变化。结果:与假处理相比,用FAC或DEX植入物治疗导致治疗期的改善的BCVA。这种效果比DEX植入物(分别为5.2 Vs 3.5字母/天)统计学上更大(P = 0.029)(p = 0.029),并且分别在复发DME子组中甚至更大)(P <0.001; 6.9 VS 3.5字母/日) 。结论:虽然无法进行试验队列之间的直接比较,但该分析表明,在各自的枢轴临床试验队列中,与FAC植入物的治疗提供了更好的长期视力结果,而不是用DEX植入达到的治疗负担。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号