Comparison of Ranibizumab Treatment Response of Superior and Inferior Temporal Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Year Follow-Up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare ranibizumab treatment response of macular edema secondary to superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients treated with 0.5 mg/0.05 mL ranibizumab due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion were enrolled in this retrospective study. Thirty-eight eyes with superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion were classified as Group 1 and 26 eyes with inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion as Group 2. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and the number of intravitreal injections were evaluated and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean baseline, 3^rd, 6^th, 9^th, and 12^th month BCVA values in Group 1 were 0.77±0.47, 0.37±0.20, 0.37±0.22, 0.38±0.24, and 0.35±0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and in Group 2 were 0.75±0.45, 0.37±0.18, 0.35±0.19, 0.32±0.17, and 0.28±0.20 logMAR, respectively. The mean baseline, 3^rd, 6^th, 9^th, and 12^th month CMT values in Group 1 were 522.92±136.01, 318.03±66.65, 287.53±48.27, 271.95±32.47, and 280.47±91.66 µm and in Group 2 were 524.08±145.51, 289.85±53.08, 268.96±31.57, 260.77±30.22, and 244.04±44.78 µm, respectively. BCVA and CMT improved significantly within both groups after the treatment (p<0.05) and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). However, a significantly higher number of injections was needed for Group 1.

CONCLUSION

Ranibizumab improved the visual and anatomical outcomes similarly in both superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion with macular edema. However, more frequent injections were needed to achieve the same efficacy in superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab Versus Aflibercept for Diabetic Macular Edema in Vitrectomized Eyes: 12 Month Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the effect of intravitreal ranibizumab and aflibercept on the treatment of diabetic macular edema in previously vitrectomized eyes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of fifty-two vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups; Group 1 (n = 30 eyes) received 0.5 mg/0.05 mL intravitreal ranibizumab and Group 2 (n = 22 eyes) received 2 mg/0.05 mL intravitreal aflibercept for 3 monthly injections and thereafter as needed over 12 months. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and injection number of the drugs were the outcomes of the study.

RESULTS

Fifty-two previously vitrectomized eyes were enrolled in this study. Thirty-eight of them (73.1%) were male and 14 (26.9%) were female. The mean age was 61.54 ± 7.33 year (range: 50-72 year). BCVA increased and CMT decreased significantly in both groups at the end of the follow-up period (p < .05). The change in BCVA and CMT was not statistically different between the groups (p > .05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the injection number (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Both ranibizumab and aflibercept were found to be effective on diabetic macular edema in previously vitrectomized eyes. There was no difference between the groups in terms of visual acuity gain and CMT improvement. However, the number of injections was found to be lower in aflibercept group. Therefore, aflibercept may be preferred in the treatment of macular edema in previously vitrectomized eyes.

Insulin-Related Lipohypertrophy: Lipogenic Action or Tissue Trauma?

Lipohypertrophy has been suggested as an outcome of lipogenic action of insulin and/or injection-related tissue trauma. In a cross-sectional study, we evaluated the predictors of lipohypertrophy in 372 type 1 diabetes patients (mean age 17.1 years) receiving subcutaneous insulin with pen and/or syringes for ≥3 months. On examining injection sites with inspection and palpation technique, 62.1% patients demonstrated lipohypertrophy. Univariate analysis showed that gender, BMI, HbA1c, injection device, rotation, injection area, needle length, insulin regimen, and total daily dose of insulin were associated with lipohypertrophy (p < 0.05). Notably, the mean needle reuse was comparable in patients with or without lipohypertrophy (8.1 vs. 7.2, p = 0.534). In multivariate logistic regression, gender, HbA1c, TDD, injection devices, and needle length lost its significance. Further, injections over smaller area (≤8.5 × 5.5 cm) and non-rotation of sites were found to be strongest independent predictor of lipohypertrophy (p < 0.0005 for both) with increased odds of 23.2 (95% CI 9.1-59.2) and 6.3 (95% CI 3.4-11.9) times, respectively. Being underweight was also a significant independent predictor (odds ratio [OR] 13.0 [95% CI 2.2-75.2], p = 0.004). Compared to rapid plus long-acting analogs, regular insulin plus long-acting analogs and conventional premixed insulin users had 3.2 (95% CI 1.5-6.8, p = 0.003) and 4.6 (95% CI 1.4-15.7, p = 0.014) fold higher risk of lipohypertrophy (mean injection frequency 4.01 vs. 4.01 vs. 2.09, respectively). Sub-group analysis showed that lipohypertrophy was 79% less likely in patients with multiple daily injections (≥4) than twice-daily regimen (OR 0.21, p < 0.0005). Moreover, lipohypertrophy was reduced to half with bolus doses of rapid-acting insulin analogs than regular insulin (p = 0.003), even though mean injection frequency was comparable (4.01 vs. 3.93, p = 0.229). This difference was statistically insignificant for basal doses with NPH or long-acting analogs (p = 0.069). Therefore, injection area, rotation, BMI, and insulin regimen are the best predictors of lipohypertrophy and together could correctly identify lipohypertrophy status in 84.4% patients with excellent discrimination capability (AUC = 0.906, p < 0.0005). In conclusion, findings of our study suggest that delivering rapidly absorbed insulin analogs over large injection area along with greater split of total daily doses reduce insulin-induced lipogenesis and outplay tissue trauma added through frequent injections and needle reuse.

Daily insulin doses and injection frequencies of neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulin, insulin detemir and insulin glargine in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a multicenter analysis of 51 964 patients from the German/Austrian DPV-wiss database

BACKGROUND

We performed a comparative analysis of the use of long-acting insulin (analogues) neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH), detemir (Det) and glargine (Gla), and quantified injection frequencies and daily insulin doses in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes in daily practice.

METHODS

A total number of 51 964 patients from 336 centres in Germany and Austria with type 1 and 2 diabetes with exclusive insulin therapy were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

A total number of 42.1%/75.9% (type 1/type 2) of patients used NPH, 19.9%/6.7% Det and 38.0%/17.4% Gla, with similar glycaemic control and proportion of severe hypoglycaemia for NPH/Det/Gla in type 1 (Mean HbA(1c) 7.98%/7.98%/8.07%; mean proportion of severe hypoglycaemia 11.06%/11.93%/10.86%) and type 2 diabetes (Mean HbA(1c) 7.61%/7.78%/7.61%; mean proportion of severe hypoglycaemia 5.66%/4.48%/5.03%). In type 1 diabetes, the mean daily injection frequencies of NPH versus Det versus Gla were 1.9 vs 1.8 vs 1.1, and total daily insulin injections were 5.3 vs 5.6 vs 5.0. The adjusted mean daily basal insulin doses were 0.36, 0.39 and 0.31 IU/kg, mean daily total insulin dose was lowest for Gla (0.74 IU/kg), followed by NPH (0.76 IU/kg) and Det (0.81 IU/kg). In type 2 diabetes patients, mean daily injection frequencies were 1.6 for NPH, 1.4 for Det and 1.1 for Gla, total daily insulin injections were 4.0 vs 4.1 vs 3.6. The mean daily basal insulin dosages were 0.30 IU/kg (NPH), 0.33 IU/kg (Det) and 0.29 IU/kg (Gla), mean total insulin doses per day were 0.63 IU/kg (NPH), 0.77 IU/kg (Det) and 0.67 IU/kg (Gla).

CONCLUSIONS

In a 'real-world' setting, the injection frequencies and doses of basal and total insulin per day are lowest with the use of insulin glargine compared with NPH-insulin or insulin detemir at similar glycaemic control and rates of severe hypoglycaemia.

Different injection frequencies of basal insulins in type 2 diabetes patients under real-life conditions: a retrospective database analysis

AIMS

Little is known about routine use of basal insulins [glargine, detemir, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)] in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes. The aim was to compare injection frequencies of basal insulins in type 2 diabetes in primary care practices, both for basal-supported oral therapy (BOT) and basal-bolus treatment [intensified conventional therapy (ICT)] regimens.

METHODS

Primary care data from 4211 glargine (BOT/ICT, 2247/1964), 1290 detemir (490/800), and 3876 NPH (1331/2425) insulin users were retrospectively analyzed (Disease Analyzer database, May 2009-April 2012). Logistic regression (>1 daily injection) and propensity scores were used to adjust for various confounders (age, sex, type of physician, dosage, body mass index, glycosylated hemoglobin).

RESULTS

Overall, >1 daily injections were observed in 7.5% of glargine users (BOT, 6.2%; ICT, 9.0%), which was lower than for detemir (overall, 25.4%; BOT, 22.0%; ICT, 27.4%) and NPH (25.4%; BOT, 23.9%; ICT, 27.2%) insulin (all p < .001). The adjusted odds of having >1 injection was lower for glargine compared with detemir (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI 0.22-0.32) and NPH-insulin (0.20; 0.17-0.23). Similar results were found for BOT or ICT and after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Glargine is associated with significantly lower injection frequencies than other basal insulins. These findings might impact patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and economic aspects of diabetes treatment.