Evidence Hub

Intravitreal aflibercept alone versus combination with dexamethasone phosphate for diabetic macular edema: A randomized phase-2 clinical trial

Neri VC, Lira RPC, Vasconcelos AAA, Jorge PHL, Lira GR, Almeida VDCL

Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 2025

16 participants

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the short-term (3-month) outcomes of intravitreal aflibercept injections versus intravitreal aflibercept combined with dexamethasone sodium phosphate in treating diabetic macular edema.

Methods: In this Phase-2 clinical trial, 16 eyes of 16 participants with diabetic macular edema were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups. Participants in the aflibercept monotherapy group received 2 mg of intravitreal aflibercept (0.05 mL), while those in the combination therapy group received 2 mg of intravitreal aflibercept (0.05 mL) plus 0.04 mg dexamethasone sodium phosphate (0.01 mL). Identical injections were repeated after 30 and 60 days. The primary outcome was the change in central macular thickness, as measured by optical coherence tomography, from baseline to 1 month after the last injection. Secondary outcomes included changes in best-corrected visual acuity and intraocular pressure over the same period.

Results: The mean baseline central macular thickness was 444 ± 86 μm in the combination therapy group and 394 ± 96 μm in the aflibercept monotherapy group (p=0.293). By day 90, the mean reduction in central macular thickness was significantly greater in the combination therapy group (176 ± 129 μm) compared to the aflibercept monotherapy group (54 ± 49 μm; p=0.034). Best-corrected visual acuity also improved significantly more in the combination therapy group, with a median gain of 0.31 ± 0.16 LogMAR, whereas the aflibercept monotherapy group experienced a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free