Summary of Article:
This article reports on the findings of a new study regarding direct-eye drug injections used to treat loss of vision in diabetic patients. Diabetic patients often suffer from diabetic retinopathy, which can cause vision loss due to blood vessels swelling and leaking in the retina. Diabetic patients receiving regular injections of a drug aflibercept (Eylea) have marked reduction in vessel leakage and reduced growth inside the retina. However, the researchers of this new study have found that there is no significant difference in vision in the long-term after experiencing loss-of-vision for patients who received the drug treatment compared to the patients who didn't receive the treatment. In response to these results, doctors may choose to give the drug sooner for patients, so that the complications can be prevented. Other doctors, however, are wondering if it is even worth giving the drug at all, as it is very expensive for patients and does not really save their vision as much in the long-term compared to patients who don't get the treatment. Since diabetic retinopathy takes many years to develop, scientists are mainly unsure of whether treating the patients with the drug early on to prevent complications will actually be worth it in the long-term after the retinopathy has set in, as the study suggests that the drug is not effective once vision loss has progressed.
Science in the Article:
The new scientific study that the news article discusses is titled "Effect of Intravitreous Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor vs Sham Treatment for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy" by Maturi et al, published in Jama Opthamology on March 30th, 2021. The scientists sought to determine the efficacy of drug injections compared to placebo treatments in preventing vision complications for diabetic patients with diabetic retinopathy. They found that in the short-term, the patients who received drug injections had lower complications compared to the placebo group. However, after two years, this preventive treatment did not provide more benefit over the placebo group in terms of visual acuity. These findings were reported accurately and properly in the news article.
Another scientific article relevant to this news article is titled "Retinopathy in Diabetes" by Fong et al, published in the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Care Journal on January 27th, 2004. Here, the authors provided some general information about diabetic neuropathy and nature of its progression in diabetic patients. They discussed that the disease generally begins as mild and nonproliferative and then over time begins more proliferative, as a result of the swelling and bleeding of blood vessels in the retina. This is accurately explained in the news article. One thing that is also interesting about this article is that it does not provide any information in its guidelines about drug treatments, perhaps because this treatment is newer compared to when this article was published.
Finally, another relevant study to diabetic retinopathy is titled, "Photocoagulation Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Clinical Application of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) Findings" by the DRS Coordinating Center, on October 30th, 2013. This report found that photocoagulation reduces risk of severe loss of vision by at least 50%. Additionally, "the two-year risk of severe visual loss without treatment outweighs the risk of harmful treatment effects." This analysis of photocoagulation is somewhat reported on by the news article; however, with this discussion of laser therapy, the news article does suggest that the drug treatment is more effective and the "gold standard" that has succeeded laser treatment (photocoagulation).
Analysis: Was Science Misused?
Based on the three scientific articles, I believe the science was overall not misused in this news article in reporting on the findings of this new study on the effectiveness of drug treatment on reducing loss of vision in diabetic patients. The findings reported were really interesting and give a lot to think about with regard to the kinds of doctors now need to make. The question is whether to prescribe the drug treatment earlier in the progression of the disease or not give the drug at all, knowing that the long-term vision loss will not be different whether the patient received the drug treatment. One thing I wished the news article discussed in more detail is the alternative treatment option: photocoagulation. According to the last scientific article I read, the laser treatment also proved to be effective, and I wonder if a more detailed analysis comparing the two methods might give us a better idea of which treatment is more effective for improving visual acuity in the long-term for diabetic patients.
Thanks for reading!
Comments
Post a Comment