康柏西普的两种给药方案治疗视网膜静脉阻塞黄斑水肿的短期疗效对比观察  

Comparison of short-term efficacy of two conbercept regimens for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

作　　者：富莉莉 荣翱[3] 苗林[2] 陈丽娟[2] 宋鹤翔[2] 赵易[2] 徐晨[2] 

机构地区：[1]同济大学医学院,上海200092 [2]上海市普陀区人民医院眼科 [3]上海市同济医院眼科

出　　处：《临床眼科杂志》2017年第6期512-516,共5页Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology

摘　　要：目的对比观察抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)药物康柏西普的两种不同给药方案治疗视网膜静脉阻塞(RVO)黄斑水肿的短期疗效。方法回顾性非随机对照临床研究。选取2015年12月至2016年12月在我院及同济医院眼科被诊断为RVO黄斑水肿的患者共33例(33只眼),按照不同的给药方式分为2组,A组共18例(18只眼),采用1+prn的给药方式,B组共15例(15只眼),采用3+prn的给药方式。两组患者接受治疗后每月随访1次,随访期为6个月,通过眼科常规检查、眼底照相、荧光素眼底血管造影(FFA)、相干光断层扫描(OCT)等,通过比较两组患者最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、平均黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度(CMT)的变化以及6个月内的总注射次数,观察两种不同给药方式的短期疗效对比。结果随访6个月,组内差异结果显示,A组、B组不同时间BCVA、CMT差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),都表现为治疗后1、2、3、6个月明显低于治疗前(P<0.05)。组间差异结果显示,治疗前、治疗后1、2、3、6个月,A组和B组BCVA、CMT水平基本相同,均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访6个月内,A组18只眼共注射28次,患者接受注射次数为1~3次,平均注射次数1.56次。B组15只眼共注射47次,患者接受注射次数为3~4次,平均3.13次。6个月内,A组治疗次数明显少于B组(P<0.05)。结论通过对两种治疗方案短期内疗效对比观察,发现康柏西普治疗RVO黄斑水肿短期内疗效确实可靠,两组之间疗效无显著差异,且1+PRN治疗方案能显著减少注射次数,因此对于非缺血型RVO黄斑水肿短期内1+prn治疗方案更优。Objective To compare the short-term efficacy of two different dosing regimens of conbercept for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Methods This study is a retrospective non-randomized,controlled clinical study. Between December 2015 and December 2016 patients who were diagnosed with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in our hospital and Tongji Hospital were enrolled. There was a total of 33 patients（ 33 eyes）. According to the different ways of administration,patients were divided into 2 groups： group A（ 18 eyes） with 1 ＋prn administration and group B（ 15 eyes） with 3 ＋ prnadministration. The two groups of patients were followed up once a month for 6 months. All patients were evaluated by complete ophthalmic examinations,fundus fluorescein angiography（ FFA） and optical coherence tomography（ OCT）,etc. Best corrected visual acuity（ BCVA）,central macular thickness（ CMT） and total injection times within 6 months were compared. Results During the 6 months of follow-up,both BCVA and CMT showed significant improvement over time（ P〈0. 05 at 1,2,3,and 6 months）. There was no significant difference between the two groups at these time points. During the follow-up period,18 eyes in group A were injected 28 times,and the number of injections was 1 ~ 3 with an average of 1. 56. In group B,15 eyes were injected 47 times,and the number of injections was 3 ~ 4 with an average of 3. 13. Patients in group A received significantly less injections than those in group B（ P〈0. 05）. Conclusions The two regimensboth resulted in reliable short-term effects in patients with macular edema secondary to retina vein occlusion. There was no significant difference in the two dosage regimens. Therefore,for non-ischemic RVO macular edema in the short term 1 ＋ prn treatment plan is better.

关 键 词：视网膜静脉阻塞黄斑水肿 康柏西普 给药方案 

分 类 号：R774[医药卫生—眼科]