You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Intravitreal injection of a Rho-kinase inhibitor (fasudil) combined with bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy for diabetic macular oedema: a pilot randomised clinical trial

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Intravitreal injection of a Rho-kinase inhibitor (fasudil) combined with bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy for diabetic macular oedema: a pilot randomised clinical trial
  1. Hamid Ahmadieh1,
  2. Ramin Nourinia2,
  3. Ali Hafezi-Moghadam3,4,
  4. Hamideh Sabbaghi5,
  5. Shintaro Nakao3,4,6,
  6. Souska Zandi3,4,7,
  7. Mehdi Yaseri1,8,
  8. Zahra Tofighi1,
  9. Shadi Akbarian1
  1. 1 Ophthalmic Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2 Ocular Tissue Engineering Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  3. 3 Molecular Biomarkers Nono-Imaging Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  4. 4 Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  5. 5 Ophthalmic Epidemiology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  6. 6 Department of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Kyushu, Japan
  7. 7 Berner Augenklinik am Lindenhofspital, Swiss Eye Institute and Clinic for Vitreoretinal Diseases, Bern, Switzerland
  8. 8 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  1. Correspondence to Professor Hamid Ahmadieh, Ophthalmic Research Center, Labbafinejad Medical Center, Tehran 16666, Iran; hahmadieh{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

Background/aims To compare the efficacy of combined intravitreal injection of bevacizumab and a Rho-kinase inhibitor, fasudil (intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB)/intravitreal fasudil (IVF)), with IVB alone for centre-involving diabetic macular oedema (DME).

Methods In this prospective randomised clinical trial, 44 eyes with centre-involving DME were randomised into two groups. The combined group received three consecutive injections of IVB (1.25 mg) and IVF (50 µM/L) monthly, while the monotherapy group received only one IVB (1.25 mg) injection per month for 3 months. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were compared between the two groups at months 3 and 6. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in BCVA at month 6.

Results Mean BCVA was significantly improved in both groups at month 3 (P<0.001), but it persisted up to month 6 only in the IVB/IVF group. Improvement of BCVA was greater in the IVB/IVF group at both time points (P=0.008, P<0.001). In the IVB/IVF and IVB groups, 54.5% versus 10% of the eyes gained≥15 ETDRS letters at month 6 (P=0.026). Between months 3 and 6, mean BCVA significantly decreased by 5±7 ETDRS letters in the IVB group (P=0.002), while no significant deterioration was observed in the IVB/IVF group. Corresponding with the BCVA changes, CMT was significantly reduced in both groups at month 3 (p=0.006, p<0.001) but this reduction sustained only in the IVB/IVF group up to month 6 (p<0.001).

Conclusion Adjunctive intravitreal injection of a Rho-kinase inhibitor may enhance and prolong the therapeutic effects of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs for centre- involving DME.

  • best corrected visual acuity
  • bevacizumab
  • central macular thickness
  • clinical trial
  • combined therapy
  • diabetic macular edema
  • fasudil
  • Rho-Kinase (ROCK) inhibitor

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312244

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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • HA and RN contributed equally.

    • Presented at This study was presented as a paper at the Retina Subspecialty Day and as a poster at the American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, 2016, Chicago, USA.

    • Contributors HA, RN: design, acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting, revising and final approval of the manuscript. AH-M, SN and SZ: design, revising and final approval of the manuscript. HS: design, acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting and final approval of the manuscript. MY: design, analysis and interpretation of data and final approval of the manuscript. ZT: design, drafting, revising and final approval of the manuscript. SA: acquisition of data, drafting and final approval of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Ethics approval Ethics Committee, Ophthalmic Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (IR.SBMU.ORC.REC.1392.1).

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

    Linked Articles

    • At a glance
      Highlights from this issue
      Keith Barton James Chodosh Jost B Jonas
      British Journal of Ophthalmology 2019; 103 i-ii Published Online First: 21 Jun 2019. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314702