Diabetic macular edema is said to be an impediment of a particular area of the retina in the eye known as the macula that seems to develop when small blood vessels turn leaky such that fluid builds-up. Devoid of treatment, diabetic macular edema may lead to vision impairment, blurriness, or blindness.
A new study claims that early-stage human clinical trials illustrated that a new topical drug appeared to be safe and encompassed biological effects in a kind of diabetic eye disease and may provide scientists with a new approach to avert and treat diabetic macular edema. Study authors at the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Maryland finished a multicenter human clinical trial treating diabetic macular edema with mecamylamine, a topical drug crafted by the South San Francisco biotech company CoMentis, Inc.
In the Johns Hopkins study, volunteers suffering from diabetic macular edema were requested to give themselves mecamylamine eye drops twice a day for roughly 16 weeks. Supposedly, preclinical study with diabetic mice illustrated that mecamylamine appeared to encompass the capability to halt the procedure that seems to have added to the growth and progression of diabetic macular edema.
Based on these preclinical outcomes, the scientists at Hopkins appeared to be keen in gauging both the security and effectiveness of this drug in patients. Every four weeks, trial subjects supposedly met with experts to obtain an inclusive eye exam to supervise and trail alterations to the eye. At the conclusion of this study, around 40% of the volunteers apparently exhibited considerable enhancement in by and large vision and/or the thickness of the retina.
Peter Campochiaro, M.D., professor of ophthalmology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and principal investigator of the study, commented, “The treatment also showed biological effects in the retina indicating that the drug was able to gain access to the retinal vessels after topical application to the eye.”
It was seemingly observed that around 40% appeared to exhibit no change, and roughly 20% developed deterioration of the condition. The disparity in response to the treatment presumably supports the inspection that drugs and therapies have apparently less than a 100% response rate, possibly owing to genetic make-up or unknown issues about the disease. These outcomes also appear to highlight the idea that numerous treatment alternatives for diabetic macular edema ought to be explored to compliment present study in this field.
The study was published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.