Intravitreal dexamethasone implant versus anti-VEGF injection for treatment-naïve patients with retinal vein occlusion and macular edema: a 12-month follow-up study

Evaluation of off-label anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and steroid implant medication uses in macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion in Turkey

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is one of the most common causes of vision loss. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs, ranibizumab and aflibercept, and corticosteroid implants are approved treatment options for RVO-related macular edema (ME) in Turkey. To the best of our knowledge, there is no data regarding the off-label use of these drugs for RVO in English literature. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and demographic characteristics of off-label drug use applications in Turkey for RVO.

METHODS

Applications made to the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency between January 1 and December 31, 2018, for the use of off-label drugs (ranibizumab, aflibercept, dexamethasone implant) for the diagnosis of RVO from hospitals across Turkey were retrospectively analysed. Data of the applications, such as demographic characteristics, previous treatment regimens, reasons for applications, applicant hospitals and their regions, were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 291 approved applications for RVO. The mean age of the patients was 64.88 ± 10.78 years, 48.8% were male, and 51.2% were female. Of these applications, 44.7% were for aflibercept, 35.7% for ranibizumab and 19.6% for dexamethasone implant. No application was made for bevacizumab since it could be used without needing for an application. The most common reasons for applications were due to dose limitations, failure to complete loading doses, and glaucoma, respectively. In terms of the distribution of the applicant hospitals, public university hospitals ranked first with 72.5%, training and research hospitals ranked second with 14.7% and foundation university hospitals ranked third with 13.1% rates.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The practice of drug use in RVO in Turkey has changed as of the beginning of 2019. Stepwise therapy has been accepted by the drug regulatory agency Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency. Utilization of licensed drugs, aflibercept, ranibizumab and dexamethasone has been allowed only after administration of 3 doses of intravitreal bevacizumab. After 3 doses of bevacizumab, the physician may continue either with bevacizumab again or a dexamethasone implant. If there is a reason such as the presence of glaucoma, the physician may skip dexamethasone and switch to aflibercept and ranibizumab, but in this case, dexamethasone cannot be administered to the patient for life. The evaluation of the off-label treatments of RVO, which is one of the most frequently followed diseases in retina clinics, not only contributes to the literature but also provides information regarding the most frequently applied treatments and the physicians' off-label drug preferences for RVO.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Has Better Retinal Perfusion than Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Five-Year Real-World Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the long-term effect of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection on macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

The medical records of RVO-ME cases, with intravitreal injections and followed up for at least 5 years, were retrospectively reviewed. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were primary outcomes. Images of fluorescence angiography and swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography were analyzed. Foveal avascular zone (FAZ) metrics and perfusion density at the last visit were also compared between the two treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 16 patients were recruited, 8 in the anti-VEGF group and 8 in the DEX group. At the 5th year, the BCVA and the CMT in the DEX group were not different from those in the anti-VEGF group (0.69 ± 0.36 LogMAR vs. 0.57 ± 0.30 LogMAR, p = 0.574; 183.25 ± 97.31 µm vs. 195.38 ± 40.92 µm, p = 0.442). Compared with the anti-VEGF group, the DEX group had higher FAZ circularity index (0.57 ± 0.14 vs. 0.68 ± 0.14, p = 0.130) and higher retinal perfusion density (0.45 ± 0.02 vs. 0.39 ± 0.03, p = 0.001), especially in the deep capillary plexus.

CONCLUSION

DEX implant and anti-VEGF injection had comparative long-term effects on RVO-ME. Compared with the anti-VEGF treatment, the DEX treatment had advantages in maintaining retinal perfusion in patients with RVO.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

BACKGROUND

Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most commonly occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The most common cause of visual loss in people with BRVO is macular oedema (MO). Grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss. Limitations to this treatment exist, however, and newer modalities may have equal or improved efficacy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has recently been used successfully to treat MO resulting from a variety of causes.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and gather evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the potential harms of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for the treatment of macular oedema (MO) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was 12 June 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating BRVO. Eligible trials had to have at least six months' follow-up where anti-VEGF treatment was compared with another treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We excluded trials where combination treatments (anti-VEGF plus other treatments) were used; and trials that investigated the dose and duration of treatment without a comparison group (other treatment/no treatment/sham).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with an improvement from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Chart at six months and 12 months of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants who lost greater than or equal to 15 ETDRS letters (3 lines) and the mean visual acuity (VA) change at six and 12 months, as well as the change in central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography from baseline at six and 12 months. We also collected data on adverse events and quality of life (QoL).

MAIN RESULTS

We found eight RCTs of 1631 participants that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These studies took place in Europe, North America, Eastern Mediterranean region and East Asia. Included participants were adults aged 18 or over with VA of 20/40 or worse. Studies varied by duration of disease but permitted previously treated eyes as long as there was sufficient treatment-free interval. All anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) and steroids (triamcinolone and dexamethasone) were included. Overall, we judged the studies to be at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Four of the eight studies did not mask participants or outcome assessors, or both. One trial compared anti-VEGF to sham. At six months, eyes receiving anti-VEGF were significantly more likely to have a gain of 15 or more ETDRS letters (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.49; 283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months compared with control (mean difference (MD) 7.50 letters, 95% CI 5.29 to 9.71; 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGF also proved more effective at reducing CRT at six months (MD -57.50 microns, 95% CI -108.63 to -6.37; 281 participants; lower CRT is better; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. Mean change in QoL (measured using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire VFQ-25) was better in people treated with anti-VEGF compared with people treated with sham (MD 7.6 higher score, 95% CI 4.3 to 10.9; 281 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three RCTs compared anti-VEGF with macular laser (total participants = 473). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.05; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA in the anti-VEGF groups was better than the laser groups at six months (MD 9.63 letters, 95% CI 7.23 to 12.03; 3 studies, 473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a greater reduction in CRT in the anti-VEGF group compared with the laser group at six months (MD -147.47 microns, 95% CI -200.19 to -94.75; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse events. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. QoL outcomes were not reported. Four studies compared anti-VEGF with intravitreal steroid (875 participants). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more ETDRS letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.10; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.28; 1 study, 307 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months (MD 8.22 letters, 95% CI 5.69 to 10.76; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (MD 9.15 letters, 95% CI 6.32 to 11.97; 2 studies, 343 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean CRT also showed a greater reduction in the anti-VEGF arm at 12 months compared with intravitreal steroid (MD -26.92 microns, 95% CI -65.88 to 12.04; 2 studies, 343 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). People receiving anti-VEGF showed a greater improvement in QoL at 12 months compared to those receiving steroid (MD 3.10, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.98; 1 study, 307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested increased risk of cataract and raised IOP with steroids. There was only very low-certainty evidence on APTC events. No cases of endophthalmitis were observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available RCT evidence suggests that treatment of MO secondary to BRVO with anti-VEGF improves visual and anatomical outcomes at six and 12 months.

Comparison of intravitreal dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion-induced oedema: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 10 December 2019, without language restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observation studies comparing the efficacy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of patients with RVO, naïve or almost naïve to both arms, were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data for mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and product safety. Review Manager V.5.3 and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and 12 real-world studies were included. An average lower letter gain in BCVA was determined for the DEX implant (mean difference (MD) = -6.59; 95% CI -8.87 to -4.22 letters) administered at a retreatment interval of 5-6 months. Results were similar (MD_{6 months}=-12.68; 95% CI -21.98 to -3.37 letters; MD_{12 months}=-9.69; 95% CI -12.01 to -7.37 letters) at 6 and 12 months. The DEX implant resulted in comparable or marginally less CST reduction at months 6 and 12 but introduced relatively higher risks of elevated intraocular pressure (RR=3.89; 95% CI 2.16 to 7.03) and cataract induction (RR=5.22; 95% CI 1.67 to 16.29). Most real-life studies reported an insignificant numerical gain in letters for anti-VEGF drugs relative to that for DEX implant. However, the latter achieved comparable efficacy with a 4-month dosage interval.

CONCLUSION

Compared with anti-VEGF agents, DEX implant required fewer injections but had inferior functional efficacy and safety. Real-life trials supplemented the efficacy data for DEX implant.

Baseline clinical features predict visual outcome in young patients with central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To evaluate prognostic factors in young patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

METHODS

Retrospective case series. CRVO patients aged ≤ 50 and follow-up ≥ 6 months were enrolled. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and last visit were documented. Severity of retinopathy was graded by comparing to standard photos. Prognostic factors associated with visual outcome at 6 months were evaluated by multiple linear regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 73 eyes from 69 patients with mean age 37.6 ± 8.5 were enrolled. Forty-seven (68%) patients were male. The mean follow-up duration was 25.9 ± 23.0 months. LogMAR BCVA improved from 0.979 ± 0.785 at baseline to 0.594 ± 0.748 at the 6 months (p < 0.001) and CRT improved from 475 ± 222 μm to 299 ± 104 μm (p < 0.001). Forty-eight (66%) eyes required anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment. The mean number of injections was 2.25 ± 1.41 in the first 6 months and 75% of eyes received ≦ 3 injections during the clinical course. The baseline BCVA (coefficient 0.518, p < 0.001), grade of retinal hemorrhage (coefficient 0.230, p = 0.006), grade of retinal venous engorgement (coefficient 0.238, p = 0.011), grade of optic disc edema (coefficient - 0.226, p = 0.005), and diabetes mellitus (coefficient 0.264, p = 0.047) were the independent factors associated with visual outcome at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline clinical features are useful for the prediction of visual outcome at 6 months in young CRVO patients.

The efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant as the first-line treatment for retinal vein occlusion-related macular edema in a real-life scenario

Purpose

This study evaluated the effect of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI; Ozurdex) injection for treating macular edema in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

Methods

This prospective study included 40 eyes of 40 patients with nonischemic BRVO and 31 eyes of 31 patients with nonischemic CRVO who received IDI injection as the first-line treatment for macular edema. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) value before and after the treatment; intraocular pressure; optic coherence tomography findings; and all ocular examination findings, including central foveal thickness (CFT) measurement and fluorescein angiography findings, were evaluated for each patient.

Results

After the IDI injection, BCVA value increased (P < 0.001) and CFT value decreased (P < 0.001) in both groups. The recurrence rates of CFT elevation after the first and the second Ozurdex injections were 65.0% and 65.3%, respectively, in patients with BRVO and 70.9% and 68.1%, respectively, in patients with CRVO. A statistically significant correlation was observed between preinjection CFT value and postinjection recurrence of CFT elevation (P = 0.017).

Conclusion

Treatment with the IDI injections resulted in significant short-term improvement in CFT and BCVA values in patients with clinically significant RVO-related macular edema. Moreover, we observed that high preinjection CFT value was associated with a risk of postinjection recurrence of CFT elevation.

Bevacizumab versus Dexamethasone Implant Followed by Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macula Edema Associated with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Purpose

To compare visual and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) treatment for macular edema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent intravitreal bevacizumab administered monthly on a pro re nata (PRN) basis (26 eyes, IVB group) or an initial 700-µg dexamethasone implant followed by a bevacizumab PRN injection (20 eyes, IVD group) for treatment of macular edema associated with BRVO. We compared best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). We also measured ellipsoid zone recovery rate and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer volume within the center 6 mm zone. A linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare serial changes in BCVA and CMT.

Results

Both groups showed significant improvement in BCVA and significant reduction in CMT. However, BCVA in the first month was significantly better in the IVD group (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, IVD group 0.21 ± 0.26 vs. IVB group 0.39 ± 0.30, p = 0.038) and the 1-month CMT was thinner in the IVD group (IVD group 270.0 ± 62.0 µm vs. IVB group 338.9 ± 122.6 µm, p = 0.028), and these trends were maintained during the 6-month follow-up. The IVD group showed more rapid macular edema resolution (p = 0.049); however, there were no significant differences in ellipsoid zone recovery rate (p = 0.268) or ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer volume between the two groups (p = 0.459).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in final visual or anatomical outcomes between the two groups; however, initial dexamethasone implant injection followed by bevacizumab PRN injection initially showed more rapid improvement in vision and BRVO-associated macular edema resolution compared to intravitreal bevacizumab administered monthly on a PRN basis.

Intravitreal bevacizumab injections versus dexamethasone implant for treatment-naïve retinal vein occlusion related macular edema

Purpose

To compare the short-term effects of three monthly intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections to single dexamethasone (DEX) implantation in treatment-naïve patients with cystoid macular edema (CME) secondary to branch (BRVO) and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

Design

A retrospective single-center study.

Subjects

A total of 135 eyes of 135 patients with BRVO (n=83) and CRVO (n=52).

Methods

Changes in clinical parameters were recorded before treatment and at the first and third month after commencement of IVB (n=121) and DEX (n=14).

Main outcome measures

Central retinal thickness (CRT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

Results

The baseline parameters were comparable between IVB and DEX groups. After the first month, CRT decreased by 131.3±42.9 μm in IVB and by 266.9±48.3 μm in DEX (mean ± SEM; p=0.047). IOP change was –0.29±0.39 mmHg in IVB and +3.70±2.34 mmHg in DEX (p=0.005). IOP elevation to ≥25 mmHg and ≥5 mmHg from the baseline was observed in two of the DEX- and in none of the IVB-treated eyes (p=0.010). After the third month, no differences regarding CRT and IOP were observed between the treatment modalities. Moreover, BCVA gain was comparable between IVB (0.37±0.05 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] units) and DEX (0.33±0.30 logMAR units) groups.

Conclusion

DEX was associated with faster resolution of CME, but had greater probability for short-term IOP elevation when compared to IVB. After the third month, treatments were comparably effective. Anatomical outcomes and adverse drug reactions of IVB versus DEX should be considered case specifically in patients having CME secondary to BRVO/CRVO.

Real-life clinical data for dexamethasone and ranibizumab in the treatment of branch or central retinal vein occlusion over a period of six months

PURPOSE

To evaluate the therapeutic outcome for dexamethasone implant (DEX) or intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections over 6 months in patients with macular edema due to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO, CRVO), in a real-life setting.

METHODS

A total of 107 patients with BRVO or CRVO were included into this retrospective single-center observational study. Patients were treated with monotherapy consisting of DEX or three monthly IVR injections following a pro re nata regimen (PRN). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were compared between the two therapy groups after 1, 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

BRVO patients treated with DEX achieved a statistically significant gain in BCVA measured in logMAR after 1 month (mean gain, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.08-0.34, p = 0.001), 3 months (0.16, 0.03-0.28, p = 0.012) and 6 months (0.19, 0.07-0.32, p = 0.002), whereas patients treated with IVR showed a statistically significant BCVA gain in month 3 (mean improvement, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.01-0.26, p = 0.039) and month 6 (0.16, 0.03-0.29, p = 0.018). BCVA in CRVO patients with DEX worsened slightly at month 6 (mean worsening, 95% CI: -0.08, -0.24 to 0.08, p = 0.305), while IVR treated-patients achieved a statistically significant BCVA gain at 3 months (mean improvement, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.02-0.25, p = 0.021). Both therapies were accompanied by statistically significant CRT reductions of 150 to 200 μm (median). Adverse events reported were predictable and limited.

CONCLUSIONS

In a clinical setting, comparable improvement in BCVA and CRT were observed after DEX and IVR injections for treatment of BRVO. CRVO patients showed greater benefit with IVR.

Switch of Intravitreal Therapy for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion from Anti-VEGF to Dexamethasone Implant and Vice Versa

PURPOSE

To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcome of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for macular edema secondary to central (C) or branch (B) retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in patients with persistent macular edema (ME) refractory to intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment compared to treatment naïve patients and to dexamethasone-refractory eyes switched to anti-VEGF.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational study including 30 eyes previously treated with anti-VEGF (8 CRVO, 22 BRVO, mean age 69 ± 10 yrs), compared to 11 treatment naïve eyes (6 CRVO, 5 BRVO, 73 ± 11 yrs) and compared to dexamethasone nonresponders (2 CRVO, 4 BRVO, 69 ± 12). Outcome parameters were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

Mean BCVA improvement after switch to dexamethasone implant was 4 letters (p = 0.08), and treatment naïve eyes gained 10 letters (p = 0.66), while we noted no change in eyes after switch to anti-VEGF (p = 0.74). Median CFT decrease was most pronounced in treatment naïve patients (-437 μm, p = 0.002) compared to anti-VEGF refractory eyes (-170 μm, p = 0.003) and dexamethasone-refractory eyes (-157, p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone significantly reduced ME secondary to RVO refractory to anti-VEGF. Functional gain was limited compared to treatment naïve eyes, probably due to worse BCVA and CFT at baseline in treatment naïve eyes.

Ranibizumab versus dexamethasone implant for central retinal vein occlusion: the RANIDEX study

PURPOSE

To compare intravitreal ranibizumab and dexamethasone implant in patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

METHODS

Participants were 42 treatment naive patients with ME due to CRVO, who received either intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 25) or intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone implant (n = 17). The main outcomes included the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) at month 12 compared to baseline in the two groups.

RESULTS

At month 12, there was no statistically significant difference in BCVA and CST change between the two groups. However, there was recurrence in ME at month 5 in the dexamethasone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ranibizumab and dexamethasone implant were found to be safe and effective at the 12-month follow-up in patients with ME secondary to CRVO. Since there was a recurrence in ME at month 5 in the dexamethasone group, we suggested that intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant should be potentially administered sooner than 6 months.

Effect of intravitreal dexamethasone implant on intra-ocular cytokines and chemokines in eyes with retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of intravitreal dexamethasone implant on inflammatory and angiogenic cytokine levels in the aqueous of patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

Forty eyes of 40 consecutive patients with macular oedema (ME) due to branch and central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO/CRVO) were treated with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex^® ) at baseline and evaluated until month 6. Retreatment was performed in case of recurrent ME earliest 4 months after the baseline treatment. Aqueous humour samples were taken at baseline, months 1, 3, 6 and at the time of each retreatment. Concentrations of 29 different cytokines were measured by Luminex^® bead assays. The control group comprised healthy patients undergoing cataract surgery.

RESULTS

At baseline concentrations of interleukin (IL)-8, angiopoietin (ANG)-2 and intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-1 were highly elevated in patients with CRVO compared with controls (p = 0.006; p = 0.02; p = 0.03). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentrations were upregulated in patients with BRVO and CRVO (p = 0.003; p = 0.001). Retreatment with a dexamethasone implant was necessary after 4 months in 14/8 (BRVO/CRVO) patients, 5 months in 5/3 patients and 6 months in one patient (BRVO). After the initial treatment, macrophage chemo-attractant protein (MCP)-1 and IL17-E concentrations decreased in BRVO (p < 0.001; p = 0.01) and MCP-1 and IL1-α in CRVO (p = 0.01; p = 0.003). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentrations did not change during treatment in either group (p = 0.3). A mixed-effect model showed that cytokine concentrations positively correlated with central retinal thickness changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal dexamethasone treatment resulted in alterations in the concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines MCP-1 and IL17-E in patients with BRVO and MCP-1 and IL1-α in patients with CRVO. These data highlight the important role of inflammatory mediators involved in ME due to RVO.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in retinal vein occlusion: real-life data from a prospective, multicenter clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the relationship between duration of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and the achievement of vision gain in patients receiving dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) in real-world clinical practice, and to define patterns of use of DEX implant and its efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with RVO in clinical practice.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, multicenter, 6-month observational phase IV study conducted at 70 sites in Germany enrolled patients diagnosed with macular edema following branch or central RVO (BRVO, CRVO) who were given DEX implant. Follow-up visits and evaluations occurred in accordance with normal clinical practice. Re-treatment with DEX implant and use of other RVO therapies was at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline at week 12.

RESULTS

The analysis population consisted of 573 patients (64 % BRVO, 36 % CRVO). Patients received a mean of 1.17 DEX implant treatments during the study period; 84.3 % of patients received a single DEX implant and 19.9 % received adjunctive other RVO treatment. Among patients with analyzable BCVA data at baseline and week 12 (n = 351), mean change from baseline BCVA at week 12 was -0.16 (standard deviation, 0.30) logMAR (+7.8 approximate Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters) (p < 0.001), and 33.9 % of patients had gained at least 3 lines in BCVA from baseline. Mean change from baseline BCVA at week 12 was +9.5, +7.3, and +5.4 approximate ETDRS letters in patients with macular edema duration < 90 days, from 90 to 180 days, and >180 days respectively. Improvement in BCVA through week 24 and decreases in central retinal thickness were seen in both BRVO and CRVO. The most common adverse drug reaction was increased intraocular pressure. No glaucoma incisional surgeries were required.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX implant was effective in improving BCVA and central retinal thickness in patients with BRVO and CRVO in real-world clinical practice. The largest gains in BCVA over 6 months occurred in patients with recent onset macular edema, confirming the benefit of early treatment. DEX implant was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile.

Retinal vein occlusion and the use of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®) in its treatment

Purpose

To review published data pertaining to the clinical experience with a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®) with a view to establishing a clinically based therapeutic regime.

Methods

A PubMed search using the MeSH terms “retinal vein occlusion” and either “pathophysiology” or “dexamethasone intravitreal implant” was undertaken for manuscripts published until August 2015. The analysis included studies involving minimally 15 patients under a prospective design or 30 under a retrospective design, a minimal follow up of 6 months, and at least 2 intravitreal Ozurdex® injections per eye.

Results

In the vast majority of eyes, satisfactory outcomes were achieved with retreatment intervals of between 3 and 5 months. Initial evidence indicates a similar efficacy compared to anti-VEGF therapies as a first-line treatment. Safety concerns associated with the long-term and repeated use of Ozurdex® are not borne out by clinical findings: its implantation is not associated with a sustained increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) over time or with the number of applications.

Conclusion

Compared with anti-VEGF therapies, the burden of retreatment is reduced. In patients with chronic macular edema not responsive to repetitive anti-VEGF therapies, the outcome after dexamethasone implant treatment is encouraging. However, these results are achieved at the expense of side effects typically associated with steroids: in up to 20 % of the Ozurdex®-treated patients, an elevation in IOP, which could be medically controlled in the majority of cases, and cataract formation or progression was observed.

Central retinal vein occlusion: modifying current treatment protocols

Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common retinal vascular disorder that can result in severe visual acuity loss. The randomized control study, CRUISE, helped establish anti-VEGFs as the standard of care in cases with CRVO. The extension studies for CRUISE; HORIZON and RETAIN showed that not all visual gains are maintained beyond the first year. In addition, patients showed different behavior patterns; with some patients showing complete response with few recurrences, whereas others showed partial or even no response with multiple recurrences. Long-term follow-up demonstrated that patients responding poorly to anti-VEGFs tended to do so early in the course of treatment. It also demonstrated the effectiveness of a pro re nata (PRN) protocol for improving vision and maintaining these gains over long-term follow-ups. The SHORE study further illustrated this point by demonstrating that there were minimal differences in visual outcomes between patients receiving monthly injections and patients being treated PRN. In this review we analyzed the data from the major randomized clinical trials (RCT) that looked at anti-VEGFs as the primary treatment modality in patients with CRVO (CRUISE and the extension studies HORIZON and RETAIN for ranibizumab as well as GALILEO and COPERNICUS for aflibercept). In addition, we looked at SCORE and GENEVA to help determine whether there is a place for steroids as a first line therapy in current treatment practice. We then explored alternative treatment regimens such as laser therapy and switching between anti-VEGF agents and/or steroids for non or partially responding patients. Finally, we propose a simplified modified treatment algorithm for patients with CRVO for better long-term outcomes in all types of responders.

Steroids in Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: Is There a Role in Current Treatment Practice?

With the current widespread use of anti-VEGFs in the treatment of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), the role for steroids has become greatly diminished. Recent large scale randomized control trials (RCTs) have established the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGFs in the treatment of CRVO. Steroids are known to cause elevations in intraocular pressure as well as increase the risk of cataract formation. With that in mind many ophthalmologists are injecting steroids less frequently. This paper aims to review some of the data pertaining to the use of steroids either as a first line monotherapy, adjunct therapy, or an alternative therapy to help answer the question: Is there currently any role for steroids in the management of CRVO?