Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina

Clinical Science 

Intravitreal Diclofenac in the Treatment of Macular Edema Due to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Anisha Seth, MS, DNB, FICO; Basudeb Ghosh, MD, MNAMS; Usha K. Raina, MD, FRCS; Anika Gupta, MS; Supriya Arora, MS

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the effect of a single dose of intravitreal diclofenac on macular edema (ME) due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

In this prospective, interventional case series, 15 eyes with BRVO and ME with central macular thickness (CMT) greater than 250 µm on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) were enrolled. All patients were given 0.05 mg/0.1 mL of intravitreal diclofenac under aseptic conditions and followed up for 3 months with respect to best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), fundus fluorescein angiography, and CMT measured on OCT.

RESULTS:

The mean visual acuity improved from 0.115 ± 0.03 preoperatively to 0.356 ± 0.29 at 3 months (P = .002). Mean line improvement was 2.2 ± 1.6. Mean preoperative CMT decreased from 453.2 µm ± 55.3 µm to 340.47 µm ± 101 µm at 3 months postoperatively (P = .001). The mean preoperative IOP was 16.4 mm Hg ± 1.59 mm Hg, whereas the mean postoperative IOP was 16.6 mm Hg ± 1.58 mm Hg (P = .08). None of the 12 phakic eyes showed evidence of cataract progression.

CONCLUSION:

Intravitreal diclofenac is safe and effective in improving BCVA and decreasing CMT in patients with BRVO and ME.

[Ophthalmic Surg Imaging Lasers Retina. 2016;47:149–155.]

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the effect of a single dose of intravitreal diclofenac on macular edema (ME) due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

In this prospective, interventional case series, 15 eyes with BRVO and ME with central macular thickness (CMT) greater than 250 µm on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) were enrolled. All patients were given 0.05 mg/0.1 mL of intravitreal diclofenac under aseptic conditions and followed up for 3 months with respect to best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), fundus fluorescein angiography, and CMT measured on OCT.

RESULTS:

The mean visual acuity improved from 0.115 ± 0.03 preoperatively to 0.356 ± 0.29 at 3 months (P = .002). Mean line improvement was 2.2 ± 1.6. Mean preoperative CMT decreased from 453.2 µm ± 55.3 µm to 340.47 µm ± 101 µm at 3 months postoperatively (P = .001). The mean preoperative IOP was 16.4 mm Hg ± 1.59 mm Hg, whereas the mean postoperative IOP was 16.6 mm Hg ± 1.58 mm Hg (P = .08). None of the 12 phakic eyes showed evidence of cataract progression.

CONCLUSION:

Intravitreal diclofenac is safe and effective in improving BCVA and decreasing CMT in patients with BRVO and ME.

[Ophthalmic Surg Imaging Lasers Retina. 2016;47:149–155.]

Introduction

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second most common cause of retinal vascular disease after diabetic retinopathy.1,2 Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is the more common of the two presentations, accounting for approximately 80% of RVO.3 Macular edema (ME) is the most frequent cause of vision loss in BRVO.4 One study reports the prevalence of ME in BRVO to be as high as 60%.5

Grid laser photocoagulation has been considered the gold standard for treatment of macular edema in BRVO.4 However, the clinical outcomes are sometimes disappointing, as the average improvement after laser may leave significant visual disability in many patients, visual improvement occurs very slowly, and laser has the risk of potential complications like enlargement of laser scar, choroidal neovascularization (CNV), subretinal fibrosis, and visual sensitivity deterioration.6

The development of macular edema (ME) following BRVO has been hypothesized to be caused by tissue damage and ischemia, resulting in the release of various inflammatory mediators.7–9 Due to the limitations with laser treatment, many intravitreal pharmacotherapies targeting these inflammatory mediators are now being used as adjuncts or alternative treatment to laser. Intravitreal corticosteroid and anti-vascular growth factor (VEGF) injections have both been studied and found to be efficacious in ME secondary to BRVO.10,11 However, intravitreal steroids have a high risk of developing glaucoma and cataract, whereas intravitreal anti-VEGF agents are expensive and also have a risk of causing cerebrovascular accidents and hypertension.

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent that inhibits both the cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase pathways and has been primarily used as a topical agent in the eye. It was first used intravitreally for macular edema due to various etiologies in 2010.7 Since then, its effect has been studied in diabetic macular edema and uveitic cystoid macular edema and has been found to be efficacious and safe.12–15 However, its role in ME due to BRVO has yet not been studied. To the best of our knowledge, there has been only a single case of ME in BRVO reported where intravitreal diclofenac was used.7 Therefore, we studied the effect of intravitreal diclofenac (IVD) in ME due to BRVO.

Patients and Methods

This was a prospective interventional case study that was performed on 15 eyes of 15 patients with ME due to BRVO who presented to the outpatient department of a tertiary care center in India. The study was performed in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. After local ethical committee approval, a written informed consent was obtained from each study participant. All patients underwent detailed history taking and clinical examination. A complete ocular evaluation, including measurement of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with the Snellen chart, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure (IOP) using applanation tonometry, fundus photography, fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) (Zeiss Visucam NM/FA; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany), and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) (RTVue; Optovue, Fremont, CA) were performed at baseline.

Inclusion Criteria

Patients were included in the study if there was presence of macular edema due to BRVO on fundus biomicroscopy and confirmed on FFA; baseline Snellen's BCVA in the study eye less than 6/12, central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography (OCT) greater than 250 µm.

Exclusion Criteria

Patients were excluded if they had any additional eye disease that could compromise visual acuity, ocular inflammation, intraocular surgery in the last 3 months before presentation, uncontrolled glaucoma, prior treatments with laser photocoagulation or other intervention for macular edema due to BRVO, neovascularization of retina/iris due to BRVO, or any media opacities.

Technique of Injection

Qualified patients were given a single intravitreal injection of 500 µg/0.1 mL of commercially available diclofenac preparation. Treatment was performed as an outpatient procedure. Topical anesthesia was obtained with 0.5% proparacaine eye drops, followed by standard perioperative cleaning and draping. Povidone iodine 5% solution was applied to the periocular areas, eyelids, eyelashes, and conjunctival sac. Diclofenac was injected into the vitreous with a 27-gauge needle 3.5 mm posterior to limbus in pseudophakic and 4 mm posterior to limbus in phakic eyes in inferotemporal quadrant. Tamponade was applied with sterile cotton-tipped applicator to the needle track as it was withdrawn. Indirect ophthalmoscopy was done to confirm intravitreal location of the suspension and perfusion of the optic nerve head.

Follow-Up

All patients were examined next day for evaluation of visual acuity, IOP, and evidence of any intraocular inflammation/infection and any other complication. Topical antibiotics were prescribed for 1 week.

Subjects were followed up monthly for 3 months for BCVA, IOP, slit lamp examination for lens status assessment, and fundus examination. FA and OCT were performed at 1 and 3 months.

Main outcome measures were change in BCVA and central macular thickness (CMT). Statistical analysis was done using SPSS (version 22, SPSS, Chicago). Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for pre- and post-treatment comparison. A value of less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient Demographics

The study included 15 eyes of 15 patients with a mean age 52.6 years (range: 40 years to 65 years). Five patients were men and 10 were women. All 15 patients were hypertensives, controlled on medication, and six patients had a deranged lipid profile.

Three patients had history of cataract surgery and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation in the included eye, and 12 eyes were phakic. None of the phakic eyes had cataract, and none of the patients had any hypertensive retinopathy in either eye.

Mean Visual Acuity

The BCVA improved in 80% of eyes after IVD. Mean visual acuity improved from 0.115 ± 0.03 preoperatively to 0.32 ± 0.29 at 1 month and 0.356 ± 0.29 at 3 months (Figure 1). This difference was statistically significant at both 1 month and 3 months (P = .003 and .002, respectively). Mean line improvement was 2.2 ± 1.6. Six eyes (40%) showed an improvement of 3 or more lines. No patient experienced a decrease in visual acuity at any time during the follow-up.

Change in mean best-corrected visual acuity and mean central macular thickness from baseline until the end of 3 months.

Figure 1.

Change in mean best-corrected visual acuity and mean central macular thickness from baseline until the end of 3 months.

Mean Central Macular Thickness

The mean CMT decreased progressively after IVD and continued till the end of third month (Figure 1). Mean preoperative CMT decreased from 453.2 µm ± 55.3 µm to 350.47 µm ± 97.96 µm at 1 month and 340.47 µm ± 101 µm at 3 months. The difference was statistically significant at both 1 month and 3 months (P = .001). There was also a statistically significant difference between central macular thickness at 1 month and 3 months (P = .005). Five eyes (33.3%) showed complete resolution of macular edema, seven eyes (46.7%) showed a reduction in macular edema, and three eyes (20%) did not show any change in macular edema. None of the eyes showed any increase in central macular thickness during the follow-up. In all eyes showing reduction in macular edema, maximum reduction was seen in the first month (Figure 2).

Change in central macular thickness from baseline to 1 month and 3 months in all 15 eyes.

Figure 2.

Change in central macular thickness from baseline to 1 month and 3 months in all 15 eyes.

IOP and Lens Status

The mean preoperative IOP was 16.4 mm Hg ± 1.59 mm Hg, whereas mean postoperative IOP was 16.6 mm Hg ± 1.58 mm Hg; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08). No patient developed a transient rise in IOP of greater than 21 mm Hg. Additionally, none of the 12 phakic eyes showed evidence of cataract progression.

(A, B) Fluorescein angiography at baseline and at 3 months in a patient after intravitreal diclofenac (IVD). (C, D) Optical coherence tomography baseline and at 3 months after IVD showing resolution of macular edema.

Figure 3.

(A, B) Fluorescein angiography at baseline and at 3 months in a patient after intravitreal diclofenac (IVD). (C, D) Optical coherence tomography baseline and at 3 months after IVD showing resolution of macular edema.

Chart showing baseline parameters and changes in parameters after intravitreal diclofenac in all 15 eyes.

Figure 4.

Chart showing baseline parameters and changes in parameters after intravitreal diclofenac in all 15 eyes.

Discussion

The BRVO study (BVOS) demonstrated a benefit with grid photocoagulation in eyes with BRVO of 3 to 18 months' duration and visual acuity 20/40 to 20/200. It was seen that treated eyes were more likely to gain 2 lines of visual acuity (65%) compared to untreated eyes (37%). Furthermore, treated eyes were more likely to have 20/40 or better vision at 3 years of follow-up (60% vs. 34% untreated).4 Thus, grid laser photocoagulation is considered the gold standard for treatment of macular edema in BRVO.

However, 40% of treated eyes in BVOS had worse than 20/40 visual acuity at 3 years, and 12% of treated eyes had 20/200 or worse visual acuity at 3 years.4 Hence, a large group of patients show only a modest improvement after laser photocoagulation. Also, laser treatment cannot be performed on patients with fresh venous occlusions owing to retinal hemorrhages, and it takes several months for the hemorrhages to clear. During this time, severe retinal edema could compromise retinal cells leading to permanent photoreceptor damage.16 Laser photocoagulation also has potential risks like scar enlargement and CNV formation.6

Intravitreal steroids have been studied and found to be efficacious in ME due to BRVO. Krepler et al. and Tewari et al. found that a single injection of intravitreal triamcinolone (IVTA) produced significant improvement in vision; however, the effect was short-lasting.17,18 The SCORE study also concluded that there was no significant difference in terms of visual acuity outcomes among the groups treated with standard care, 1 mg of IVTA, or 4 mg of IVTA for vision loss associated with ME secondary to BRVO at 12 months.19 However, the risk of cataract formation and glaucoma was very high, especially in the 4 mg group.19 Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; Allergan, Irvine, CA) has also been used for ME secondary to BRVO and has been found to reduce the risk of vision loss and improve the incidence and speed of visual improvement.20

The other class of drugs that has become popular for intravitreal pharmacotherapy for ME in BRVO is anti-VEGF agents. Both bevacizumab and ranibizumab have been found to be effective and safe. In a large, multicenter prospective study, Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (BRAVO), monthly 0.3 mg and 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) injections were found to be superior to sham injections in the first 6 months.21 Intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) (Avastin; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) injections were also found to be effective in ME secondary to BRVO by Prager et al. In their study, they reported that, after 12 months of follow-up time, BCVA was found to be increased by 18 letters and the mean decrease in CRT was 241 µm in the treated eyes.22 Aflibercept (Eylea; Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY) is an anti-VEGF drug that targets all isoforms of VEGF as well as placental growth factor. The VIBRANT study is an ongoing phase 3 trial that has found intravitreal aflibercept to be more efficacious than grid laser in ME due to BRVO.23 However, there is a small but definite risk of systemic adverse effects like acute hypertension, cerebrovascular accidents, myocardial infarctions, iliac artery aneurysms, toe amputations, and, very rarely, deaths with this group of drugs.24 Theoretically, this risk is higher in patients with retinal vascular occlusions, as these patients already have associated systemic risk factors. Thus, none of the intravitreal pharmacotherapies currently used for ME in BRVO are completely risk-free.

Diclofenac is nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent that can block both cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase pathways similar to corticosteroids and thus decrease the production of various prostaglandins, thromboxanes, and leukotrienes.25 It has recently been used intravitreally in various types of macular edema. The initial studies in rabbit eyes found IVD less than 300 µg to be nontoxic to rabbit retina.26 Thereafter, Soheilian et al. did the first pilot study using IVD in macular edema of various etiologies (diabetic macular edema, pseudophakic cystoid macular edema, cystoid macular edema secondary to uveitis, age-related macular degeneration, and a single case of old branch vein occlusion) and found it to be safe and effective in all types of macular edema. The visual acuity improved in seven out of 10 eyes, did not change in two eyes, and decreased in one eye.7 The CMT also decreased in seven eyes, did not change in one eye, and increased in two eyes. None of the patients showed any ocular or systemic side effects, rise in IOP, cataract progression, or changes in electroretinogram. The total follow-up of the study was 8 weeks, and the effect of the drug was seen by as early as 2 weeks.7

Elbendary et al. compared IVD with IVTA (4 mg/0.1 mL) in 32 eyes with diabetic macula edema with a follow-up of 3 months. They found IVD to be as effective as IVTA in reduction of macular edema, although the improvement in visual acuity and incidence of glaucoma was higher in the IVTA group.12 Soheilian et al. recently compared IVD to IVB in 57 eyes with diabetic macular edema and found significantly more visual acuity improvement in the IVD group.15 Studies have also been conducted to evaluate the effect of IVD in uveitic macular edema. Ramezani et al. studied the role of IVD in eight eyes with refractory uveitic macular edema with a follow-up of 36 weeks. Although the mean visual acuity improved and the mean CMT decreased till the end of follow-up, it failed to reach statistical significance. Also, the beneficial effect of IVD was seen to wear off after 12 weeks.14 Soheilian et al. compared IVD with IVTA (2 mg/0.1 mL) in 15 eyes with refractory uveitic ME and did not find any improvement in the IVD group with respect to either visual acuity or CMT. They attributed the inferior response of IVD to a short half-life of 2.87 hours. They also recommended use of slow-release formulations or repeat injections.13

We evaluated the effect of IVD in ME in BRVO and found visual improvement in 80% of eyes at the end of our follow-up of 3 months. As seen in the previous studies, maximum change in vision and CMT was seen in the first month. Five eyes showed complete resolution of edema and four eyes reached a vision of 20/40 or more. None of the eyes had a decrease in visual acuity. Twelve eyes responded with decrease in ME. However, as the group consisted of BRVO of all durations, the vision improvement was not significant in old BRVO cases, despite resolution/decrease in macular edema.

Costagliola et al. have studied the effect of diclofenac on IOP. Endogenous prostaglandins can modulate IOP by synergistic or antagonistic effect on prostaglandin receptors. Hence, they can both increase and decrease IOP. Diclofenac may preferentially inhibit the action of prostaglandins on a particular subtype of receptors, hence decreasing the IOP.27 In our study, there was no significant change in the IOP at 3 months. No other ocular/systemic complications were seen in our study. None of the patients developed neovascularization of retina or iris during the follow-up, which might be due to the downregulation of prostaglandin E2 by diclofenac. Prostaglandin E2, the major prostaglandin in the retina, induces both VEGF and basic fibroblast growth factor mRNA expression.28 Thus, diclofenac causes a decrease in VEGF expression in the eye, as well.

To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate the effect of IVD on ME in BRVO. We found IVD to be effective and safe in ME in BRVO with regard to improving visual acuity, as well as decreasing CMT during the course of our short follow-up. However, further studies with longer follow-up and a control group, on a larger subset of patients, is required to investigate the role of IVD in ME in BRVO. Additionally, studies with repeat injections of diclofenac, IVD in combination with IVTA/IVB in lower doses, IVD followed by grid photocoagulation, and sustained-release formulations of diclofenac can be tried in the future.

To conclude, intravitreal diclofenac is a promising new pharmacotherapy for macular edema in BRVO.

References

  1. Klein R. Retinopathy in population based study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1992;90:561–594.
  2. Gewaily D, Greenberg PB. Intravitreal steroids versus observation for macular edema secondary to central vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD007324.
  3. Klein R, Moss SE, Meuer SM, Klein BE. The 15-year cumulative incidence of retinal vein occlusion: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:513–518. doi:10.1001/archopht.126.4.513 [CrossRef]
  4. Argon laser photocoagulation for macular edema in branch vein occlusion. The Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;98(3):271–282. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(84)90316-7 [CrossRef]
  5. Mitchell P, Smith W, Chang A. Prevalence and associations of retinal vein occlusion in Australia: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(10):1243–1247. doi:10.1001/archopht.1996.01100140443012 [CrossRef]
  6. Schartz H, Madeira D, McDonald HR, Johnson RN. Progressive enlargement of laser scars following grid laser photocoagulation for diffuse diabetic macular edema. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(11):1549–1551. doi:10.1001/archopht.1991.01080110085041 [CrossRef]
  7. Soheilian M, Karimi S, Ramezani A, Peyman GA. Pilot study of intravitreal injection of diclofenac for treatment of macular edema of various etiologies. Retina. 2010;30(3):509–515. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181bdfa43 [CrossRef]
  8. Aiello LP, Avery RL, Arrigg PG, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor in ocular fluid of patients with diabetic retinopathy and other retinal disorders. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(22):1480–1487. doi:10.1056/NEJM199412013312203 [CrossRef]
  9. Noma H, Minamoto A, Funatsu H, et al. Intravitreal levels of vascular endothelial growth factor and interleukin-6 are correlated with macular edema in branch retinal vein occlusion. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;244(3):309–315. doi:10.1007/s00417-004-1087-4 [CrossRef]
  10. Glanville J, Patterson J, McCool R, Ferreira A, Gairy K, Pearce I. Efficacy and safety of widely used treatments for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol. 2014;14:7. doi:10.1186/1471-2415-14-7 [CrossRef]
  11. Chatziralli IP, Jaulim A, Peponis VG, Mitropoulos PG, Moschos MM. Branch retinal vein occlusion: treatment modalities: an update of the literature. Semin Ophthalmol. 2014;29(2):85–107. doi:10.3109/08820538.2013.833271 [CrossRef]
  12. Elbendary AM, Shahin MM. Intravitreal diclofenac versus intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Retina. 2011;31(10):2058–2064 doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e31822a042a [CrossRef]
  13. Soheilian M, Eskandari A, Ramezani A, Rabbanikhah Z, Soheilian R. A pilot study of intravitreal diclofenac versus intravitreal triamcinolone for uveitic cystoid macular edema. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2013;21(2):124–129. doi:10.3109/09273948.2012.745883 [CrossRef]
  14. Ramezani A, Fard Esmaeilpour N, Eskandari A, Rabbanikhah Z, Soheilian R, Soheilian M. Intravitreal diclofenac for refractory uveitic cystoid macular edema. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2013;8(1):47–52.
  15. Soheilian M, Karimi S, Ramezani A, et al. Intravitreal diclofenac versus intravitreal bevacizumab in naive diabetic macular edema: a randomized double-masked clinical trial. Int Ophthalmol. 2014;35(3):421–428. doi:10.1007/s10792-014-9967-z [CrossRef]
  16. Yoon YH, Kim HK, Yoon HS, et al. Korean RVO Study Group. Improved visual outcome with early treatment in macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusions: 6-month results of a Korean RVO study. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2014;58(2):146–154. doi:10.1007/s10384-014-0305-9 [CrossRef]
  17. Krepler K, Ergun E, Sacu S, et al. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide in patients with macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: a pilot study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83(5):600–604. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00490.x [CrossRef]
  18. Tewari HK, Sony P, Chawla R, Garg SP, Venkatesh P. Prospective evaluation of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection in macular edema associated with retinal vascular disorders. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2005;15(5):619–626.
  19. Scott IU, Ip MS, VanVeldhuisen PC, et al. SCORE Study Research Group. A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone with standard care to treat vision loss associated with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: the Standard Care vs Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) study report 6. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(9):1115–1128. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.233 [CrossRef]
  20. Haller JA, Bandello F, Belfort R Jr, et al. Randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(6):1134–1146. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.03.032 [CrossRef]
  21. Brown DM, Campochiaro PA, Bhisitkul RB, et al. Sustained benefits from ranibizumab for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month outcomes of a phase III study. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(8):1594–1602. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.02.022 [CrossRef]
  22. Prager F, Michels S, Kriechbaum K, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results of a prospective clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(4):452–456. doi:10.1136/bjo.2008.141085 [CrossRef]
  23. Campochiaro PA, Clark WL, Boyer DS, et al. Intravitreal Aflibercept for Macular Edema Following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: The 24-Week Results of the VIBRANT Study. Ophthalmology. 2014;122(3):538–544. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.031 [CrossRef]
  24. Wu L, Martínez-Castellanos MA, Quiroz-Mercado H, et al. Twelvemonth safety of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (Avastin): results of the Pan-American Collaborative Retina Study Group (PA-CORES). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246(1):81–87. doi:10.1007/s00417-007-0660-z [CrossRef]
  25. Kothari HV, Lee WH, Ku EC. An alternate mechanism for regulation of leukotriene production in leukocytes: studies with an anti-inflammatory drug, sodium diclofenac. Biochem Biophys Acta. 1987;921(3):502–511. doi:10.1016/0005-2760(87)90078-6 [CrossRef]
  26. Kim SJ, Adams NA, Toma HS, et al. Safety of intravitreal ketorolac and diclofenac: an electroretinographic and histopathologic study. Retina. 2008;28(4):595–605. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e31815e98a5 [CrossRef]
  27. Costagliola C, Parmeggiani F, Antinozzi PP, Caccavale A, Cotticelli L, Sebastiani A. The influence of diclofenac ophthalmic solution on the intraocular pressure-lowering effect of topical 0.5% timolol and 0.005% latanoprost in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Exp Eye Res. 2005;81(5):610–615. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2005.03.020 [CrossRef]
  28. Cheng T, Cao W, Wen R, Steinberg RH, LaVail MM. Prostaglandin E2 induces vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor mRNA expression in cultured rat Muller cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39(3):581–591.
Authors

From the Department of Ophthalmology, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi, India.

The authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

Address correspondence to Anisha Seth, MS, DNB, FICO, BN-56, East Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi 11088, India; +91-996-835-5495; email: anisha3seth@yahoo.com.

Received: March 07, 2015
Accepted: November 23, 2015

10.3928/23258160-20160126-08

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents