Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of diabetic macular edema in vitrectomized patients. Retina. 2011;31:915-923. [PMID: 21487341 DOI: 10.1097/iae.0b013e318206d18c]

Tiny dexamethasone palmitate nanoparticles for intravitreal injection: Optimization and in vivo evaluation

Tiny nanoparticles of dexamethasone palmitate (DXP) were designed as transparent suspensions for intravitreal administration to treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The influence of three surfactants (PEG-40-stearate and Pluronic block copolymers F68 and F127) on nanoparticles size and stability was investigated and led to an optimal formulation based on Pluronic F127 stabilizing DXP nanoparticles. Size measurements and TEM revealed tiny nanoparticles (around 35 nm) with a low opacity, compatible with further intravitreal injection. X-Ray powder diffraction (XRPD) and transmission electronic microscopy (TEM) performed on freeze-dried samples showed that DXP nanoparticles were rather monodisperse and amorphous. The efficacy of DXP nanoparticles was assessed in vivo on pigmented rabbits with unilateral intravitreal injections. After breakdown of the blood-retinal barrier (BRB) induced by injection of rhVEGF165 with carrier protein, DXP nanoparticles induced a restoration of the BRB 1 month after their intravitreal injection. However, their efficacy was limited in time most probably by clearance of DXP nanoparticles after 2 months due to their small size.

Intravitreal Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: An Update

Diabetic macular edema (DME) represents a prevalent and disabling eye condition. Despite that DME represents a sight-threatening condition, it is also among the most accessible to treatment. Many different treatment options including photocoagulation, intravitreal medical treatment (either vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors or corticosteroids therapies), and surgical removal are currently available. Although laser has been considered as the gold standard for many years, over the past several years vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) have become first-line therapy. However, many patients do not adequately respond to them. With the development of sustained-release corticosteroid devices, steroids have gained a presence in the management of the DME. We review and update the role of anti-VEGF and intravitreal sustained-release corticosteroid management of DME. According to the currently available scientific evidence, the choice of one anti-VEGF over another critically depends on the baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). While aflibercept may be the drug of choice in low baseline BCVA, the three anti-VEGFs (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept) provided similar functional outcomes when the baseline BCVA was higher. DEX implants are a valuable option for treating DME, although they are usually seen as a second choice, particularly in those eyes that have an insufficient response to anti-VEGF. The new evidence suggested that, in eyes that did not adequately respond to anti-VEGF, switching to a DEX implant at the time to 3 monthly anti-VEGF injections provided better functional outcomes.

Long-term results of a single injection of intravitreal dexamethasone as initial therapy in diabetic macular edema

Purpose:

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) as initial therapy.

Methods:

A hospital-based prospective, non-comparative case study of recently detected DME patients was conducted between July 2016 and December 2017, in which30 eyes of 30 patients were studied. Presenting vision, age, gender, duration of diabetes, general and ocular examination, intraocular pressure, indirect ophthalmoscopy, fundus fluorescein angiography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and blood sugar levels were noted. Patients with increased central macular thickness (CMT) received an intravitreal dexamethasone implant as initial therapy. All were followed up at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, and the findings were recorded and analyzed using SPSS software.

Results:

30 eyes of 30 patients were studied which included 22 males and 8 females. The mean age of presentation was 58.7 ± 4.45 years. The mean decrease in CMT following intravitreal dexamethasone was 269.27 ± 112.002, 253.5 ± 108.294, and 286.73 ± 143.395 μm at the end of 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, and the mean improvement in visual acuity (VA) was 2.27 ± 1.70 lines at 3 months, 2.27 ± 1.83 lines at 6 months, and 1.17 ± 2.00 lines at 12 months. Out of 30 cases, 4 had persistent DME and 6 had recurrence of DME at completion of 1 year of follow-up.

Conclusion:

Intravitreal dexamethasone as initial therapy in the treatment of DME is both safe and efficacious in the reduction of CMT and improvement of vision and can be considered as primary therapy for DME.

COMBINED VITRECTOMY WITH INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT FOR REFRACTORY MACULAR EDEMA SECONDARY TO DIABETIC RETINOPATHY, RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION, AND NONINFECTIOUS POSTERIOR UVEITIS

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of intraoperative intravitreal dexamethasone implant for macular edema secondary to diabetic retinopathy (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and noninfectious posterior uveitis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 62 patients (29 men and 33 women; mean age 51.19 ± 14.41 years; 65 eyes) was performed. Best-corrected visual acuity (in logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution), central foveal thickness, intraocular pressure, and postoperative edema-free period were postoperatively assessed up to 1 year. The preoperative and postoperative numbers of other intravitreal injections needed were compared.

RESULTS

Best-corrected visual acuity gradually improved in the DME group (from 0.87 to 0.51) but failed to improve from Month 3 onward in the RVO and uveitis groups. Central foveal thickness decreased in all groups, especially in the DME group (from 550.93 to 338.10 μm). Edema-free period was longest in the DME group (19.34 ± 15.12 months), followed by the uveitis (12.91 ± 7.85 months) and RVO (8.50 ± 8.76 months) groups. Subjects in the uveitis group used more intraocular pressure-lowering agents (1.00 ± 1.27) than those in the DME (0.13 ± 0.49) and RVO (0.36 ± 0.79) groups. Increased intraocular pressure events were most frequent in postoperative Week 1, especially in the uveitis group.

CONCLUSION

Vitrectomy combined with intravitreal dexamethasone implant for DME, RVO, and noninfectious posterior uveitis had a favorable clinical outcome.

Biotechnology and Biomaterial-Based Therapeutic Strategies for Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Part I: Biomaterials-Based Drug Delivery Devices

Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) is an up-to-date untreatable chronic neurodegenerative eye disease of multifactorial origin, and the main causes of blindness in over 65 years old people. It is characterized by a slow progression and the presence of a multitude of factors, highlighting those related to diet, genetic heritage and environmental conditions, present throughout each of the stages of the illness. Current therapeutic approaches, mainly consisting of intraocular drug delivery, are only used for symptoms relief and/or to decelerate the progression of the disease. Furthermore, they are overly simplistic and ignore the complexity of the disease and the enormous differences in the symptomatology between patients. Due to the wide impact of the AMD and the up-to-date absence of clinical solutions, the development of biomaterials-based approaches for a personalized and controlled delivery of therapeutic drugs and biomolecules represents the main challenge for the defeat of this neurodegenerative disease. Here we present a critical review of the available and under development AMD therapeutic approaches, from a biomaterials and biotechnological point of view. We highlight benefits and limitations and we forecast forthcoming alternatives based on novel biomaterials and biotechnology methods. In the first part we expose the physiological and clinical aspects of the disease, focusing on the multiple factors that give origin to the disorder and highlighting the contribution of these factors to the triggering of each step of the disease. Then we analyze available and under development biomaterials-based drug-delivery devices (DDD), taking into account the anatomical and functional characteristics of the healthy and ill retinal tissue.

Differential response to intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated diabetic macular edema eyes

Background

To identify different response patterns to intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI) in naïve and previously treated (PT) diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes in a real-life setting.

Methods

342 IDI injections (203 DME eyes) were included. Number of IDI injections, percentage (%) of eyes with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 injections, time to reinjections, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated for naïve and PT DME eyes over 24 months.

Results

Mean number of injections was significantly lower in naïve vs PT DME eyes (1.40 ± 0.9 vs 1.82 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The percentage of eyes receiving 1 injection was significantly higher in naïve vs PT DME eyes (76.1 vs 47.7), (p < 0.001). However, it was significantly lower for 2 (16.4 vs 29.4), or 3 injections (1.4 vs 17.6) (both p < 0.001), with no differences in eyes receiving ≥4 injections (5.9 vs 5.1 respectively, p = 0.80). Mean time to reinjection was not significantly different between both groups for the second, third and fourth injection (9.6 ± 4.0 vs 10.0 ± 5.5, p = 0.75, 13.2 ± 4.0 vs 16.0 ± 3.5, p = 0.21 and 21.7 ± 3.8 vs 19.7 ± 5.8, p = 0.55). VA scores were consistently better in naïve vs PT DME eyes at all studied timepoints, with no significant differences in CRT reduction or adverse effect rates.

Conclusion

Naïve DME eyes received lower number of IDI injections and showed better VA levels than PT DME eyes for 24 months in a real-world setting. This data supports the IDI use in early DME stages and provide further evidence of better IDI response when used as first-line therapy.

Biologic Therapy and Treatment Options in Diabetic Retinopathy with Diabetic Macular Edema

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema can be a potentially sightthreatening disease if not treated correctly. It is directly correlated to the duration of diabetes and how well managed the patients' diabetes is. In the last 15 years, the treatment of diabetic eye disease has taken a quantum leap in methodology due to the group of biological agents named antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). The introduction of the first biological agent has revolutionized the treatment, not only in diabetic eye disease but also across most inflammatory eye diseases, causing leakage of fluid from the blood vessels i.e., in age-related macular degeneration. The availability of these biological agents, despite their considerable costs, have significantly improved the outcomes measured in visual acuity compared to more traditional treatments of diabetic retinopathy in the form of sole laser treatment and glycemic control. The agents demonstrate a favorable safety profile, but if the rarest and most severe side effects occur, there is a potential total loss of vision. This review aims to make an overview of the current pharmaceutical therapeutic options in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. This includes laser therapy, intravitreal steroids, and a primary focus on intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factors.

Association between Early Anatomic Response and Intraocular Pressure Change after Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant: An Optical Coherence Tomography Study

Purpose: To investigate the associations between early anatomical responses and intraocular pressure (IOP) changes in macular edema (ME) due to retinal vascular diseases treated with an intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted involving ME patients who underwent intravitreal DEX implantation. The eyes were divided into increased IOP (IIOP) or non-IIOP (nIIOP) groups according to the presence or absence of significant IOP elevation. Significant IOP elevation was defined by both the absolute value of IOP elevation (5 mmHg or higher) and an elevation percentage of the baseline IOP (an increase equal to 30% of the pre-injection IOP or higher). We analyzed the difference in central subfield thickness (CST) change according to the IOP elevation after DEX implantation. Relationships between IOP change and CST reduction after intravitreal DEX implantation were analyzed by Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 49 eyes, 29 with diabetic ME and 20 with ME due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), were included in this study. Of the 49 eyes, 18 eyes (36.7%) were classified as IIOP group and 31 (63.3%) as nIIOP group. Significant differences in mean CST reductions over baseline one week after DEX implantation were observed between the groups. The degree of CST reduction from baseline to 1 week was significantly correlated with the degree of IOP change from baseline at 1 week and 1 month after intravitreal DEX implantation. Conclusions: In patients with ME due to retinal vascular diseases, we noted an early anatomical response significantly correlated with IOP change after intravitreal DEX implantation. Therefore, patients with favorable early anatomical responses to DEX implantation should be carefully monitored for IOP elevation.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant as a Sustained Release Drug Delivery Device for the Treatment of Ocular Diseases: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Drug delivery into the vitreous chamber remains a great challenge in the pharmaceutical industry due to the complex anatomy and physiology of the eye. Intravitreal injection is the mainstream route of drug administration to the posterior segment of the eye. The purpose of this review is to assess the current literature about the widening use of the intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (Dex) implant, and to provide a comprehensive collection of all the ocular disorders that benefit from Dex administration. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth-factors (VEGFs) have been largely indicated as a first-choice level, the Dex implant represents an important treatment option, especially in selected cases, such as vitrectomized eyes or patients in whom anti-VEGF failed or are contraindicated. In this article, the safety profile as well as the list of the possible complications related to intravitreal Dex injection are also discussed.

Effect of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes of Taiwanese patients with treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Vitrectomy may affect intravitreal drug clearance and efficacy for treating diabetic macular edema (DME). This study aimed to evaluate functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve DME in Taiwanese patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center study, we reviewed treatment-naïve patients who received DEX implant monotherapy for center-involved DME from January 2015 to May 2017. Retreatments were provided at least 4 months apart as needed. The primary outcomes included changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) at Month 6. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven eyes in 27 patients had prior vitrectomy and 43 eyes in 41 patients without vitrectomy. Baseline data were comparable. Overall, the improvements in BCVA and CFT were significant by 1 month post-treatment and sustained throughout the study (all p < 0.05). At Month 6, BCVA improved by 16.5 and 12.1 letters, and CFT reduced by 138.0 and 121.9 μm in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes, respectively, with a mean of 1.5 DEX implant injection. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were seen between the two groups (all p > 0.05). DEX implant injection was well tolerated. About 30% of patients had post-injection intraocular pressure value > 20 mmHg, and all were manageable with topical hypotensive agents, and no serious ocular complication was observed.

CONCLUSION

In this 6-month retrospective study, intravitreal DEX implant was effective in Taiwanese patients with treatment-naïve DME regardless of vitrectomy status.

Evaluation of Functional Outcomes and OCT-Biomarkers after Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for Postoperative Cystoid Macular Edema in Vitrectomized Eyes

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone implant (DEX) for the treatment of postoperative cystoid macular edema (PCME) in vitrectomized eyes and to investigate visual and morphological OCT predictive factors.

Methods

In this retrospective study, eyes with PCME after vitrectomy were treated with at least one DEX injection and were observed over 12 months. Indications for surgery were epiretinal membrane (ERM) or rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) without macular involvement. Prior treatments, if any, were noted. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), and OCT morphology including the presence of intraretinal cysts/fluid or subretinal fluid (IRF/SRF) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) continuity were evaluated. Correlations between OCT measures and visual outcomes were analyzed by the generalized estimating equations procedure.

Results

Forty-six eyes with ERM and 15 eyes with RRD were enrolled. The ERM group was more likely to gain BCVA than RRD (odds ratio (OR), 1.168; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.003–1.360; p=0.046). The absence of SRF (OR, 0.860; 95% CI, 0.743–0.995; p=0.043) was predictive of worse BCVA, whereas the integrity of EZ (OR, 1.094; 95% CI, 0.951–1.257; p=0.209) or naïve status (OR, 0.946; 95% CI, 0.871–1.137, p=0.853) was not. Eyes with a worse baseline BCVA were more likely to gain >1 line after 12 months (OR, 1.485; 95% CI, 1.171–1.884; p=0.001).

Conclusion

The efficacy of the treatment of PCME in vitrectomized eyes seems to be affected by baseline BCVA, the absence of SRF, and the indication for surgery. Naïve status appears not to play any significant role in the prediction of BCVA. This trial is registered with DRKS00018955.

Real-world experience with pro re nata dosing of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for eyes with refractory diabetic macular edema

Aims: To evaluate treatment outcomes of pro re nata dosing of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in eyes with refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) amongst Indian subjects.

Methods and material: Retrospective, interventional case series. Medical records of 28 eyes of 23 patients with refractory DME who underwent intravitreal dexamethasone (700 µ) implant were reviewed.

Paired t-test was carried out to measure mean change in the parameters evaluated. Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact t-test were done to explore differences between groups receiving single or multiple injections.

Results: Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) at baseline were 0.85 (±0.44) and 612 µm (±123), respectively. Mean CMT over 6 months (measured monthly) following injection was 340±119 µm (p=0.001), 346±150 µm (p=0.02), 368±169 µm (p=0.02), 304±174 µm (p=0.001), 525±216 µm (p=0.94) and 532±201 µm (p=0.46), respectively. Mean BCVA at each month following injection was 0.68±0.36 (p=0.02), 0.75±0.45 (p=0.42), 0.55±0.40 (p=0.11), 0.63±0.40 (p=0.12), 0.78±0.30 (p=0.90) and 0.60±0.47 (p=0.92), respectively. Mean follow-up was 12 months (range: 6–33 months). Mean BCVA and CMT at mean 12 months were 0.72±0.46 (p=0.10) and 358 µm±189 (p=0.0001), respectively. Seven eyes had raised IOP; five eyes required cataract extraction.

Conclusions: Intravitreal dexamethasone implant is effective in treatment of refractory DME. However, its therapeutic effect lasts for about 4 months.

Outcome of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Use in Uveitic Eyes Undergoing Pars Plana Vitrectomy Surgery

Purpose: To report the outcomes in eyes with noninfectious uveitis receiving dexamethasone implant at the time of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).Methods: Retrospective analysis of visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP), vitreous haze score (VHS), and central subfield thickness (CST) at baseline and follow-up visits.Results: Fourteen eyes received dexamethasone implant at the time of PPV. The CST was improved from 469 ± 182 µm at baseline to 320 ± 60 at 6 months (p = .0112) and 295 ± 46 at 12 months (p = .0728). Vitritis only recurred in 2 eyes at 6 months (18.2%) and 1 eye at 12 months (14.3%). The probability of VA improvement of ≥0.3 logMAR was 57% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Therapy for IOP rise was initiated in 6 eyes (42.9%).Conclusions: Local delivery of dexamethasone implant with PPV is a feasible method to counteract postoperative inflammation and macular thickening.

Revisiting pars plana vitrectomy in the primary treatment of diabetic macular edema in the era of pharmacological treatment

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most common cause of moderate visual loss in diabetic patients. The current treatment of choice for center-involved DME is anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment. Most patients that undergo pharmacological inhibition with anti-VEGF agents need multiple monitoring visits that include optical coherence tomography imaging and multiple injections. Despite this intensive treatment, up to 60% of eyes will have persistent DME after six consecutive monthly injections of an anti-VEGF. Its sustainability over the long term has been questioned. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) by increasing the vitreous cavity oxygenation, relieving vitreomacular traction, and removing cytokines from the vitreous cavity may cause long-term resolution of DME without the aforementioned concerns in selected cases. Eyes with vitreomacular traction clearly benefit from PPV as the primary treatment. The role of PPV for eyes with DME without tractional elements is less clear and needs to be explored further.

Effectiveness of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema in Vitrectomized Eyes

Objectives:

To report the effectiveness and long-term outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone implantation for diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized eyes

Materials and Methods:

Medical records of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Time of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), PPV indications, interval between DEX injection and PPV, other intravitreal treatment prior to DEX application, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and central retinal thickness (CRT) measured by optical coherence tomography were recorded.

Results:

Seventeen eyes of 17 patients were included in the study. The mean follow-up after DEX injection was 21±2.4 months (12-43 months). The female/male ratio was 11/6. Mean age was 60.7 years (46-70 years). Sixteen eyes (94.1%) were pseudophakic at the time of DEX treatment. The most common indication for PPV was tractional retinal detachment (8 eyes, 47.1%). Ten eyes (58.8%) received a single injection and a total of 30 DEX implantations were performed. Mean BCVA was 0.77 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units before the first injection and improved to 0.64, 0.68 and 0.66 logMAR after 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively (p<0.01). CRT decreased significantly from 452 µm at baseline to 310, 368±34 and 375 µm after 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively (p<0.04). Mean IOP was 16±1.2 mmHg at baseline and 18.2, 18.8 and 18.5 mmHg after 1, 3, and 6 months (p>0.05). Two eyes (%8) received topical anti-glaucoma medication (IOP≥25 mmHg). Similar results were observed in eyes receiving repeated DEX injections.

Conclusion:

Intravitreal DEX injection treatment seems to be effective for improving BCVA and decreasing CRT in vitrectomized eyes with DME. This effect seemed to last for 6 months in most eyes, but maximized at 3 months. Patients with repeated injections often require injection before 6 months.

Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a chronic condition with a multifactorial pathogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and several inflammatory mediators are upregulated in eyes with DME. VEGF inhibitors and corticosteroids have all been used successfully in the management of DME. Currently available corticosteroids include triamcinolone acetonide (TA), the dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, and the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant. The response to treatment can vary substantially with each treatment modality. Some cases of DME are VEGF driven, and in others, inflammation plays a key role. Chronicity appears to favor corticosteroid treatment. There are no clear guidelines to guide switching from an anti-VEGF to a corticosteroid. Combination therapy of an anti-VEGF drug and a corticosteroid does not appear to provide additional benefit over monotherapy with either drug. The main advantage of corticosteroids over VEGF inhibitors is their longer duration of action. Vitrectomy does not affect the pharmacokinetics of the corticosteroid implants. Common adverse events of corticosteroids include cataract formation, cataract progression, and ocular hypertension. TA may cause a sterile endophthalmitis and pseudoendophthalmitis. Migration of the intravitreal DEX and FA implants into the anterior chamber can be problematic. Because of their less favorable safety profile, corticosteroids are generally used as a second-line treatment for DME. Advantages of using an intravitreal corticosteroid implant include the reduction of treatment burden and predictable pharmacokinetics even in vitrectomized eyes. Pseudophakic eyes, previously vitrectomized eyes and eyes with long-standing DME, particularly of patients who have difficulty in maintaining a monthly appointment, may benefit from primary treatment with a corticosteroid intravitreal implant.

Intraoperative Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant (Ozurdex) in Vitrectomy Surgery for Epiretinal Membrane

Objective: To study the effectiveness and safety of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg (Ozurdex®) in vitrectomy surgery for epiretinal membrane.Methods: This is a prospective, multicenter, pilot study. Inclusion criteria included visually significant (<20/50) idiopathic epiretinal membrane. All patients underwent 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with membrane peeling and Ozurdex implant injection. The primary outcome measure was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included BCVA at 6 months and changes in central retinal thickness (CRT). Intraocular (IOP) changes were monitored and cataract progression in phakic patients was documented.Results: 15 patients were enrolled in the study, 12 eyes of 12 patients were included in the analysis. Mean preoperative BCVA was 50.67 ETDRS letters and improved significantly to 63.67 (+12.91 letters, p = .008) at 3 months. Mean CRT improved from 548 to 409 microns (p = .002) at 3 months. The IOP showed mild elevation at months 1 and 2 and returned almost to baseline at month six. There were no complications related to the steroid implant injection procedure in an air-filled eye.Conclusions: Intra-operative injection of Ozurdex® at the conclusion of PPV can be done safely. The peak IOP and lowest CRT after 2 months strengthens the findings of prior studies demonstrating Ozurdex activity up to 3 months in vitrectomized eyes.

Efficacy and Safety of Combined Vitrectomy with Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for Advanced Stage Epiretinal Membrane

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined 25-gauge (G) pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DXI) for the treatment of advanced stage epiretinal membrane (ERM).

Methods

Forty consecutive pseudophakic eyes with idiopathic stage 3-4 ERM and intraretinal cysts were randomly assigned to two treatment groups. Twenty eyes underwent combined 25-G PPV, ERM peeling and slow-release DXI (DEX group), whereas 20 eyes underwent standard 25-G PPV with ERM peeling only (control group). Differences in postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), central macular thickness (CMT) were evaluated.

Results

In all patients, BCVA significantly increased at 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery compared to baseline (all p < 0.05), but at 3 and 6 months, the visual gain was higher in the DEX group (respectively, p = 0.036, p = 0.006). CMT was significantly lower in DEX group compared to control group at 3 and 6 months after surgery (respectively, p = 0.042, p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in IOP change over the course of the follow-up between groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Combined 25-G PPV with DXI is associated with better anatomical and functional outcomes in patients with advanced stage ERM.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in patients not previously treated with any intravitreal drug: a prospective 12-month follow-up study

Objective: To evaluate the mid-long-term efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant (Ozurdex¹) in naïve patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods: Prospective and single-center study conducted on consecutive patients with a diagnosis of DME, who received a DEX implant and were followed up for at least 12 months. The main outcomes measurements were the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and in foveal thickness (FT) as compared to the baseline values.Results: Of the 84 screened patients 50 were included in the study. The BCVA significantly improved from 52.4 (20.4) letters at baseline to 62.6 (15.6), 61.2 (18.4), 61.6 (18.6), 60.6 (19.0), and 60.6 (18.8) at 2, 4, 6, 12 months and end of follow-up period, respectively (repeated measures ANOVA and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction; p = .0008). At the end of the follow-up period, a gain of BCVA of ≥5, ≥10, and ≥15 letters were observed in 26 (52.0%), 18 (36.0%), and 16 (32.0%) patients, respectively. The mean FT was significantly reduced from 446.0 (139.9) µm at baseline to 327.2 (103.6) at the end of follow-up (repeated measures ANOVA and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction; p = .0008). During the study follow-up, the patients receive a mean of 3.4 (2.9-3.9) implants. Of the 32 phakic eyes at baseline, 17 (53.1%) either developed new lens opacity or progression of an existing opacity.Conclusion: In eyes with DME not previously treated with intravitreal drugs, DEX implants provide meaningful functional and anatomical benefits, and these results are sustained mid-long-term.

Persistent vitreous hemorrhage after intravitreal injection of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema

We report three cases of persistent vitreous hemorrhage after injection of a biodegradable 0.7 mg dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, Allergan), (DEX) to treat and manage diabetic macular edema (DME); we also summarize available case reports and review the literature regarding persistent vitreous hemorrhage. All three patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy due to nonclearing vitreous hemorrhage after conservative treatment for 2-3 months. During operation, we noted the presence of neovascular membrane along the vascular arcade with taut posterior hyaloid; however, no posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) was found in any of three patients. The implants were carefully preserved, so were the effects in reducing macular edema. Persistent vitreous hemorrhage after DEX injection was rare but manageable without interrupting the effect on DME. Eyes with neovascular membrane but without PVD may be at risk of developing vitreous hemorrhage after DEX injection.

Anatomic Response to Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Baseline Aqueous Humor Cytokine Levels in Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To determine whether baseline cytokine aqueous humor (AH) levels are associated with diabetic macular edema (DME) anatomic response to dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) injection.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study of DME cases receiving DEX treatment. Seventy patients were recruited with center-involving DME with spectral-domain (SD) optical coherence tomography (OCT) detection of central macular thickness (CMT) ≥300 μm on macular cube 518 × 128-μm scan protocol (Cirrus SD-OCT). DEX injection and anterior chamber tap to obtain an AH sample were performed at the same time. Multiplex immunoassay was carried out for interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-3, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10; monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1; interferon gamma-induced protein (IP)-10; tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α; and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). A follow-up visit and OCT exam were undertaken 6 to 8 weeks afterward. The association between AH cytokine baseline levels and change in CMT and macular volume (MV) was defined as main outcome measure.

Results

Multivariate linear regression analysis showed a higher decrease in MV to be associated (Rs of 0.512) with four baseline items: higher MCP-1 (β = -0.4; P = 0.028), higher CMT (β = -0.003; P = 0.024), decreased visual acuity (β = -0.7; P = 0.040), and a diffuse retinal thickening (DRT) OCT pattern (β = -1.3; P < 0.001). Logistic regression found DRT also to be associated with higher odds of a good MV response (odds ratio, 31.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.11-143.72; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Even though visual acuity response and anatomic effect are not always correlated in DME, we found that baseline elevated MCP-1 AH levels and DRT pattern were biomarkers that predicted a future favorable anatomic response to DEX.

Efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in persistent diabetic macular edema after primary treatment with intravitreal ranibizumab

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficiency and possible complications of intravitreal dexamethasone (IVD) implant in diabetic macular edema (DME) resistant to treatment of three consecutive intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections.

METHODS

Fifty eyes of 38 patients were considered in this study. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and values of intraocular pressure (IOP) were examined preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th months of IVD implantation.

RESULTS

Twenty of the patients were women, and 18 of the patients were men. Mean age was 64.63 ± 7.15 (52-83) years. Mean number of IVR injection before IVD implantation was 3.4 ± 0.38. Mean BCVA (logMAR) was 0.874 ± 0.398 before IVD implantation, 0.598 ± 0.306 at the 1st month, 0.602 ± 0.340 at the 2nd month, 0.708 ± 0.359 at 4th month, and 0.800 ± 0.370 at 6th month. Mean of CMT was 519.700 ± 155.802 μm before IVD implantation, 274.000 ± 73.112 μm at the 1st month, 307.98 ± 87.869 μm at the 2nd month, 387.82 ± 110.503 μm at 4th month, and 478.54 ± 163.743 μm at 6th month. Improvements in BCVA and CMT were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at 1st, 2nd, and 4th months; however, these values were not statistically significant at 6 months. At 1st day, 1st and 2nd months, the values of IOP were increased significantly after IVD. Cataract progression was observed in just 1 of the 22 phakic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In DME resistant to treatment of consecutive IVR, IVD implantation has been observed to be effective in increasing BCVA and decreasing CMT in the first 3 months. IVD implantation can be considered an alternative method in the treatment of resistant DME.

Hydrodynamics of Intravitreal Injections into Liquid Vitreous Substitutes

Intravitreal injections have become the cornerstone of retinal care and one of the most commonly performed procedures across all medical specialties. The impact of hydrodynamic forces of intravitreal solutions when injected into vitreous or vitreous substitutes has not been well described. While computational models do exist, they tend to underestimate the starting surface area of an injected bolus of a drug. Here, we report the dispersion profile of a dye bolus (50 µL) injected into different vitreous substitutes of varying viscosities, surface tensions, and volumetric densities. A novel 3D printed in vitro model of the vitreous cavity of the eye was designed to visualize the dispersion profile of solutions when injected into the following vitreous substitutes-balanced salt solution (BSS), sodium hyaluronate (HA), and silicone oils (SO)-using a 30G needle with a Reynolds number (Re) for injection ranging from approximately 189 to 677. Larger bolus surface areas were associated with faster injection speeds, lower viscosity of vitreous substitutes, and smaller difference in interfacial surface tensions. Boluses exhibited buoyancy when injected into standard S1000. The hydrodynamic properties of liquid vitreous substitutes influence the initial injected bolus dispersion profile and should be taken into account when simulating drug dispersion following intravitreal injection at a preclinical stage of development, to better inform formulations and performance.

Retinal Defects Three Months After Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant

Intravitreal dexamethasone implants are commonly used to treat macular edema and noninfectious uveitis, and side effects including glaucoma and cataract formation are frequently managed. Rarely, the implant can cause an impact injury. However, this case shows peripheral retinal defects in a vitrectomized eye with abutting dexamethasone intravitreal implant without a flap, operculum, or other evidence of traction, developing 3 months after insertion, excluding the chance of injury from impact. The presence of an intravitreal dexamethasone implant appeared to cause destruction of juxtaposed retinal tissue. This report describes evaluation and management of this previously unreported complication. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019;50:e211-e214.].

Scleral fixation of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant in a case of subluxated bag-intraocular lens complex

Macular edema is a condition of retinal tissue treated with anti-inflammatory agents including placement of an intravitreal sustained-release dexamethasone device, designed to deliver a controlled amount of the medication for a prolonged time, representing an excellent therapy. Nonetheless, the implantation cannot be carried out without an anatomical barrier, such as the presence of posterior capsular support, lens, or intraocular lens. The absence of these barriers could lead to several complications, due to migration of the device from the vitreous cavity to the anterior chamber, causing corneal endothelial damage, corneal edema, glaucoma, and uveitis, among others. In consequence, a large number of patients cannot be treated with this useful surgical tool, resulting in chronicity of macular edema and severe visual acuity impairment. Therefore, we modified the conventional technique, through scleral fixation of the device providing a continuous delivering of dexamethasone, avoiding its migration to the anterior chamber in a patient without capsular support.

First-line treatment algorithm and guidelines in center-involving diabetic macular edema

Management of center-involving diabetic macular edema represents a real therapeutic challenge. Diabetic macular edema is the leading cause of visual acuity impairment in diabetic patients. Since the advent of intravitreal drugs, management of diabetic macular edema has significantly evolved. The historical grid laser photocoagulation is no longer recommended as first-line treatment of diabetic macular edema owing to the findings of the pivotal randomized controlled trials, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy has emerged as first-line therapy. Steroids also represent a valid treatment option in the management of naïve diabetic macular edema and their efficacy has also been confirmed in several studies. The optimal treatment for diabetic macular edema should consider both general and ophthalmological comorbidities. Patient compliance and motivation should also be carefully evaluated as some treatments require monthly follow-up. Based on recent literature evidence, the present review provides clinicians with a first-line treatment algorithm for center-involving diabetic macular edema tailored to the patient’s individual characteristics.

Dexamethasone implant in the management of diabetic macular edema from clinician's perspective

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of characteristics and principles of use of dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). The condensed information about patient selection, dosing, and postinjection management is provided to make the clinician’s decisions easier in real-life practice. DME is a common complication of diabetes and the leading cause of visual loss in the working-age population. Inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis of DME. The breakdown of the blood–retinal barrier involves the expression of inflammatory cytokines and growth factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Steroids have proved to be effective in the treatment of DME by blocking the production of VEGF and other inflammatory cytokines, by inhibiting leukostasis, and by enhancing the barrier function of vascular endothelial cell tight junctions. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of DME resistant to anti-VEGF therapy and in vitrectomized eyes. Data from clinical trials suggest that dexamethasone implant can be considered as first-line treatment in pseudophakic eyes. Dexamethasone implant is also the first-line therapy in patients not suited for anti-VEGF therapy, pregnant women, and patients unable to return for frequent monitoring. It has been shown that the maximum effect of dexamethasone implant on visual gain and retinal thickness occurs approximately 2 months after injection. Various treatment regimens are used in real-life situations, and reported reinjection intervals were usually <6 months. The number of retreatments needed decreased over time. Treatment algorithms should be personalized. Postinjection management and follow-up should consider potential adverse events such as intraocular pressure elevation and cataract.

Corticosteroids and Anti-Complement Therapy in Retinal Diseases

Corticosteroids are unique in that they are the one class of agents that acts upon most of the multiple processes in the pathophysiology of macular edema. Corticosteroids are capable of inhibiting prostaglandin and leukotriene synthesis as well as interfering with intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), interleukin-6, VEGF-A, and stromal cell derived factor-1 pathways. Triamcinolone, dexamethasone, and fluocinolone have been extensively used in the treatment of retinal and choroidal vascular diseases. Sustained release implants of steroids have reduced the burden of repeated intravitreal injections necessary in most of the retinal diseases. Complement factors play an important role in the pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Inhibitors of complement could provide a breakthrough in the treatment of dry AMD. Complement factor inhibitors, such as POT-4, lampalizumab, and eculizumab, have been tested in clinical trials for dry AMD with promising results. However, results of phase 3 trials are awaited.

Diabetic retinopathy, a vascular and inflammatory disease: Therapeutic implications

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes and the leading cause of visual impairment in the working-age population in the Western world. Diabetic macular oedema (DME) is one of the major complications of DR. Therapy with intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs has become the gold standard treatment for DR and its complications. However, these drugs have no effect on the pathogenesis of DR and must be administered frequently via invasive intravitreal injections over many years. Thus, there is a pressing need to develop new therapeutic strategies to improve the treatment of this devastating disease. Indeed, an increasing volume of data supports the role of the inflammatory process in the pathogenesis of DR itself and its complications, including both increased retinal vascular permeability and neovascularization. Inflammation may also contribute to retinal neurodegeneration. Evidence that low-grade inflammation plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of DME has opened up new pathways and targets for the development of improved treatments. Anti-inflammatory compounds such as intravitreal glucocorticoids, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antioxidants, inflammatory molecule inhibitors, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers and natural anti-inflammatory therapies may all be considered to reduce the rate of administration of antineovascularization agents in the treatment of DR. This report describes the current state of knowledge of the potential role of anti-inflammatory drugs in controlling the onset and evolution of DR and DME.

Treatment of Macular Edema after Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane Using Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant: Long-Term Outcomes

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the treatment of macular edema after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for epiretinal membrane (ERM) removal.

METHODS

This prospective study included 27 patients who were diagnosed with macular edema after PPV for ERM removal and who were treated with either intravitreal dexamethasone implant (n = 15) or were observed without intervention (n = 12). Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were assessed 1, 6, and 12 months -after treatment.

RESULTS

Patients treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant showed significant improvement in BCVA and reduction in CRT at months 1, 6, and 12 after treatment, while patients in the control group showed improvement that did not reach statistical significance. The two groups differed significantly in terms of BCVA and CRT at all time points of the follow-up period, in favor of the dexamethasone implant group. Eighty percent of the patients treated with intravitreal dexamethasone needed only one implant until month 12, while no serious adverse events were noticed in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was found to be effective and safe for the treatment of macular edema after PPV for ERM removal.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex® in naïve and refractory patients with different subtypes of diabetic macular edema

Background

Diabetic macular edema (DME) can be treated with different alternatives, among them Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) has demonstrated that may improve both central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex® in patients with different subtypes of diabetic macular edema over a 6-month follow-up period.

Methods

Eighty-four (29 naïve and 55 previously treated) eyes were included in this retrospective study. For each patient, the BCVA [Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts] and macular thickness on optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline visit and within the 2nd, 4th, and 6th months of follow-up were obtained. The main outcomes measurements were the mean change in BCVA and in CMT with respect to the baseline value. The percentage of patients gaining ≥5 letters and ≥ 10 letters in BCVA was also analyzed. Results: A total of 84 eyes, 29 (34.5%) naïve and 55 (65.5%) non-naïve, from 69 patients were included in the study. BCVA at baseline was 58.8 (16.4) and 61.8 (11.6) in naïve and refractory patients, respectively, p = 0.4513. At every visit, BCVA significantly improved from baseline in naïve and non-naïve eyes (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003, respectively; Friedman rank sum test). At baseline, the mean CMT was 466.2 (189.7) μm and 448.1 (110.7) μm in the naïve and non-naïve patients, respectively (p = 0.5830); and decreased to 339.3 (92.5) μm and 357.5 (79.1) μm, respectively (p = 0.0004 and p < 0.0001, respectively, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The proportion of patients gaining ≥10 letters was significantly greater in the naïve group, p = 0.0199.

Conclusion

The intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) is effective for the treatment of diabetic macular edema, even in refractory cases that have failed to respond to previous therapies.

Intravitreal corticosteroid implant vs intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of macular edema: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid implant and intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of macular edema (ME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implant with ranibizumab in patients with ME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze the data, and the modified Jadad assessment tool was used to access the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our analysis. The types of causes of ME include central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), and diabetic retinopathy (DR). The ranibizumab treatment group had significantly better BCVA compared with the corticosteroid treatment group (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.80; 95% CI -1.08, -0.53; P<0.00001). The ranibizumab treatment group also had higher CST reduction compared with the corticosteroid treatment group, and there was a significant difference (weighted mean difference [WMD] 167.58; 95% CI 125.21-209.95; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference in serious adverse effects between the two groups (SMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.69, 4.05; P=0.26). However, the use of corticosteroid implant had a higher risk of intraocular pressure (IOP) (OR 6.88; 95% CI 4.53-10.44; P<0.00001) elevation and cataract (OR 3.98; 95% CI 1.89-8.37; P=0.0003) than ranibizumab treatment and fewer injections.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ranibizumab, corticosteroid implant did not have greater improved BCVA, but corticosteroid implant had less CST reduction. The advantages of corticosteroids are fewer injections, while the advantages of ranibizumab include fewer side effects.

Long-term probability of intraocular pressure elevation with the intravitreal dexamethasone implant in the real-world

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term cumulative probability of intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation with the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) when used to treat different indications: diabetic macular edema, uveitis, retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

705 IDI injections (429 eyes) were assessed and Kaplan-Meier graphs were generated to assess: the probability of different levels of IOP elevation (IOP≥21, ≥25 or ≥35 mmHg), IOP change ≥10 mmHg, initiation of IOP-lowering treatment, glaucoma surgery, IOP change with repeat injections and IOP elevation in eyes with glaucoma and ocular hypertension (OHT).

RESULTS

The cumulative probability of IOP ≥21, ≥25 and ≥35 mmHg was 50%-60%, 25%-30% and 6%-7% at 12-24 months, respectively. The probability of initiating IOP-lowering medication was 31%-54% at 12-24 months. Glaucoma and OHT eyes had a higher probability of mild IOP elevation (≥21 mmHg, 65.1%, 75% and 57.8%, p = 0.01), yet a similar moderate (≥25 mmHg, 22.3%, 28% and 30.2%, p = 0.91) and severe elevation of IOP (≥35 mmHg, 3.7%, 7.1% and 4%, p = 0.71) as normal eyes. Glaucoma surgery was required in only 0.9% cases (4/429). At baseline, 8.8% of the treated eyes had glaucoma, 6.7% OHT and 16.9% were already on IOP-lowering medication.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long-term (24 months), IOP elevation is common, generally mild (30% IOP, ≥25 mmHg) and well-tolerated, resolving with topical treatment (54%) and rarely requiring surgery (0.9%).

Progression of Eales’ disease post-partum and long-term follow-up: a case report

Background

Eales’ disease is a difficult to treat idiopathic form of retinal vasculitis. We present such a case with peculiar epidemiology in which the only efficient therapeutic approach in order to maintain functional vision was repeated intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex®). To the best of our knowledge this is the first report of this kind in the literature.

Case presentation

This is the case of a 40-year-old white woman presenting in 2008 with recurrent floaters accompanied by blurring of vision in her right eye and severe visual loss in her left eye caused by retinal detachment; her age at presentation was 30 years. A diagnosis of Eales’ disease was made by exclusion. She was stable until 2011 after childbirth (cesarean section). Despite aggressive systemic treatment with steroids, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil, progression of the disease was noted that could only be controlled with repeated intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex®) injected in her right eye. Her left eye underwent vitrectomy with silicone oil tamponade for tractional retinal detachment with satisfactory anatomical result but vision was limited to light perception.

Conclusions

In our case the systemic therapy was much less effective than the intravitreal sustained-release dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex®) for reducing recurrences and halting disease progression. We believe that recurrent and severe cases could benefit from this addition to the classic treatment armamentarium.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13256-018-1768-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Vitreous and intraretinal macular changes in diabetic macular edema with and without tractional components

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is still one of the main causes of visual impairment. Repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab are considered the gold standard treatment, but the efficacy in patients with prominent cystic characteristics remains uncertain. In diabetic retinas, the identification of both antero-posterior and, particularly, tangential tractions is crucial to prevent misdiagnosis of tractional and refractory DME, and therefore to prevent poor treatment outcomes. The treatment of tractional DME with anti-VEGF injections could be poorly effective due to the influence of a tractional force. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is a surgical procedure that has been widely used in the treatment of diffuse and refractory DME. Anatomical improvement, although stable and immediate, did not result in visual improvement. PPV with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for the treatment of non-tractional DME in patients with prominent cysts (> 390 μm) causes subfoveal atrophy, defined as "floor effect". Epiretinal tangential forces and intraretinal change evaluation by SD-OCT of non-tractional DME are essential for determining appropriate management.

Long-term efficacy and duration of action of dexamethasone implant, in vitrectomised and non-vitrectomised eyes with persistent diabetic macular oedema

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and duration of action of an intravitreal (dexamethasone (Ozurdex)) implant in vitrectomised and non-vitrectomised eyes with persistent diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the records for 18 eyes that had or had not been vitrectomised but required an intravitreal dexamethasone implant for DMO after a poor response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. Optical coherence tomography and visual acuity (VA) examinations were performed before and 1, 3 and 6 months after implantation. The six months following implantation constituted one treatment round; up to three rounds were studied.

RESULTS

Ten of 18 eyes had undergone vitrectomy. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were significantly improved by months 1-3 after implantation of the Ozurdex device in all rounds of treatment. The BCVA and CMT deteriorated gradually after month 3 through to month 6 post implantation. There were no statistically significant differences between the vitrectomised and non-vitrectomised groups at any time point. When the implantation interval was <6 weeks from the end of each treatment round, the improvement in BCVA and CMT was obvious even after 18 months of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Vitrectomy did not have a negative effect on the duration of action or efficacy of the Ozurdex implant in patients with persistent DMO. The implant started working from the first month after implantation regardless of whether vitrectomy had or had not been performed. The maximum functional and anatomic improvement was achieved in the first 3 months post implantation in all treatment rounds.

PLGA microsphere/PVA hydrogel coatings suppress the foreign body reaction for 6 months

The application of dexamethasone releasing poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) microspheres embedded in a poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) hydrogel coatings have been successfully used in the suppression of the foreign body response (FBR) to implantable glucose sensors. In the current study, dexamethasone-loaded PLGA microspheres were prepared by blending two types of PLGA polymers (RG503H and DLG7E with MW of ca. 25 kDa and 113 kDa, respectively) to achieve long-term (6 months) inhibition of the FBR. The microsphere composition was optimized according to the in vitro drug release profiles. Microspheres with DLG7E/RG503H/dexamethasone = 70/13.3/16.7 wt% composition, when embedded in a PVA hydrogel, provided a continuous drug release for 6 months. By combining the aforementioned microspheres with microspheres composed solely of the DLG7E polymer within a similar PVA hydrogel realized an even longer (>7 months) in vitro drug release. A heat map was constructed to depict the daily in vitro drug released and elucidate possible lag phases that could affect the pharmacodynamic response. These drug-loaded implant coatings were investigated in vivo (rat model) and showed inhibition of the foreign body response for 6 months. These results suggest that the minimum effective daily dose to counter chronic inflammation is ca. 0.1 μg per mg of coating surrounding a 0.5 × 0.5 × 5 mm silicon implant (dummy sensor). Accordingly, these drug-eluting composite coatings can ensure long-term inflammation control for miniaturized implantable devices.

Early Retinal and Choroidal Coat Thickness Changes after Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Injection for Diabetic Macular Edema

Background:

Intravitreal steroid injection is one of the treatment options for diabetic macular edema. Dexamethasone implant is the most novel form of intravitreal steroid therapy. Improvement in macular thickness is a well-known effect of Dexamethasone implant however, subfoveal choroidal coat thickness changes require investigation.

Aims:

To evaluate the early central macular thickness and subfoveal choroidal thickness alterations after single-dose dexamethasone implant injection in diabetic macular edema.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Methods:

We identified 29 patients with diabetic macular edema (29 eyes) who underwent optical coherence tomography and fundus fluorescein angiography. All patients received a single-dose intravitreal Dexamethasone implant and were followed up for central macular thickness and subfoveal choroidal thickness alterations for 1 hour, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months post-injection.

Results:

The preoperative mean central macular thickness and subfoveal choroidal thickness measurements were 592.3±122.3 (412–879) μm and 264.8±53.7 (165–397) μm, respectively. Central macular thickness measurements decreased significantly in the first hour (p<0.050) and continued to decrease until the third month (p<0.001), whereas the subfoveal choroidal thickness decrement was only significant on the first day (p<0.05). Decreases in subfoveal choroidal thickness and central macular thickness of 1.5% and 5% were observed at 1 hour; however, the difference was not significant (p>0.050). The decrease in central macular thickness was significantly greater than that in subfoveal choroidal thickness at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months (p<0.001).

Conclusion:

Intravitreal Dexamethasone implant has a meaningful effect on central macular thickness in patients with diabetic macular edema, while subfoveal choroidal thickness decreases significantly at first day.

Iluvien™ (Fluocinolone Acetonide 0.19 mg Intravitreal Implant) in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review

Diabetic macular edema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in the working age population. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy provided a major advance in treatment of DMO for many patients, there is a significant proportion of patients who maintain persistent DMO and have minimal response to anti-VEGF treatment. Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg [FAc]) is an important additional treatment option for DMO. In this review we describe the clinical context and the evidence for the use of the FAc implant in treating DMO, from pilot to randomized controlled studies, to later phase real world data. These studies indicate that the FAc implant is effective, well tolerated and a cost-effective option in the treatment of insufficiently responsive DMO.

Objective evaluation of lens clarity after the intravitreal injection of sustained-release dexamethasone implant

PURPOSE

To evaluate the lens densitometry values in eyes with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion that were treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implants and to compare these data with those of fellow healthy control eyes.

SETTING

Ulucanlar Eye Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Patients with unilateral macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion who were to be treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implants were recruited. The lens densitometry values measured with Scheimpflug imaging before and 3 months after the injection were compared with those in fellow healthy eyes.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (22 with branch retinal vein occlusion and 15 with central retinal vein occlusion) with a mean age of 61.5 years ± 11.4 (SD) (range 37 to 82 years) were included. The mean lens densitometry value at Pentacam densitometry zone 1 was significantly increased in the study eyes at 3 months compared with baseline values (baseline 9.44 ± 0.99; 3 months 9.68 ± 1.24; P = .015). At zones 2 and 3, the mean and maximum lens densitometry values in study eyes and lens thickness were similar at baseline and 3 months after injection (P > .05). The densitometry values in fellow healthy eyes were also similar at baseline and at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

The mean lens densitometry value at zone 1 significantly increased from baseline in the study eyes 3 months after the injection of the dexamethasone implant for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Management of diabetic macular edema with intravitreal dexamethasone implants: Expert recommendations using a Delphi-based approach

OBJECTIVES:

Despite being approved and effective, steroids, and especially dexamethasone intravitreal implants, still have a poorly-defined role in management of diabetic macular edema. In order to overcome some of the limitations in current recommendations, a group of experts met to define consensus on some of the most controversial issues on the use of dexamethasone intravitreal implants in daily management of diabetic macular edema.

METHODS:

A Delphi-based approach was utilized to develop clinically relevant statements applicable to routine treatment settings. A Steering Committee composed of four experts formulated 30 relevant statements, which were voted upon by a panel of 40 ophthalmologists/retinal specialists from across Italy.

RESULTS:

Dexamethasone intravitreal implants were considered to be a valid first-line alternative to treatment with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent and should be the first choice in pseudophakic and vitrectomized patients. A Pro Re Nata regimen was felt to be appropriate for retreatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implants while a 6-month waiting period was not considered suitable. Among steroid treatments, dexamethasone intravitreal implants were considered to have the best ocular tolerability. In patients with persistent macular edema after the loading-phase treatment with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, consensus was reached that clinicians should consider switching therapy to dexamethasone intravitreal implants. Moreover, dexamethasone intravitreal implants can reduce the treatment burden for individuals who are not able to cope with the more intensive treatment regimen required by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.

CONCLUSIONS:

While further studies are needed, this survey provides some key recommendations for clinicians treating diabetic macular edema that may be useful when choosing dexamethasone intravitreal implants in daily practice.

A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov website and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing DEX implant with anti-VEGF in patients with DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 for Mac was used to analyze the data and GRADE profiler were used to access the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Based on four randomized clinical trials assessing a total of 521 eyes, the DEX implant can achieve visual acuity improvement for DME at rates similar to those achieved via anti-VEGF treatment (mean difference [MD] = - 0.43, P = 0.35), with superior anatomic outcomes at 6 months (MD = - 86.71 μm, P = 0.02), while requiring fewer injections, in comparison to anti-VEGF treatment. Although the mean reduction in CST did not showed significant difference at 12 months (MD = - 33.77 μm, P = 0.21), the significant in BCVA from baseline to 12 months supported the anti-VEGF treatment (MD = - 3.26, P < 0.00001). No statistically significant differences in terms of the serious adverse events. However, use of the DEX implant has higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract than anti-VEGF treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with anti-VEGF, DEX implant improved anatomical outcomes significantly. However, this did not translate to improved visual acuity, which may be due to the progression of cataract. Therefore, the DEX implant may be recommended as a first chioce for select cases, such as for pseudophakic eyes, anti-VEGF-resistant eyes, or patients reluctant to receive intravitreal injections frequently.