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

Comparison of the Effect of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in Vitrectomized and Nonvitrectomized Eyes for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of sustained-release dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant in nonvitrectomized eyes and vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

A retrospective review of the medical records of 40 eyes of 30 consecutive patients with diabetic macular edema who underwent intravitreal DEX implant injection. Patients were divided into 2 subgroups: 31 eyes that were nonvitrectomized (group 1) and 9 eyes that had previously undergone standard pars plana vitrectomy (group 2). The main outcome measures were BCVA and foveal thickness (FT).

Results

A significant improvement was seen in BCVA in both group 1 and group 2 at the 1st, 2nd, and 6th months after treatment with DEX implant (p < 0.05). In group 1, a significant reduction in FT was observed at the 1st, 2nd, and 6th months (p < 0.05). In group 2, a significant reduction in FT was seen at the 1st and 2nd months (p < 0.05), but the reduction rate at the 6th month after the injection was not statistically significant (p = 0.06).

Conclusion

DEX implant is effective for the treatment of diabetic macular edema, and the effectiveness of the drug is similar in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract.

MAIN RESULTS

There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.

Standardized care by redesign of an intravitreal injection pathway

PURPOSE:

Intravitreal injection of medication is a rapid rising surgical intervention in modern ophthalmological care. With increasing numbers, the caseload of complications follows and the burden on daily clinical organization increases. This study focuses on developing a standardized treatment protocol to improve care and reduce hazard.

METHODS:

A standardized treatment protocol was designed and educated to the involved medical doctor and registered nurse. An independent observer used this protocol to evaluate the actions performed during the intravitreal injection. Data on the included patients and products injected were collected.

RESULTS:

In total, 180 injections of 134 patients were observed between 1 December 2011 and 18 October 2012, divided over 16 measurements. From the fifth measurement on, a 100% protocol adherence for the time out procedure was achieved and maintained over time, with a transient insignificant decrease. The performance of actions of the medical doctor and assisting registered nurse followed the same trend with a rapid increase and 100% protocol adherence. No microorganism caused development of endophthalmitis was recorded.

CONCLUSION:

The optimization of an intravitreal injection care pathway leads to a more standardized intervention process with no apparent reduction in clinical efficiency and safety.

Clinical Decision-Making when Treating Diabetic Macular Edema Patients with Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disease frequently associated with comorbidities that include diabetic macular edema (DME). The current medical approach to treating DME involves intravitreal injections with either anti-vascular endothelial growth factors or steroids. However, the burden associated with intravitreal injections and DM-derived complications is high, underlining the need to find optimal treatment regimens. In this article we describe the considerations we apply when treating DME patients with dexamethasone intravitreal implants (Ozurdex®), particularly those that influence the clinical decision-making process during the follow-up period. These considerations are based both on the available medical literature and on our clinical experience following the use of these implants in this type of patient, the goal being to optimize the number of injections and the clinical outcome of this therapy. We also provide a general overview of the pathophysiology of DME, highlighting the inflammatory component as a rationale to use steroids in these patients.

Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) Acid as a Slow-Release Drug-Carrying Matrix for Methotrexate Coated onto Intraocular Lenses to Conquer Posterior Capsule Opacification

PURPOSE

Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) still represents the main long-term complication of cataract surgery. Research into pharmacologic PCO prophylaxis is extensive. One promising candidate drug is methotrexate (MTX). Our aim is to determine the in vitro feasibility of MTX-loaded poly(lactic-co-glycolic) (PLGA) biomatrices sprayed on intraocular lenses (IOLs) as a drug-delivery implant.

METHODS

Hydrophilic and hydrophobic acrylic IOLs were spray-coated with MTX-loaded PLGA. Unsprayed, solvent only, and solvent-PLGA-sprayed IOLs served as controls. All IOLs were evaluated for their growth-inhibiting properties in an in vitro anterior segment model and the ex vivo human capsular bag. The release kinetics of MTX from the IOLs was determined. The toxicity of MTX on corneal endothelial cells was evaluated by using a dye reduction colorimetric assay. MTX was also used in a scratch assay.

RESULTS

MTX-PLGA-IOL showed a significant difference in cell proliferation and migration compared with all controls in the anterior segment model (p < 0.001) and in the human capsular bag model (p = 0.04). No difference in viability was observed on corneal endothelial cells (p = 0.43; p = 0.61). MTX significantly inhibited cells in the scratch assay (p = 0.02). At all measured points, the released MTX dose remained above EC50 and below the toxic dose for the endothelium.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the strong inhibition of PCO in vitro with the lack of toxic effects on a corneal cell line, MTX encapsulating microspheres seem to be a promising method for modifying IOL.

Uneventful Anterior Migration of Intravitreal Ozurdex Implant in a Patient with Iris-Sutured Intraocular Lens and Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty

Purpose

We report here the case of a patient with anterior segment migration of intravitreal dexamethasone implant as well as its management and outcome.

Methods

The patient had the following sequence of events: complicated cataract surgery, iris-sutured intraocular lens implant, followed by cystoid macular edema treated with intravitreal Avastin, retinal vein occlusion treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant, corneal decompensation treated with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK), and finally recurrence of macular edema treated with repeated intravitreal dexamethasone implant.

Results

Dexamethasone implant had completely dissolved from the eye 12 weeks after insertion without any complication.

Conclusion

A conservative approach with regular monitoring in the situation of a quiet anterior segment without any corneal decompensation can provide enough time for the implant to dissolve without causing any complication to the involved eye, avoiding any additional surgical intervention, as presented in this case report. Despite the fact that the implant was left for natural dissolution, there were no adverse effects related to the graft or the eye.

Repeated Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema Unresponsive to Anti-VEGF Therapy: Outcome and Predictive SD-OCT Features

PURPOSE

To investigate dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX implant) for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy and evaluate predictive factors.

METHODS

Two-centre retrospective interventional case series, including 40 eyes of 31 patients treated with DEX implant for at least 2 consecutive cycles.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD intervals from implantation to recurrence in the first (4.2 ± 1.0 months) and second cycles (4.0 ± 0.9 months) were not significantly different. Best corrected visual acuity improved significantly (p < 0.001) by 7.0 ± 8.4 letters from baseline to month 2, and by 5.1 ± 6.9 letters between the first and second cycles. Central retinal thickness reduction 2 months after implantation was greater after the first (-194 ± 172 µm) than the second cycle (-134 ± 150 µm). Ellipsoid zone-external limiting membrane (EZ-ELM) disruption score decreased from 1.39 ± 1.16 at baseline to 1.24 ± 1.16 (p = 0.0832) after cycle 1 and remained stable 2 months after cycle 2. Eyes with persisting severe EZ-ELM disruption (score >2, n = 10) 2 months after the first DEX implant showed significantly (p = 0.0153) smaller visual acuity (VA) gains than eyes with less severe (score ≤2) EZ-ELM disruption.

CONCLUSION

Repeated intravitreal DEX injections with average intervals of 4 months are valuable in patients with DME refractory to anti-VEGF therapy. Disorganization of outer retinal layers (EZ-ELM) may predict smaller VA gains if evaluated after initial reduction of macular oedema.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implants for diabetic macular edema

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Totally 113 eyes of 84 patients were divided in three subgroups: naive patients (n=11), pseudophakic patients (n=72) and phakic patients (n=30). Inclusive criterion comprised adult diabetic patients with central fovea thickening and impaired visual acuity resulting from DME for whom previous standard treatments showed no improvement in both central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after at least 3mo of treatment. Outcome data were obtained from patient visits at baseline and at months 1, 3, 5, 9 and 12 after the first DEX implant injection. At each of these visits, patients underwent measurement of BCVA, a complete eye examination and measurement of CMT and macular volume (MV) carried out with optical coherence tomography (OCT) images.

RESULTS

Seventy-three eyes (64.5%) received a single implant, 30 (26.5%) received two implants and 10 (9%) received three implants. At baseline, average in BCVA, CMT and MV were 43.5±20.8, 462.8±145 and 12.6±2.5 respectively. These values improved significantly at 1mo (BCVA: 47.2±19.5, CMT: 339.6±120, MV: 11.11±1.4) and 3mo (BCVA: 53.2±18.1, CMT: 353.8±141, MV: 11.3±1.3) (P≤0.05). At 5mo (BCVA: 50.9±19.8, CMT: 425±150, MV: 12.27±2.3), 9mo (BCVA: 48.4±17.6, CMT: 445.5±170, MV: 12.5±2.3) and 12mo (BCVA: 47.7±18.8, CMT: 413.2±149, MV: 12.03±2.5), improvements in the three parameters were no longer statistically significant and decreased progressively but did not reach baseline values. There were no clinical differences between subgroups. Ocular complications were minimal.

CONCLUSION

Patients with DEX implants show maximum efficacy at 3mo which then declined progressively, but is still better than baseline values at the end of follow-up.

OCULAR HYPERTENSION AFTER INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE (OZURDEX) SUSTAINED-RELEASE IMPLANT

PURPOSE

To evaluate ocular hypertension (OHT) after Ozurdex injection to determine the incidence of OHT, therapy for OHT, and any associative factors such as diagnosis, underlying glaucoma and therapy, or sequential Ozurdex injection(s).

METHODS

Retrospective consecutive case series with patients receiving one or more intravitreal Ozurdex implantations at a tertiary care academic center. Ocular hypertension was defined as a single measurement of ≥30 mmHg or an increase of ≥10 mmHg from baseline.

RESULTS

Ninety-four injections in 52 patients (59 eyes) were reviewed. Forty eyes received a single injection, and 19 eyes received multiple injections. Ocular hypertension developed in 14 patients (26.9%). Thirteen patients (25%) had preexisting glaucoma or suspicion of glaucoma, and 6 of these developed OHT. Glaucoma eye drops were initiated after 13 injections (13.8%). Invasive surgery for glaucoma was required in 3 patients (3.2%): all had glaucoma or suspicion of glaucoma (one case was related to neovascular glaucoma and unlikely related to steroid response after Ozurdex). There was no difference in relative intraocular pressure increase (i.e., difference between final follow-up or subsequent intravitreal injection vs. baseline) between single versus multiple Ozurdex injections (P = 0.883).

CONCLUSION

Patients (26.9%) who received Ozurdex developed OHT. Glaucoma or glaucoma-suspicion factors were present in all patients who required invasive surgery for glaucoma. A greater proportion of patients who received multiple injections had an intraocular pressure elevation, but the relative intraocular pressure increase was not significant.

Macular oedema as manifestation of diabetic retinopathy

Diabetes mellitus is the third most dangerous disease of our time preceded by cardiovascular diseases and oncologic pathology. According to the International Diabetes Federation (January 1, 2016), worldwide approximately 415 million people aged 2079 years suffer from diabetes. The most significant manifestations of diabetes mellitus are lesions of the retina and blood vessels, which manifest as diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema, which lead to the inevitable loss of vision and disability in patients of working age. The existence of multile diagnostic methods and a broad classification provide an evidence of the complex nature of the pathological process of the macular zone in diabetes mellitus. However, to date, a single, generalised and accepted classification does not exist. Difficulties in the treatment of diabetic maculopathy are attributed to various forms of retinal lesions and ambiguities in the approach used to choose the disease management. It determines the importance of the development of diagnostic methods for the further correction of the standard treatment approach. New directions of surgical treatment allow relying on the best results of diabetic maculopathy treatment.

Clinical Applications of Dexamethasone for Aged Eyes

The risk of severe eye problems has been found to increase significantly with age, particularly between the fifth and sixth decades of life. Cataracts, dry eye, neovascular age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) are very common and very different age-related ocular diseases that reduce the patient's quality of life. The rationale for using corticosteroids to treat anterior and posterior ocular segment diseases is driven by inflammation. Dexamethasone, one of the most powerful corticosteroids available, is widely used for topical or intravitreal administration. Topical dexamethasone has proven efficacy for the management of postoperative inflammation in the anterior segment after cataract surgery and symptom relief in dry-eye disease. A new sustained-release 700 µg dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) was recently approved for the treatment of macular edema following RVO, diabetic macular edema, or non-infectious uveitis, and its use is increasing, especially when other therapeutic agents have failed. The most common side effects are increased intraocular pressure and cataract formation. The potency of DEX, alone or in combination with other agents, makes DEX a promising option for treating several retinal diseases.

Rapid response to dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

To evaluate the early effects of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-arm, interventional clinical series. Eighteen patients (18 eyes) with chronic/recalcitrant or naive DME were included. Patients underwent single DEX intravitreal implant. Clinical assessments, including ophthalmologic examination, central retinal thickness (CRT) measurement by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) scan, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were carried out at baseline, 1-3 hours, and then 3, 7, and 30 days after treatment. The main outcome was change in CRT on SD-OCT, while secondary outcome measures included visual acuity (VA) and changes in IOP following implant.

RESULTS

Mean CRT significantly decreased from 565 ± 171 µm at baseline to 310 ± 89 µm at end of follow-up (p<0.001), with reduction becoming evident 1-3 hours after injection. Mean BCVA also significantly improved 7 days and 30 days after treatment up to 0.14 logMAR (p<0.05). All patients had a controlled IOP after the injection with only 1/18 eyes having a transient increase in IOP during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study showing very early effects of DEX implants on CRT reduction and VA improvement in DME.

The clinical outcomes of surgical management of anterior chamber migration of a dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex®)

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to describe the clinical course, and individualized management approaches, of patients with migration of a dexamethasone implant into the anterior chamber.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of four patients with seven episodes of anterior chamber migration of a dexamethasone implant.

RESULTS

After 924 intravitreal dexamethasone injections, anterior migration of the implant occurred in four eyes of four patients (0.43%). All four eyes were pseudophakic: one eye had a posterior chamber intraocular lens in the capsular bag but in a post-laser posterior capsulotomy state, two eyes had a sulcus intraocular lens (IOL), and one eye had an iris-fixated retropupillary IOL. All eyes had a prior vitrectomy and no lens capsule. The time interval from injection to detection of the implant migration ranged from 2 to 6 weeks. Of the four eyes with corneal edema, only one eye required a corneal transplantation, although it was unclear whether the implant migration was the direct cause of the corneal decompensation because the patient had a history of bullous keratopathy resulting from an extended history of uveitis. All patients underwent surgical intervention: two patients with a repositioning procedure, and the other two patients with removal due to repeated episodes, although surgical removal was not always necessary to reverse the corneal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, not all patients required surgical removal of the implants. Repositioning the implant back into the vitreous cavity may be considered as an option in cases involving the first episode with no significant corneal endothelial decompensation. Considering potential anterior segment complications and the loss of drug effectiveness together, an individualized approach is recommended to obtain the best treatment outcomes and to minimize the risk of corneal complications.

Corticosteroid Treatment in Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema is the most common cause of visual impairment in patients with diabetes mellitus. The pathogenesis of macular edema is complex and multifactorial. For many years, laser photocoagulation has been considered the standard therapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema; however, few patients achieve significant improvements in visual acuity. Today the intravitreal administration of anti-inflammatory or anti-angiogenic agents together with the use of laser photocoagulation represents the standard of care for the treatment of this complication. The intravitreal route of administration minimizes the systemic side effects of corticosteroids. Steroid-related ocular side effects are elevated intraocular pressure and cataract, while injection-related complications include endophthalmitis, vitreous hemorrhage, and retinal detachment. In order to reduce the risks and complications, intravitreal implants have been developed recently to provide sustained release of corticosteroids and reduce repeated injections for the management of diabetic macular edema. In this review, the efficacy, safety, and therapeutic potential of intravitreal corticosteroids in diabetic macular edema are discussed with a review of recent literature.

Anterior segment migration of dexamethasone implant: risk factors, complications, and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the risk factors, clinical course, and complications related to anterior segment migration of a dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, and review over potential management strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent reports have demonstrated that migration of a DEX implant into the anterior chamber may occur in patients with higher risk ocular characteristics. Although a relatively rare occurrence, DEX implant migration carries the possibility of inducing potentially vision-threatening corneal endothelial decompensation and edema.

SUMMARY

Any combination of previous pars plana vitrectomy, an open/defective lens capsule, and/or iris defects may increase the risk of DEX implant migration into the anterior chamber. In the setting of a DEX implant that has moved into the anterior segment with corneal edema already present, urgent removal of the implant is warranted to reduce the risk of permanent visual compromise.

New Drugs and New Posterior Delivery Methods in CME

PURPOSE

To discuss the characteristics, indications and adverse events (AEs) of sustained-release corticosteroid devices for the treatment of cystoid macular edema (CME).

RECENT FINDINGS

Ozurdex® is approved for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion related-CME and noninfectious posterior uveitis (NIPU). It releases dexamethasone over a maximum period of 6 months making repeated intravitreal injections necessary for recurrent CME. Iluvien® releases fluocinolone for up to 36 months and is effective for the treatment of chronic DME. Retisert® (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) also releases fluocinolone, and is approved for chronic NIPU. Both Iluvien® and Retisert® are non-biodegradable devices and are highly associated with cataract and glaucoma.

SUMMARY

Long-acting intraocular corticosteroid formulations offer a more predictable drug-release profile and reduced dosing frequency in comparison to conventional formulations of the same compounds but the risk-benefit ratio must be taken into consideration previous to the implantation of those devices.

Therapeutic Options in Refractory Diabetic Macular Oedema

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) results from alterations of several biochemical pathways in diabetic eyes. Centre-involving DMO is an important cause of visual loss in diabetes. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents are now the mainstay of centre-involving DMO treatment. Oedema that does not achieve optimal response to these agents occurs in a sizeable proportion of eyes and is called refractory or persistent DMO. Management of refractory DMO is challenging. In this paper, the pathophysiology of DMO, and the definitions used in various studies are summarised. Therapeutic options for refractory DMO management including corticosteroids, laser, combination therapies, and surgery are explored. Novel agents on the horizon for DMO control that are being investigated at present are discussed as well. A literature review was performed and a summary of the research studies for each of the agents is provided in order to guide the reader regarding the existing evidence for their application in DMO. Importance of early recognition of disease and prompt treatment to achieve best visual outcome is discussed. Utility of optical coherence tomography to guide disease diagnosis and monitoring is highlighted. An algorithmic approach for DMO management is described. Finally, the impact that personalized medicine and genetics might have on DMO management is assessed.

Use of Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema Who Have a Suboptimal Response to Anti-VEGF: Recommendations of an Expert Panel

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Guidance on the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) is lacking. This study aimed to develop a clinically recommended treatment paradigm for DME with emphasis on the role of corticosteroids.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An expert panel of nine retinal specialists in the United States developed consensus recommendations for DME treatment through a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The panelists typically use intravitreal injections of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antagonists as first-line treatment of DME and switch patients with an inadequate response to anti-VEGF therapy (failure of best-corrected visual acuity to improve to 20/40 or better because of edema after three to six monthly injections, or a less-than-50% reduction in excess macular thickness after three to four monthly injections) to intravitreal corticosteroid treatment.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal corticosteroids have a potentially useful role in the treatment of patients with DME who have an inadequate response to intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2017;48:291-301.].

Preparation of dexamethasone ophthalmic implants: a comparative study of in vitro release profiles

Diseases affecting the posterior segment of the eye are the most common cause of visual disorders in industrialized countries. This scenario has encouraged the development of new treatment modalities for these diseases, such as drug loaded implants with prolonged drug release. The aim of the present work was to create a polymeric based biodegradable ophthalmic implant for the delivery of dexamethasone. For this purpose, we prepared and compared the in vitro release profiles of dexamethasone ophthalmic implants produced by two methods: melting casting and solvent casting. The type of the biodegradable polymer used - poly (ɛ-caprolactone) (PCL) and poly(lactic acid) (PLA); the drug loading (10% and 25%, w/w), the molecular weight of PCL (37 kDa and 14 kDa) and the form of the drug (dexamethasone and dexamethasone disodium phosphate) were also investigated. The results show that the preparation method has little influence on the obtained release profiles, being the type of polymer the most significant factor affecting the release profiles; nonetheless, a better distribution of dexamethasone was obtained for the devices prepared by melting casting.

DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT REMOVAL FROM ANTERIOR CHAMBER: SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

PURPOSE

To describe a surgical technique for complete and safe dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) removal from anterior chamber.

METHODS

Description of a new surgical technique for Ozurdex removal using a lens injector cartridge.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone implant was removed completely from anterior chamber with no damage to corneal endothelium or posterior chamber luxation in a patient with Ozurdex anterior chamber migration.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone implants can be removed from anterior chamber in an easy, cheap, fast, and save way.

Clinical utility of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (Iluvien®) implant in the management of patients with chronic diabetic macular edema: a review of the current literature

The first-line therapy for patients with center-involving diabetic macular edema (DME) is with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, with or without adjunctive macular laser treatment. However, a significant proportion of patients have persistent and recurrent edema despite repeated anti-VEGF injections. The fluocinolone acetonide (FA) 190 μg intravitreal implant has been shown in pivotal clinical trials to be efficacious for the treatment of DME and has been approved in many countries for use in patients who have not responded to first-line therapy. In this report, we have collated the latest data from the increasing number of studies to illustrate the pattern of usage of the Iluvien FA implant for DME during the current anti-VEGF era. We have shown that there is now a wealth of published evidence from real-world studies to support the clinical utility of the FA implant in achieving further resolution of edema and improving visual acuity outcomes in this challenging group of patients.

Intravitreal bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant for treatment of chronic diabetic macular edema

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate anatomical and functional outcomes of intraviteal bevacizumab (IVB) in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME), and the effectivity and safety of dexamethasone implant in those unresponsive to regular IVB treatment.

METHODS

Thirty-five eyes of 35 patients (16 male and 19 female) with chronic DME (central foveal thickness (CFT)  > 275 μm, duration  > 6 months) received three injections of 2.5 mg IVB with six-week intervals. At 18 weeks, dexamethasone implant was applied to patients unresponsive to IVB. Main outcomes were the change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), CFT and ocular and systemic adverse effects for both drugs. The patients responsive to IVB were followed up for 36 weeks and those patients receiving dexamethasone implant were followed up for 24 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

At 18 weeks, the mean BCVA (0.68 ± 0.40 logMAR, p = 0.45) and CFT (453 ± 169 μm, p = 0.58) did not show any significant change compared to baseline (0.74 ± 0.42 logMAR and 521 ± 151 μm, respectively). In 20 patients (%57.1) responsive to IVB, the CFT was significantly improved from 12 to 36 weeks with the mean value of 295 ± 42 μ (p = 0.01). However, no significant difference was observed for BCVA during this period (p = 0.17). Dexamethasone was implanted in 15 eyes (42.8%) unresponsive to IVB at 18 weeks. Statistically significant improvements were observed in BCVA (at postoperative 4 and 12 weeks) and CFT (at postoperative 4, 12 and 24 weeks). In addition, both parameters significantly worsened at 24 weeks compared to 12 weeks (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic DME should be followed in accordance with a fixed treatment protocol combining anti-VEGF and steroid treatments.

Slow-Release Dexamethasone in Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that adjunctive slow-release dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex; Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA) can improve the outcomes of vitreoretinal surgery for established proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR).

DESIGN

A 2-year, single-center, prospective, participant- and surgeon-masked randomized controlled clinical trial (EudraCT No. 2011-004498-96).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 140 patients requiring vitrectomy surgery with silicone oil for retinal detachment with established PVR (Grade C) were randomized to standard (control) or study treatment (adjunct) in a 1:1 allocation ratio.

METHODS

Intraoperatively, the adjunct group received an injection of 0.7 mg of slow-release dexamethasone (Ozurdex) at the time of (1) vitrectomy surgery and (2) silicone oil removal. The control group received standard care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with a stable retinal reattachment with removal of silicone oil without additional vitreoretinal surgical intervention at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included (1) final visual acuity (VA) (median and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] of 55 letters or better); (2) cystoid macular edema (CMO), foveal thickness, and macular volume; (3) development of overt PVR recurrence; (4) complete and posterior retinal reattachment; (5) tractional retinal detachment; (6) hypotony/increased intraocular pressure (IOP); (7) macula pucker/epiretinal membrane; (8) cataract; and (9) quality of life.

RESULTS

All 140 patients were recruited within 25 months of study commencement; 138 patients had primary outcome data. Primary outcome assessment showed similar results in anatomic success between the 2 groups (49.3% vs. 46.3%, adjunct vs. control; odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.74; P = 0.733). Mean VA at 6 months was 38.3 ETDRS letters and 40.2 letters in the adjunct and control groups, respectively. Secondary anatomic outcomes (complete/posterior reattachment rates and PVR recurrence) were comparable between the 2 groups. At 6 months, fewer adjunct patients had CMO (42.7%) or a foveal thickness of >300 μm (47.6%) compared with controls (67.2% and 67.7%, respectively, P = 0.004, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

A slow-release dexamethasone implant did not improve the primary anatomic success rate in eyes undergoing vitrectomy surgery with silicone oil for PVR. Further clinical trials are indicated to improve anatomic and visual outcomes in these eyes, but this study suggests that there is a greater reduction in CMO observed at 6 months in vitrectomized eyes treated with slow-release dexamethasone.

Development of a Sustainable Release System for a Ranibizumab Biosimilar Using Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) Biodegradable Polymer-Based Microparticles as a Platform

Ranibizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A and is widely used to treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD) caused by angiogenesis. Ranibizumab has a short half-life in the eye due to its low molecular weight and susceptibility to proteolysis. Monthly intravitreal injection of a large amount of ranibizumab formulation is a burden for both patients and medical staff. We therefore sought to develop a sustainable release system for treating the eye with ranibizumab using a drug carrier. A ranibizumab biosimilar (RB) was incorporated into microparticles of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) biodegradable polymer. Ranibizumab was sustainably released from PLGA microparticles (80+% after 3 weeks). Assay of tube formation by endothelial cells indicated that RB released from PLGA microparticles inhibited VEGF-induced tube formation and this tendency was confirmed by a cell proliferation assay. These results indicate that RB-loaded PLGA microparticles are useful for sustainable RB release and suggest the utility of intraocular sustainable release systems for delivering RB site-specifically to AMD patients.

Efficacy of 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN) in eyes with diabetic macular edema and prior vitrectomy

Purpose

Limited data are available on the efficacy of the 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in eyes with prior vitrectomy. Here, we present a collection of 26 vitrectomized eyes treated with the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant.

Methods

Retrospective study involving six centers from four European countries analyzing the safety and efficacy data from patients (26 eyes from 25 patients) with DME and a prior vitrectomy that had been treated with one 0.2 μg/day FAc implant.

Results

Prior intravitreal therapies included anti-VEGF (mean, 3.8 injections) and steroids (mean, 1.9 injections). Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) was performed in these eyes primarily for abnormalities of vitreoretinal interface, followed by proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhage. The 0.2 μg/day FAc implant was injected 24.2 months, on average, after PPV and the mean duration of follow-up after injection was 255 days (range, 90 to 759 days). The mean change in BCVA was +11.7 ETDRS letters (range, −19 to +40 letters; P<0.0004) and the mean change in central foveal thickness (CFT) was −233.5 μm (range, −678 to 274 μm; P<0.0001). The mean change in IOP from baseline at the last visit was +1.4 mm Hg (range, −9 to +8 mm Hg; P=0.0090). Eight eyes initiated or continued IOP lowering medications.

Conclusions

These data suggest the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant is effective in vitrectomized patients with an acceptable safety profile. Further studies are still required to confirm the current findings and to assess the effect of the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant over a longer period of follow-up.

"Magic Bullet": Eccentric Macular Hole as a Complication from Dexamethasone Implant Insertion

Introduction. Intravitreal drug injections and implants are generally safe but do carry some risk, from both the procedure itself and adverse effects of the medications. We report a case of an eccentric macular hole after dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex®) administration. Ex vitro force testing was performed to evaluate dexamethasone implant injection force. Methods. Five dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) applicators were placed 16 mm from a force plate and the force of the injected dexamethasone pellet was recorded in Newtons. Four dexamethasone implant applicators were placed 16 mm from a force plate in a basic saline solution and the force of the pellet was recorded. Results. Average maximum force in air was 0.77 N and 0.024 N in a basic saline solution (BSS). Conclusion. We present a case report of an eccentric macular hole after dexamethasone implant administration. We hypothesize a mechanical injury to the retina during insertion caused the macular hole. Force testing done in air demonstrated sufficient force from the pellet injection to cause retinal damage though injections done in BSS showed reduced forces.

Twelve-Month Follow-Up of Dexamethasone Implants for Macular Edema from Various Diseases in Vitrectomized and Nonvitrectomized Eyes

Purpose. To evaluate the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and the number of dexamethasone implants needed to treat cystoid macular edema (CME) from various etiologies over 12 months in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes. Methods. This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 112 patients with CME secondary to retinal diseases treated pro re nata (PRN) with a 0.7 mg intravitreal dexamethasone implant for 12 months. The BCVA, CRT, adverse events, safety data, and number of implants were recorded. Results. Vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes received means of three implants and one implant, respectively, over 12 months (P < 0.001). The mean BCVA of all patients improved from 0.13 at baseline to 0.33 (P < 0.001) 12 months after one (P = 0.001), two (P = 0.041), and three (P < 0.001) implants but not four implants (P = 0.068). The mean baseline CRT decreased significantly (P < 0.001) from 463 to 254 microns after 12 months with one (P < 0.001), two (P = 0.002), and three (P = 0.001) implants but not with four implants (P = 0.114). The anatomic and functional outcomes were not significantly different between vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes. Increased IOP was the most common adverse event (23.2%). Conclusions. Dexamethasone implant administered PRN improved VA and decreased CRT in CME, with possible long-term clinically relevant benefits for treating CME from various etiologies. Vitrectomized eyes needed more implants compared with nonvitrectomized eyes.

Update on corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) remains an important cause of visual loss. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are generally used as first-line treatments for patients with center-involving DME, there is an important role for corticosteroids as well. Corticosteroids may be especially useful in pseudophakic patients poorly responsive to anti-VEGF therapies, in patients wishing to reduce the number of required injections, and in pregnant patients. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide has been used for many years but is not approved for this indication. An extended-release bioerodable dexamethasone delivery system and an extended-release nonbioerodable fluocinolone acetonide insert have both achieved regulatory approval for the treatment of DME. All intravitreal corticosteroids are associated with risks of cataract progression, elevation of intraocular pressure, and endophthalmitis. There is no current consensus regarding the use of corticosteroids, but they are valuable for selected patients with center-involving DME.

Contralateral eye-to-eye comparison of intravitreal ranibizumab and a sustained-release dexamethasone intravitreal implant in recalcitrant diabetic macular edema

Objective

To compare the effects of intravitreal ranibizumab (RZB) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant in cases of recalcitrant diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

Retrospective, interventional study examining patients with symmetric bilateral, center-involved DME recalcitrant to treatment with RZB, who received DEX in one eye while the contralateral eye continued to receive RZB every 4–5 weeks for a study period of 3 months.

Results

Eleven patients (22 eyes) were included: mean logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA) for the DEX arm improved from 0.415 (standard deviation [SD] ±0.16) to 0.261 (SD ±0.18) at final evaluation, and mean central macular thickness (CMT) improved from 461 µm (SD ±156) to 356 µm (SD ±110; net decrease: 105 µm, P=0.01). Mean logMAR VA for the RZB arm improved from 0.394 (SD ±0.31) to 0.269 (SD ±0.19) at final evaluation. Mean CMT improved from 421 µm (SD ±147) to 373 µm (SD ±129; net decrease: 48 µm, P=0.26).

Conclusion

A subset of recalcitrant DME patients demonstrated significant CMT reduction and VA improvement after a single DEX injection.

Updates on the Clinical Trials in Diabetic Macular Edema

In this era of evidence-based medicine, significant progress has been made in the field of pharmacotherapeutics for the management of diabetic macular edema (DME). A. number of landmark clinical trials have provided strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of agents such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factors for the treatment of DME. Decades of clinical research, ranging from the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study to the present-day randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing novel agents, have shifted the goal of therapy from preventing vision loss to ensuring a maximum visual gain. Systematic study designs have provided robust data with an attempt to optimize the treatment regimens including the choice of the agent and timing of therapy. However, due to a number of challenges in the management of DME with approved agents, further studies are needed. For the purpose of this review, an extensive database search in English language was performed to identify prospective, RCTs testing pharmacological agents for DME. In order to acquaint the reader with the most relevant data from these clinical trials, this review focuses on pharmacological agents that are currently approved or have widespread applications in the management of DME. An update on clinical trials presently underway for DME has also been provided.

Short-term Efficacy of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in Vitrectomized Eyes with Recalcitrant Diabetic Macular Edema and Prior Anti-VEGF Therapy

Purpose:

To determine the efficacy of an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized eyes.

Methods:

This interventional retrospective consecutive case series included vitrectomized eyes undergoing IDI placement for treatment of recalcitrant DME between June 2011 and June 2014. All patients had previously received anti-VEGF therapy (ranibizumab or bevacizumab). Primary endpoints were changes in visual acuity (VA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline values one month after device implantation. Secondary endpoints were VA and CRT changes at 3 months.

Results:

A total of 8 eyes of 8 patients met the inclusion criteria. One month after IDI placement, there was a significant (p = 0.01) improvement in VA from 0.79 ± 0.52 logMAR (20/123 Snellen equivalent) to 0.64 ± 0.55 logMAR (20/88), meanwhile CRT improved from 455.75 ± 123.19 to 295.00 ± 90.39 μm (p = 0.02). These findings persisted at 3 months.

Conclusion:

In vitrectomized eyes previously treated with anti-VEGF agents for recalcitrant DME, implantation of the IDI appears to be efficacious in improving VA and CRT at 1-month with the observed benefits persisting for at least for 3 months.

Elevated Intraocular Pressure After Intravitreal Steroid Injection in Diabetic Macular Edema: Monitoring and Management

INTRODUCTION

With the increasing use of intravitreal administration of corticosteroids in macular edema, steroid-induced intraocular pressure (IOP) rise is becoming an emergent issue. However, for patients in whom intravitreal steroids are indicated, there are no specific recommendations for IOP monitoring and management after intravitreal administration of corticosteroids.

METHOD

An expert panel of European ophthalmologists reviewed evidence on corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation. The objective of the panel was to propose an algorithm based on available literature and their own experience for the monitoring and management of corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation, with a focus on diabetic patients.

RESULTS

Data from trials including diabetic patients with a rise of IOP after intravitreal steroid administration indicate that IOP-lowering medical treatment is sufficient for a large majority of patients; only a small percentage underwent laser trabeculoplasty or filtering filtration surgery. A 2-step algorithm is proposed that is based on the basal value of IOP and evidence for glaucoma. The first step is a risk stratification before treatment. Patients normotensive at baseline (IOP ≤ 21 mmHg), do not require additional baseline diagnostic tests. However, patients with baseline ocular hypertension (OHT) (IOP > 21 mmHg) should undergo baseline imaging and visual field testing. The second step describes monitoring and treatment after steroid administration. During follow-up, patients developing OHT should have baseline and periodical imaging and visual field testing; IOP-lowering treatment is proposed only if IOP is >25 mmHg or if diagnostic tests suggest developing glaucoma.

CONCLUSION

The management and follow-up of OHT following intravitreal corticosteroid injection is similar to that of primary OHT. If OHT develops, IOP is controlled in a large proportion of patients with standard IOP treatments. The present algorithm was developed to assist ophthalmologists with guiding principles in the management of corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation.

FUNDING

Alimera Sciences Limited.

Evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids intravitreal implant therapy in macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) on macular morphology and functions in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Efficacy outcomes of the treatment were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Safety outcomes were intraocular pressure and cornea endothelial cell density. The study was conducted by the prospective analysis on 36 patients (17 women and 19 men) aged 28-77 years (the average age was 58±15 years) treated with the injection of dexamethasone implant because of the persistent ME at the Department of Ophthalmology and Ophthalmology Outpatient Clinic of the University Centre of Ophthalmology and Oncology in Katowice. The studied group included 16 patients with central retinal vein occlusion (16 eyes), and 20 patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (20 eyes). We found a significant increase of BCVA after first, second, and third month of treatment. Six months after the treatment, BCVA decreased, although not significantly compared with the value obtained in the third month. Two months after the intravitreal implantation of dexamethasone delivery system, CRT was 338±163 μm and was significantly lower compared with pretreatment value. Between third and sixth month after the treatment, we found insignificant increase of CRT compared with thickness observed in second month. Two months after the treatment, we found an increase in intraocular pressure in 36% of cases and a further decrease during the final visit 6 months after the treatment. During the treatment, there were no significant differences in endothelial cell density in branch retinal vein occlusion and central retinal vein occlusion. We found the intravitreal dexamethasone implant to be safe, well tolerated, and likely to lead to fast morphological and functional improvement of the macula and visual rehabilitation in patients with ME due to retinal vein occlusion.

Efficacy and Safety of a Dexamethasone Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema at Tertiary Centers in Korea

Purpose. To evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone implant (DEX implant) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods. Retrospective, multicenter, and noncomparative study of DME patients who were treated with at least one DEX implant. A total of 186 eyes from 165 patients were included. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), complications, and number of retreatments were collected. Data at baseline and monthly for 6 months were analyzed. Results. The average baseline BCVA and CRT were 0.60 LogMAR and 491.6 μm, respectively. The mean BCVA improved until 3 months and then decreased up to 6 months of follow-up (0.53, 0.49, and 0.55 LogMAR at 1, 3, and 6 months; p = 0.001, <0.001, and 0.044, resp.). The change of mean CRT was similar to BCVA (345.0, 357.7, and 412.5 μm at 1, 3, and 6 months, p < 0.001, <0.001, and <0.001, resp.). 91 eyes (48.9%) received additional treatment with anti-VEGF or DEX implant. The average treatment-free interval was 4.4 months. In group analyses, the DEX implant was more effective in pseudophakic eyes, DME with subretinal fluid (SRF), or diffuse type. Conclusions. Intravitreal dexamethasone implants are an effective treatment for patients with DME, most notably in pseudophakic eyes, DME with SRF, or diffuse type. A half of these patients require additional treatment within 6 months.