Intraindividual comparison of nepafenac 0.3% for the prevention of macular edema after phacoemulsification

Purpose: To compare the antiinfiammatory efficacy of topical nepafenac 0.3% for prophylaxis of macular edema after cataract extraction. Setting: Sao Paulo University, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Design: Prospective randomized clinical trial. Methods: Patients with bilateral cataract were included in this study. Each patient was assigned randomly to receive nepafenac 0.3% drops in 1 eye and a placebo in the fellow eye. The primary outcome measure was the change in the mean spectral-domain optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness 5 weeks postoperatively. The secondary outcome measures were the total macular volume 1, 5, and 12 weeks postoperatively; the percentage of patients in both groups who developed macular edema, and the corrected distance visual acuity within 5 weeks and 12 weeks after cataract surgery. Results: The study comprised 224 eyes of 112 patients. For all retinal thickness measurements, a significant increase in both groups was detected starting from the first postoperative week until 12 weeks. At 5 weeks, there was a statistically significant difference in central subfield thickness and total macular volume between the nepafenac group and control group (P = .01 and P < .001, respectively). At the fifth postoperative week, no eye in the nepafenac group and 4 eyes (3.57%) in the control group had macula edema, highlighting a trend toward a greater incidence in the control group. The between-group differences in visual outcomes were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Used prophylactically after cataract surgery, nepafenac 0.3% was efficacious in reducing macular thickness compared with a placebo 5 weeks postoperatively, without a difference in final visual acuity.

URI

https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/26995

Referências

A. U. S. National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials, ANT EFF PROPH CYST M
Almeida DRP, 2012, J CATARACT REFR SURG, V38, P1537, DOI 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.04.034
Biro Z, 2008, EYE, V22, P8, DOI 10.1038/sj.eye.6702460
Chu CJ, 2016, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V123, P316, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.001
CHYLACK LT, 1993, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V111, P831, DOI 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090060119035
Flach A J, 1998, Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc, V96, P557
Gharbiya M, 2013, EYE, V27, P605, DOI 10.1038/eye.2013.28
Guo SQ, 2015, SURV OPHTHALMOL, V60, P123, DOI 10.1016/j.survophthal.2014.08.005
Kim SJ, 2007, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V114, P881, DOI 10.1016/j.jophtha.2006.08.053
Kim SJ, 2015, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V122, P2159, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.05.014
Kim YH, 2014, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V98, P1618, DOI 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304765
Kusbeci T, 2012, CURR EYE RES, V37, P327, DOI 10.3109/02713683.2011.635402
Lim BX, 2016, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006683.pub3/epdf
Mathys KC, 2010, EYE, V24, P90, DOI 10.1038/eye.2009.10
McCafferty S, 2017, BMC OPHTHALMOL, V17, DOI 10.1186/s12886-017-0405-7
McKeague M, 2018, CURR OPIN OPHTHALMOL, V29, P4, DOI 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000432
Packer M, 2012, J CATARACT REFR SURG, V38, P2108, DOI 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.07.029
POWE NR, 1994, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V112, P239, DOI 10.1001/archopht.1994.01090140115033
Singh R, 2012, CLIN OPHTHALMOL, V6, P1259, DOI 10.2147/OPTH.S31902
Singh RP, 2017, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V124, P776, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.01.036
Tranos PG, 2004, SURV OPHTHALMOL, V49, P470, DOI 10.1016/j.survophthal.2004.06.002
Tzelikis PF, 2015, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V99, P654, DOI 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305803
Ursell PG, 1999, J CATARACT REFR SURG, V25, P1492, DOI 10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00196-0
Wittpenn JR, 2008, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V146, P554, DOI 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.04.036
Yonekawa Y, 2012, CURR OPIN OPHTHALMOL, V23, P26, DOI 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32834cd5f8
Zaczek A, 2014, J CATARACT REFR SURG, V40, P1498, DOI 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.12.023

Coleções

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOF
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/33

Página do item completo