Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letters
Intravenous ‘pulse’ methylprednisolone for the treatment of inflammatory cystoid macular oedema

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. SYK designed data collection tools and collected the data in Aberdeen and in Singapore, analysed the data and contributed to the writing up of the results. LK was the primary investigator in Aberdeen Royal Infirmary; she was involved in the recruitment of patients and oversaw data collection in Aberdeen. She is the corresponding author. SPC was the primary investigator in Singapore National Eye Centre; she was involved in the recruitment of patients and collection of data at this site. JVF was the supervising author and was involved in conception, design and data analysis. All authors were involved in editing and revising the draft paper, and approval of the final paper was obtained from all authors.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Intravenous pulsed methylprednisolone is used as the standard of care in patients with uveitic CMO in Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, and has been used in this manner since 2001. Many patients have been successfully treated in this way. As such, this is not a prospective study but merely documents a recent cohort of patients treated as part of the standard protocol of treatment used by the unit to control intraocular inflammation. The objective in reporting this material was to draw attention to the effectiveness of this treatment, since it was realised that few units adopt this practice, but rather use oral or periocular/intraocular steroid treatments which we have found are less rapid and effective in their control of the inflammation. Since this report is, in effect, an audit of clinical practice rather than a prospective study, there was no IRB review. As part of good clinical practice, all patients were fully informed of the options and risks of therapy, and as such, the recruitment and consent process, data collection and reporting of this study have all been performed according to the ethical principles underlying the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice guidelines, with the well-being and best interests of each patient taking priority at all times.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.