ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology case reports2025
Optic disc edema during semaglutide therapy: case report and literature review.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To report fundus characteristics of patients who developed optic disc edema during semaglutide therapy and perform a review of the literature. Observations: Patient 1 was a 62-year-old female with a 5-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), while Patient 2 was a 51-year-old female with documented T2DM for 6 years. Both patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-controlled clinical trial titled 'Comparative Study of the Efficacy and Safety of two Semaglutide Injections in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus'. Baseline fundoscopic examinations prior to trial initiation confirmed the absence of diabetic retinopathy in both cases. Following the initiation of semaglutide therapy for glycemic control, surveillance fundoscopic examinations performed at 28 weeks (Case 1) and 24 weeks (Case 2) post-treatment revealed the development of optic disc edema. Case 1 remained entirely asymptomatic throughout the observation period. For case 1, the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0 logMAR bilaterally. Pupillary reflexes was normal and color vision was unaffected. Optic disc edema with peripapillary hemorrhages and focal yellow-white exudates were detected. Significant increased retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was detected by OCT in the right eye, while the RNFL thickness of the left eye was normal. Visual fields were grossly normal in both eyes. For case 2, dim vision was reported. Ophthalmic examination revealed the BCVA of both eyes were 0.1logMAR. Pupillary reflexes was normal, and color vision was unaffected. Severe bilateral optic disc edema accompanied by extensive peripapillary patchy hemorrhages and yellow-white exudates were detected. Significant bilateral RNFL thicking were detected by OCT. Bilateral physiological blind spot enlargement were detected by visual field testing. No significant optic nerve functional impairment was observed in either patient. Oral corticosteroid therapy induced substantial resolution of optic disc edema in both patients. Conclusions and importance: During semaglutide therapy for glycemic control, clinicians should implement regular ophthalmic monitoring, particularly in the initial treatment phase, to detect potential neuro-ophthalmic complications including optic disc edema.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.