Week 1 Week four P inside 14.25 (2.31, 24.3) ten.01 (1, 119) 12.two (6.91, 27.three)84.59 six 38.05 113.7 six 15.3 91.71 6 18.42 0.Photopic, 3 cd.s/m2 13.45 (eight.18, 26.5) 13.1 (1.59, 21.eight) eight.98 (1.43, 13.8) 0.002 0.two 0.Pre injection Week 1 Week 4 P within13.84 6 7.64 23.63 six 35.five 14.1 6 six.75 0.b-Wave Scotopic, 3 cd.s/m2 153 (106, 211) 172 (80.7, 209) 165.5 (98.three, 229) 166 6 48.six 194 six 49.04 178.44 6 46.21 0.156 169.five (18, 249) 199.5 (122, 276) 174.five (116, 274) 221.88 six 85.1 220.19 six 51.5 193.19 six 46.53 0.067 196 (145, 516) 218 (102, 305) 184 (137, 296) 133.75 6 25.19 148.44 6 28.12 138.93 six 42.23 0.208 136.five (83.2, 167) 143 (108, 194) 138 (63.8, 203) 156.21 6 33.72 167.84 6 71.24 171.44 6 61.63 0.716 177.08 six 40.45 185.96 six 78.two 171.48 6 63.06 0.903 108.14 six 38.11 106.7 six 56.7 119.84 six 36.73 0.582 165.five (88.9, 196) 183.five (8.IL-6 Protein Biological Activity 88, 241) 182 (75.SHH Protein Molecular Weight five, 254) 130.01 6 27.98 136.68 six 40.11 127.23 six 34.three 0.818 176.5 (95.2, 253) 202 (six.18, 275) 191.five (77.8, 234) 146.81 6 29.92 156.39 6 47.06 143.15 six 41.95 0.616 112.five (26.five, 174) 111 (1.5, 186) 120.5 (68.5, 178) 105.41 six 33.35 99.01 six 26.56 75.44 6 25.66 0.005 125 (87.9, 184) 136.five (58.5, 204) 135.5 (61.3, 185) 0.044 0.013 0.Pre injection Week 1 Week four P inside 169 (102, 223) 200.5 (104, 242) 177 (130, 234)155.17 six 39.95 160.56 6 37.36 160.43 six 39.51 0.Scotopic, ten cd.s/m2 145 (100, 216) 158.5 (45.5, 225) 149 (70.five, 207) 0.005 0.005 0.Pre injection Week 1 Week 4 P inside 116 (90.6, 141) 118.five (56.9, 161) 127 (86.three, 161)163.58 six 41.64 188.42 6 37.2 180.4 6 35.43 0.Photopic, 3 cd.s/m2 111.5 (44, 162) 102 (64.7, 139) 80.45 (26.1, 129) 0.001 0.004 0.Pre injection Week 1 Week four P within115.1 six 20.six 117.21 6 30.65 125.98 six 25.85 0.IOVS j December 2015 j Vol. 56 j No. 13 jP values are by generalized estimating equations. Mean amplitudes of a- and b-waves of all groups at baseline and days 7 and 28 had been determined as described in Procedures. P values for comparison amongst the groups at each time point are also shown. Intravitreal injections of propranolol with doses of 15 lg (group A), 30 lg (group B), and 60 lg (group C) were performed. The handle group (D) received 15 lL typical saline. Max, maximum; Med, median; Min, minimum.Ocular Security of Intravitreal PropranololIOVS j December 2015 j Vol. 56 j No. 13 jFIGURE 1. Representative unremarkable neurosensory retinas with 15 lL intravitreal injection of 15 lg (B1), 30 lg (C1), and 60 lg (D1) propranolol as in comparison to the regular saline-injected (A1) eyes (hematoxylin-eosin stain, magnification: 3400).PMID:28322188 Unremarkable immunoreactivity of your retina for GFAP inside a representative eye injected with 15 lg (B2) and 30 lg (C2) propranolol. Please note remarkable retinal GFAP immunoreactivity in a representative eye injected with 60 lg propranolol (D2) compared with that in a representative standard saline-injected (A2) eye (magnification: 3400). Please see the results section for quantitative assessments of your information.was chosen for the phase II study evaluating the efficacy of intravitreal delivery of propranolol in a mouse model of laserinduced CNV. 4 eyes from 4 mice in the CNV control group were phthisic in the time of enucleation and consequently were excluded. Mice eyes treated with 0.three lg IVP injection showed significantly smaller sized neovascular choroidal outgrowths (Figs. 4A, 4B) compared using the handle. An approximately four.8-fold reduce inside the typical CNV area was observed inside the propranolol-treated group (imply [SE], 17,945 [25,971] lm2; n 21 eyes) compared using the control (.
