A multicenter, 12-month randomized study comparing dexamethasone intravitreal implant with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema

Immediate response to intravitreal treatment for macular edema due to diabetes and retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To objectively assess the immediate response to intravitreal treatment for macular edema and compare it across different agents.

METHODS

This retrospective, comparative study included patients with macular edema due to diabetic retinopathy (DME) or vein occlusion who were treated with intravitreal injections of either steroids (triamcinolone acetonide or dexamethasone sustained release implant) or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies (VEGF). The central retinal thickness (CRT) and the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were measured 1 day after the injection and compared with immediate pre-injection values.

RESULTS

There were 79 eyes (57 patients) including 51 eyes with DME, 18 with branch retinal vein occlusion edema (BRVO-ME), and 10 eyes with central retinal vein occlusion edema (CRVO-ME). The intravitreal agents were triamcinolone acetonide (TA)(n = 15), dexamethasone sustained release implant (DEX)(n = 22), ranibizumab (n = 19), and bevacizumab (n = 23). Statistically significant improvement in CRT was seen in all injection groups (p < 0.05) while improvement in mean BCVA was significant only in the TA group (p = 0.009). The mean change in CRT was maximum with steroids than with anti-VEGFs; viz. 159.47 µ in TA, 115.45 µ in DEX, 86.10 µ in ranibizumab, and 78.78 µ in bevacizumab group. Least amount of change was noted in the spongy type of macular edema (18.73 µ) while improvement in mean BCVA was statistically significant only in the cystoid group (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparatively, steroid agents showed better immediate response to therapy than anti-VEGFs. Maximum reduction in central retinal thickness was seen following triamcinolone acetonide injection. Cystoid edema showed better immediate response than spongy retinal thickening.

Diabetic Disease of the Eye in Canada: Consensus Statements from a Retina Specialist Working Group

Despite advances in systemic care, diabetic disease of the eye (DDE) remains the leading cause of blindness worldwide. There is a critical gap of up-to-date, evidence-based guidance for ophthalmologists in Canada that includes evidence from recent randomized controlled trials. Previous guidance has not always given special consideration to applying treatments and managing DDE in the context of the healthcare system. This consensus statement aims to assist practitioners in the field by providing a spectrum of acceptable opinions on DDE treatment and management from recognized experts in the field. In compiling evidence and generating consensus, a working group of retinal specialists in Canada addressed clinical questions surrounding the four themes of disease, patient, management, and collaboration. The working group reviewed literature representing the highest level of evidence on DDE and shared their opinions on topics surrounding the epidemiology and pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema; diagnosis and monitoring; considerations around diabetes medication use; strategic considerations for management given systemic comorbidities, ocular comorbidities, and pregnancy; treatment goals and modalities for diabetic macular edema, non-proliferative and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and retinal detachment; and interdisciplinary collaboration. Ultimately, this work highlighted that the retinal examination in DDE not only informs the treating ophthalmologist but can serve as a global index for disease progression across many tissues of the body. It highlighted further that DDE can be treated regardless of diabetic control, that a systemic approach to patient care will result in the best health outcomes, and prevention of visual complications requires a multidisciplinary management approach. Ophthalmologists must tailor their clinical approach to the needs and circumstances of individual patients and work within the realities of their healthcare setting.

Comparison of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and dexamethasone implant monotherapy in treatment-naive eyes with diabetic macular edema: A 12-month real-life experience

PURPOSE

To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and dexamethasone implant monotherapy in treatment-naive eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-life conditions.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, data were obtained from the hospital database of treatment-naive patients diagnosed with DME with at least 12 months of follow-up. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) at baseline, third month, sixth month, ninth month, and 12th month were recorded. In addition, a subgroup analysis was performed based on having good (below 0.4 log of minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) or poor (0.4 logMAR and above) vision.

RESULTS

A total of 219 eyes of 142 patients were included in the study. The change in the mean BCVA from baseline to 12th month was from 0.62 logMAR to 0.42 logMAR (P < 0.001) in the ranibizumab group, from 0.56 logMAR to 0.39 logMAR (P < 0.001) in the aflibercept group, and from 0.46 logMAR to 0.5 logMAR (P = 0.653) in the dexamethasone group. There was no significant difference between the treatment groups at any time point (P > 0.05). The mean amount of CRT change was statistically significant at 12 months in all groups (ranibizumab: -175.4 µm, aflibercept: -153.3 µm, dexamethasone: -71.4 µm) (P < 0.05). In eyes with initially good vision, the final BCVA at 12 months was significantly better in the ranibizumab group compared to the dexamethasone group (P = 0.008). The aflibercept group had better visual acuity than the dexamethasone group, but there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.059). There was no significant difference in final BCVA in eyes with initially poor vision. No serious ocular/systemic complications were noted.

CONCLUSION

At the 12th month, a significant decrease in CRT was achieved in all treatment groups, whereas only ranibizumab and aflibercept groups had a significant BCVA increase. In eyes with initially good vision, the final BCVA at 12 months was better in the ranibizumab group compared to the dexamethasone group, whereas it was similar in all groups having initially poor vision.

Comparing the efficacy of glucocorticoids and anti-VEGF in treating diabetic macular edema: systematic review and comprehensive analysis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), and to evaluate various clinical treatment regimens consisting of different therapeutic measures.

Methods

This study included randomized controlled trials up to February 2023 comparing the efficacy of corticosteroid-related therapy and anti-VEGF therapy. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched, and the quality of the studies was carefully assessed. Finally, 39 studies were included.

Results

Results at 3-month followup showed that intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) + triamcinolone acetonide (TA) was the most beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of macular edema in the center of the retina in patients with DME. Results at 6-month follow-up showed that intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) was the most effective in improving patients' bestcorrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of central macular edema.

Discussion

Overall, IVB+TA was beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing central macular edema thickness over a 3-month follow-up period, while DEX implants had a better therapeutic effect than anti-VEGF agents at 6 months, especially the patients with severe macular edema and visual acuity impaired.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=397100, identifier CRD42023397100.

The Treatment of Diabetic Retinal Edema with Intravitreal Steroids: How and When

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus and a leading cause of visual impairment worldwide. It is defined as the diabetes-related accumulation of fluid, proteins, and lipids, with retinal thickening, within the macular area. DME affects a significant proportion of individuals with diabetes, with the prevalence increasing with disease duration and severity. It is estimated that approximately 25-30% of diabetic patients will develop DME during their lifetime. Poor glycemic control, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes duration, and genetic predisposition are recognized as risk factors for the development and progression of DME. Although the exact pathophysiology is still not completely understood, it has been demonstrated that chronic hyperglycemia triggers a cascade of biochemical processes, including increased oxidative stress, inflammation, activation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), cellular dysfunction, and apoptosis, with breakdown of the blood-retinal barriers and fluid accumulation within the macular area. Early diagnosis and appropriate management of DME are crucial for improving visual outcomes. Although the control of systemic risk factors still remains the most important strategy in DME treatment, intravitreal pharmacotherapy with anti-VEGF molecules or steroids is currently considered the first-line approach in DME patients, whereas macular laser photocoagulation and pars plana vitrectomy may be useful in selected cases. Available intravitreal steroids, including triamcinolone acetonide injections and dexamethasone and fluocinolone acetonide implants, exert their therapeutic effect by reducing inflammation, inhibiting VEGF expression, stabilizing the blood-retinal barrier and thus reducing vascular permeability. They have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing macular edema and improving visual outcomes in DME patients but are associated with a high risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract development, so their use requires an accurate patient selection. This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the pathology, epidemiology, risk factors, physiopathology, clinical features, treatment mechanisms of actions, treatment options, prognosis, and ongoing clinical studies related to the treatment of DME, with particular consideration of intravitreal steroids therapy.

Comparative Efficacy of Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (Anti-VEGF) Agents and Corticosteroids in Managing Diabetic Retinopathy-Associated Diabetic Macular Edema: A Meta-Analysis and Comprehensive Systematic Review

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a significant condition linked to diabetes that can result in visual loss. In recent times, there has been a notable change in the desire for treatment, with a shift toward anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy and intravitreal steroids while moving away from conventional laser therapies. This comprehensive meta-analysis explicitly compares the efficacy of two therapies for DME: anti-VEGF therapy and corticosteroid. We conducted a thorough search using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify publications that compare the effects of anti-VEGF therapy and corticosteroid implants on DME. Using Review Manager 5.0 (RevMan), we incorporated data from nine research studies, which involved a total of 877 people. The group was split into two factions: 453 patients were administered corticosteroids, while 466 patients underwent treatment with anti-VEGF therapy. Our investigation demonstrated that both corticosteroid and anti-VEGF therapy positively improved the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and reduced the central macular thickness (CMT). Nevertheless, comparing the mean BCVA on the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) scale revealed no statistically significant changes between the two treatments. This indicates considerable inconsistency, as evidenced by the weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.13 (-0.41, 0.16) with a P-value of 0.39 and an I2 value of 99%. In addition, both treatments improved BCVA compared to the initial measurement. However, there was no statistically significant benefit for corticosteroid over anti-VEGF therapy, as indicated by the WMD of 0.03 (-0.07, 0.13) with a P-value of 0.55 and an I2 value of 80%. The examination of the average CMT also yielded findings that lacked statistical significance, displaying a significant amount of variation (WMD -36.37, 95% confidence interval [-127.52, 54.78], P = 0.43, I2 = 98%). Remarkably, there were no significant alterations among the anti-VEGF therapy group despite a rise in CMT from the initial measurement. The main conclusion drawn from our research is that corticosteroid demonstrates encouraging immediate enhancements in BCVA and CMT. However, anti-VEGF therapy seems to provide more significant long-term advantages. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the corticosteroid group had a greater susceptibility to acquiring elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and the possibility of glaucoma.

Suboptimal outcomes and treatment burden of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular oedema in phakic patients

OBJECTIVES

In England and Wales, treatment options were limited for patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) with phakic eyes that failed anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment pre-2022. This study aimed to quantify the response to, and treatment burden of, anti-VEGF treatment in phakic eyes.

METHODS

Retrospective, cohort study using electronic patient record data from two UK centres between 2015 and 2020. Primary objective was proportion of phakic eyes with a suboptimal response after initial 6 months of anti-VEGF treatment. Data were available for 500 eyes from 399 patients.

RESULTS

At 6 months significantly more eyes had a suboptimal response to anti-VEGF treatment: 65.8% (95% CI 61.5-70.0%) vs 34.2% (95% CI 30.0-38.5%), p < 0.0001. Baseline visual acuity (VA) predicted VA outcome, however, despite greater gains in eyes with poorer VA, such eyes did not achieve the same VA levels as those who started treatment with better VA. Only 53.6% of eyes had more than three injections in the first 6 months indicating difficulties in delivering high volume/high frequency treatment. Treatment and review burden were similar over the following years regardless of response to anti-VEGF treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Data confirm previous real world evidence around response to anti-VEGF treatment, importance of baseline VA and frequency of injections in predicting outcomes in a UK setting. Continuing treatment beyond 6 months in suboptimal responders imposes unnecessary treatment burden without significant change in VA. In suboptimal responders, consideration of early switch to longer acting steroid treatments may help to reduce treatment burden, whilst maintaining or improving vision.

Safety and efficacy profile of intravitreal ranibizumab vs dexamethasone in treatment of naïve diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and efficacy parameters of intravitreal ranibizumab vs intravitreal dexamethasone (IVD) in the treatment of patients with naïve diabetic macular edema (DME) in terms of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and possible complications like intraocular pressure (IOP) rise and cataract progression.

METHODS

A hospital-based prospective and comparative study of naïve DME patients was conducted between November 2020 and October 2021 with a minimum follow-up (F/U) period of 6 months. Thirty phakic patients received one dose of IVD implant (Group A) and the other 30 (Group B) received three consecutive monthly doses of ranibizumab. The main exclusion criteria were steroid responders and the presence of ocular inflammation.

RESULTS

The mean pre-injection CMT in Group A was 405µ and reduced to 297.07µ at 3 months and 278.35µ at 6 months. Mean increase in logMAR BCVA was 0.55. The mean pre-injection IOP was 16.28 and 17.64 mm of Hg at 6 months. In Group B, the mean pre-injection CMT was 401.07µ and reduced to 276.1µ at 3 months and 292.9µ at 6 months. Mean BCVA increased to 0.37. The mean pre-injection IOP was 17.28 mm Hg and 16.42 mm Hg at 6 months. There was no significant progression of cataract in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The mean decrease in CMT was comparable in both the groups at 6 months F/U with an improvement of BCVA with no significant IOP fluctuation or cataract progression. Hence, IVD appears to be noninferior to ranibizumab in the treatment of naïve DME.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Given Either First-Line or Second-Line in Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the leading cause of severe visual impairment among the working-age population. Several therapeutic options are available for the management of DME, including intravitreal corticosteroids. They have been traditionally used as second-line treatment, due to the risk of intraocular pressure increase and cataract-related adverse events. However, attention has recently been focused on the primary or early use of intravitreal corticosteroids, due to growing evidence of the crucial role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME. Furthermore, intravitreal steroid implants offer the additional advantage of a longer duration of action compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGF). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, with a specific focus on clinical scenarios in which it might be considered or even preferred as first-line treatment option by adequate selection of patients, considering both advantages and possible adverse events. Patients with contraindications to anti-VEGF, DME with high inflammatory OCT biomarkers, pseudophakic patients and phakic patients' candidates to cataract surgery as well as vitrectomized eyes may all benefit from first-line DEX implant. Additionally, DME not responders to anti-VEGF should be considered for a switch to DEX implant and a combination therapy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF could be a valid option in severe and persistent DME.

From randomised controlled trials to real-world data: Clinical evidence to guide management of diabetic macular oedema

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are generally considered the gold-standard for providing scientific evidence for treatments' effectiveness and safety but their findings may not always be generalisable to the broader population treated in routine clinical practice. RCTs include highly selected patient populations that fit specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Although they may have a lower level of certainty than RCTs on the evidence hierarchy, real-world data (RWD), such as observational studies, registries and databases, provide real-world evidence (RWE) that can complement RCTs. For example, RWE may help satisfy requirements for a new indication of an already approved drug and help us better understand long-term treatment effectiveness, safety and patterns of use in clinical practice. Many countries have set up registries, observational studies and databases containing information on patients with retinal diseases, such as diabetic macular oedema (DMO). These DMO RWD have produced significant clinical evidence in the past decade that has changed the management of DMO. RWD and medico-administrative databases are a useful resource to identify low frequency safety signals. They often have long-term follow-up with a large number of patients and minimal exclusion criteria. We will discuss improvements in healthcare information exchange technologies, such as blockchain technology and FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources), which will connect and extend databases already available. These registries can be linked with existing or emerging retinal imaging modalities using artificial intelligence to aid diagnosis, treatment decisions and provide prognostic information. The results of RCTs and RWE are combined to provide evidence-based guidelines.

Acute Kidney Injury from Intravitreal Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Several observational studies have reported acute kidney injury from intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs for retinal diseases. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on this critical topic are scant.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate acute kidney injury risk associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs in patients with retinal diseases.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on 12 July, 2023, and included randomized controlled trials reporting acute kidney injury between anti-VEGF drugs (e.g., aflibercept, bevacizumab, brolucizumab, and ranibizumab) and controls for retinal diseases (e.g., age-related macular degeneration, polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, diabetic retinopathy/diabetic macular edema, retinal vein occlusion, and myopic choroidal neovascularization). Data were synthesized by a fixed-effects model for pooling odds ratios (ORs) using the Peto method.

RESULTS

We included 13 randomized controlled trials (four and nine trials for aflibercept and ranibizumab, respectively) with a total of 4282 participants. The meta-analysis indicated intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs did not increase the acute kidney injury risk, compared with controls (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-2.04, I2: 0%), and no differences in the acute kidney injury risk were observed between different anti-VEGF drugs (OR: 1.10, 95% CI 0.27-4.43, I2: 0% for aflibercept; OR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.42-2.22, I2: 0% for ranibizumab) and between different retinal diseases (OR: 4.61, 95% CI 0.07-284.13, I2: not applicable for age-related macular degeneration; OR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.42-1.93, I2: 0% for diabetic retinopathy/diabetic macular edema; OR: 1.57, 95% CI 0.16-15.88, I2: 0% for retinal vein occlusion).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs were not associated with an acute kidney injury risk, regardless of which anti-VEGF drugs (aflibercept or ranibizumab) or retinal diseases (age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy/diabetic macular edema, or retinal vein occlusion) were involved.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021267854.

Intravitreal DEX Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review of National Consensus

Diabetic macular edema (DME)'s therapeutic approach can frequently be challenging. The purpose of the review is to propose evidence-based recommendations on the employment of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) when approaching patients suffering from DME. Seven national consensuses redacted by different groups of retina specialists from Europe and Asia were examined and confronted. Each consensus was redacted utilizing a Delphi approach, in person meetings, or by reviewing the literature. DEX can be studied as a first-line strategy in individuals suffering from DME with inflammatory OCT biomarkers, in vitrectomized eyes, in patients with recent cardiovascular events, in pregnant women, in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery or with poor compliance. The other parameters considered were the indications to the DME treatment, when to switch to DEX, the definition of non-responder to anti-VEGFs agents and to the DEX implant, whether to combine DEX with laser photocoagulation, the association between glaucoma and DEX, and the management of DEX and the cataract. Although several years have passed since the introduction of DEX implants in the DME treatment, there is still not a unified agreement among retina specialists. This paper compares the approach in the DME treatment between countries from different continents and provides a broader and worldwide perspective of the topic.

Macular Thickness Fluctuations in Eyes With Diabetic Macular Edema Treated With Intravitreal Steroid

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Macular thickness fluctuations (MTF) over time may be more predictive of visual outcomes than absolute macular thickness in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). It is unclear whether this association exists in DME patients treated with intravitreal steroids or whether steroids confer reduced MTF versus anti-VEGF treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

MTF was compared before and after initiation of steroids in DME patients treated with intravitreal steroids. A mixed-effects linear regression model was used to determine the association between MTF and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

RESULTS

Mean 12-month MTF significantly decreased after steroid initiation (61.1 μm versus 53.5 μm, P = 0.04, n = 105 eyes). Mean BCVA after 12 months was not significantly different from baseline. No significant association between post-steroid MTF and 12-month BCVA was found.

CONCLUSION

Steroid treatment decreases MTF while BCVA remains stable in DME patients previously treated with anti-VEGF. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:454-460.].

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factors: the AUSSIEDEX study

AIM

To evaluate effectiveness of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) monotherapy in the AUSSIEDEX study non-responder subgroup, defined by diabetic macular oedema (DME) refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, observational, real-world study included pseudophakic and phakic (scheduled for cataract surgery) eyes that did not achieve a ≥5-letter best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain and/or clinically significant central subfield retinal thickness (CRT) improvement after 3-6 anti-VEGF injections for DME (N=143 eyes), regardless of baseline BCVA and CRT. After an initial DEX injection (baseline visit), reinjection was permitted at ≥16-week intervals.

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

changes in mean BCVA and CRT from baseline to week 52. Safety assessments included adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 143 eyes, 53 (37.1%) and 89 (62.2%) switched to DEX after 3-6 (early) and >6 (late) anti-VEGF injections, respectively; 1 (0.7%) had missing information. With 2.3 injections (mean) over 52 weeks, the change in mean BCVA from a baseline of 57.8 letters was not significant at week 52. Mean CRT improved significantly from a baseline of 417.8 μm at week 52 (mean change -60.9 μm; p<0.001). Outcomes were similar in eyes switched to DEX early and late. No unexpected adverse events were reported; no filtration surgeries were required.

CONCLUSION

To date, AUSSIEDEX is the largest prospective, real-world study of DEX monotherapy for treatment-naïve or anti-VEGF-refractory DME. Following early or late switch from anti-VEGF agents, DEX significantly improved anatomic outcomes at 52 weeks without new safety concerns, supporting use in anti-VEGF-refractory DME.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02731911.

Biomaterial Drug Delivery Systems for Prominent Ocular Diseases

Ocular diseases, such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and glaucoma, have had a profound impact on millions of patients. In the past couple of decades, these diseases have been treated using conventional techniques but have also presented certain challenges and limitations that affect patient experience and outcomes. To address this, biomaterials have been used for ocular drug delivery, and a wide range of systems have been developed. This review will discuss some of the major classes and examples of biomaterials used for the treatment of prominent ocular diseases, including ocular implants (biodegradable and non-biodegradable), nanocarriers (hydrogels, liposomes, nanomicelles, DNA-inspired nanoparticles, and dendrimers), microneedles, and drug-loaded contact lenses. We will also discuss the advantages of these biomaterials over conventional approaches with support from the results of clinical trials that demonstrate their efficacy.

Visual and Anatomical Outcomes of a Single Intravitreal Dexamethasone in Diabetic Macular Edema: An 8 Year Real-World Study

IMPORTANCE

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a major cause of vision loss in patients with diabetes mellitus. Intravitreal dexamethasone is a treatment option for patients unsuitable for or non-responsive to anti-angiogenic agents.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify visual and anatomical outcomes from an initial intravitreal dexamethasone injection over the expected 6-month period of dexamethasone release by the implant. Design and enrolment: This is a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records of patients reviewed between 1 January 2012 and 1 April 2022.

SETTING

A tertiary eye-care center in London, United Kingdom; Moorfields Eye Hospital National Healthcare System Foundation Trust.

PARTICIPANTS

The cohort comprised 418 adult patients with DME who received an initial treatment of 700 µg intravitreal dexamethasone in the study period. Of these, 240 patients met the inclusion criteria of ≥2 hospital visits following initial injection (≥1 beyond 6 months) and no previous ocular corticosteroid treatment or missing assessment at baseline.

EXPOSURE(S)

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant (700 µg).

MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S)

Probability of a positive visual outcome, defined as ≥5 or ≥10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS)-letter gain after treatment when compared to baseline (Kaplan-Meier models).

RESULTS

From the initial intravitreal dexamethasone injection alone, we observed a >75% chance of gaining ≥5 ETDRS letters and >50% chance of gaining ≥10 ETDRS letters within 6 months. There was less than a 50% chance of sustaining either positive visual outcome beyond 4 months.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most patients can be expected to have a positive visual outcome following an initial injection of dexamethasone implants that subsides within 4 months. Real-world re-treatment was observed to be delayed until after visual benefits were lost in half of the cohort. Further research will be needed to study the effects of delays in re-treatment.

Current Treatments for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic retinopathy is a major retinal disorder and a leading cause of blindness. Diabetic macular edema (DME) is an ocular complication in patients with diabetes, and it can impair vision significantly. DME is a disorder of the neurovascular system, and it causes obstructions of the retinal capillaries, damage of the blood vessels, and hyperpermeability due to the expression and action of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). These changes result in hemorrhages and leakages of the serous components of blood that result in failures of the neurovascular units (NVUs). Persistent edema of the retina around the macula causes damage to the neural cells that constitute the NVUs resulting in diabetic neuropathy of the retina and a reduction in vision quality. The macular edema and NVU disorders can be monitored by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Neuronal cell death and axonal degeneration are irreversible, and their development can result in permanent visual loss. Treating the edema before these changes are detected in the OCT images is necessary for neuroprotection and maintenance of good vision. This review describes the effective treatments for the macular edema that are therefore neuroprotective.

Efficacy and safety profile of intravitreal dexamethasone implant versus antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment in diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To better understand the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) versus antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). A systematic review and meta-analysis. The study included randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-randomized control trials (Non-RCTs) before December 2021 that compare the efficacy of Ozurdex-related therapyand anti-VEGF therapy. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The quality of the included studies was assessed carefully. 30 studies were included. Regarding BCVA change, the overall result revealed no significant differences between Ozurdex and anti-VEGF therapies in patients with nonresistant DME, but Ozurdex group had significantly more VA improvement than anti-VEGF therapies in patients with resistant DME (MD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.21). In terms of central retinal thickness (CRT) decrease, there was a significant difference between Ozurdex therapy and anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nonresistant DME (MD 48.10, 95% CI 19.06-77.13) and resistant DME (MD 65.37, 95% CI 3.62-127.13). Overall, Ozurdex therapy resulted in significantly greater VA improvement and CRT decrease than anti-VEGF therapy in resistant DME patients. Ozurdex therapy was not inferior to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nonresistant DME.

Archway Phase 3 Trial of the Port Delivery System with Ranibizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration 2-Year Results

PURPOSE

To report 2-year results from the Archway clinical trial of the Port Delivery System with ranibizumab (PDS) for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN

Phase 3, randomized, multicenter, open-label, active-comparator trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with previously treated nAMD diagnosed within 9 months of screening and responsive to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 3:2 to PDS with ranibizumab 100 mg/ml with fixed refill-exchanges every 24 weeks (PDS Q24W) or intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg injections every 4 weeks (monthly ranibizumab). Patients were followed through 4 complete refill-exchange intervals (∼2 years).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter score from baseline averaged over weeks 60 and 64, and weeks 88 and 92 (noninferiority margin, -3.9 ETDRS letters).

RESULTS

PDS Q24W was noninferior to monthly ranibizumab, with differences in adjusted mean change in BCVA score from baseline averaged over weeks 60/64 and 88/92 of +0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to +2.1) and -0.6 ETDRS letters (95% CI, -2.5 to +1.3). Anatomic outcomes were generally comparable between arms through week 96. Through each of 4 PDS refill-exchange intervals, 98.4%, 94.6%, 94.8%, and 94.7% of PDS Q24W patients assessed did not receive supplemental ranibizumab treatment. PDS ocular safety profile was generally unchanged from primary analysis. Prespecified ocular adverse events (AEs) of special interest were reported in 59 (23.8%) PDS and 17 (10.2%) monthly ranibizumab patients. Most common AE of special interest reported in both arms was cataract (PDS Q24W, 22 [8.9%]; monthly ranibizumab, 10 [6.0%]). Events in the PDS Q24W arm included (patient incidence) 10 (4.0%) conjunctival erosions, 6 (2.4%) conjunctival retractions, 4 (1.6%) endophthalmitis cases, and 4 (1.6%) implant dislocations. Serum ranibizumab sampling showed that the PDS continuously released ranibizumab over the 24-week refill-exchange interval and ranibizumab serum concentrations were within the range experienced with monthly ranibizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

PDS Q24W showed noninferior efficacy to monthly ranibizumab through approximately 2 years, with approximately 95% of PDS Q24W patients not receiving supplemental ranibizumab treatment in each refill-exchange interval. AEs were generally manageable, with learnings continually implemented to minimize PDS-related AEs.

Diabetic Macular Oedema Guidelines: An Australian Perspective

The number of people living with diabetes is expected to rise to 578 million by 2030 and to 700 million by 2045, exacting a severe socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems around the globe. This is also reflected in the increasing numbers of people with ocular complications of diabetes (namely, diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and diabetic retinopathy (DR)). In one study examining the global prevalence of DR, 35% of people with diabetes had some form of DR, 7% had PDR, 7% had DMO, and 10% were affected by these vision-threatening stages. In many regions of the world (Australia included), DR is one of the top three leading causes of vision loss amongst working age adults (20-74 years). In the management of DMO, the landmark ETDRS study demonstrated that moderate visual loss, defined as doubling of the visual angle, can be reduced by 50% or more by focal/grid laser photocoagulation. However, over the last 20 years, antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and corticosteroid therapies have emerged as alternative options for the management of DMO and provided patients with choices that have higher chances of improving vision than laser alone. In Australia, since the 2008 NHMRC guidelines, there have been significant developments in both the treatment options and treatment schedules for DMO. This working group was therefore assembled to review and address the current management options available in Australia.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab and Dexamethasone Implant Injections as Primary Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: The Month 24 Results from Simultaneously Double Protocol

PURPOSE

To compare efficacy of simultaneously administered intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX implant) and ranibizumab (simultaneous double protocol) injections with ranibizumab monotherapy for diabetic macular edema (DME) at month 24.

METHODS

This is a prospective, consecutive, clinical interventional study. Naïve eyes with DME were randomized into two groups: 34 eyes received simultaneous double-protocol therapy and 34 eyes received ranibizumab monotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in visual acuity in month 24. The secondary efficacy endpoints were to evaluate gain of ≥15 letters, morphological changes and central foveal thickness. Decreased vision from DME (study eye BCVA, 20/40 or worse Snellen equivalent using ETDRS testing), the presence of DME with ≥300 μm foveal intraretinal cystoid spaces (within 1000 μm of the centre of the fovea), subfoveal neuroretinal detachment (SND), intraretinal hyperreflective foci (HRF, within 500 μm of the centre of the fovea) or foveal lipid exudates and external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption (within 500 μm of the centre of the fovea) on SD-OCT were eligible to enrol.

RESULTS

The mean baseline BCVA was 48 ± 23 letters in double protocol group and 52 ± 14 letters ranibizumab monotherapy group (p = 0.416). The mean number of ETDRS letters changed from baseline at 12 months versus change from baseline at month 24 in double protocol group and ranibizumab monotherapy group were +21.6 versus +20.2 and +9.6 versus +9.1, respectively. At the month 24 time point, 65.4% of patients in double protocol group and 26.2% of patients in ranibizumab monotherapy group had gained ≥15 ETDRS letters in BCVA from baseline (p < 0.001). The external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity were better in the double protocol group in comparison to ranibizumab monotherapy group at month 24. In addition, there was no statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients with epiretinal membrane in double protocol group at month 24, by the contrast with ranibizumab monotherapy group (p = 0.06 and p = 0.04 in the double protocol and ranibizumab monotherapy groups, respectively). From baseline to month 24, the mean central foveal thickness (CFT) was 672 ± 293 μm reduced to 278 ± 84 μm in double protocol group and was 631 ± 279 μm reduced to 356 ± 108 μm in ranibizumab monotherapy group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). From baseline to month 24, 38% (13/34) of eyes in double protocol group and 18% (6/34) of eyes in ranibizumab monotherapy group had at least 5 mmHg of IOP elevation (p = 0.012). Two grades or more increased cataract density were detected 27% (6/22) of eyes in the double protocol group and in 12.5% (3/24) of eyes in the ranibizumab monotherapy group from baseline to month 24 (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

According to the improvements in visual acuity and morphological changes achieved at month 24, the simultaneous double protocol therapy can be an effective treatment option for DME with inflammatory biomarkers on OCT or/and decreased visual acuity.

Safety and Effectiveness of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant (Ozurdex®) for the Treatment of Refractory Cystoid Macular Oedema (CMO) in Galway University Hospital

Aim:

The aim of this study is to assess the real-life effectiveness and safety of intravitreal Ozurdex in an Irish setting.

Background:

Ozurdex is an intravitreal dexamethasone implant that is used for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular oedema.

Methods:

This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients in University Hospital Galway who received an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) for the treatment of cystoid macular oedema secondary to diabetic eye disease or retinal vein occlusion. The main outcome was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity 3-6 months after the treatment.

Results and Discussion:

36 patients were included in the study. Overall, there was a 1.66 mean letter gain (SD 11.8) 3-6 months post-treatment. The proportion of patients who gained >10 letters was 15.6%. The mean reduction in CST was 110.6um (SD 255.7), and in the linear regression analysis, no variables were found to be significantly associated with a change in visual acuity. In terms of adverse events, 14.3% of patients had significant cataract progression and 20.6% of patients had a significant rise in IOP following intravitreal Ozurdex implant.

Conclusion:

Intravitreal Ozurdex was found to be safe and effective, supporting it as an appropriate second-line treatment in patients with refractory macular oedema secondary to diabetic eye disease and retinal vein occlusion. Further studies should be carried out to evaluate the possible predictors of visual acuity outcome.

Healthcare expenditure of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors compared with dexamethasone implant for diabetic macular oedema

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to estimate the 1-year costs associated with treating diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients using current intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) biologics compared with the dexamethasone implant.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive cost-evaluation analysis using data from Oslo University Hospital and literature to compare three different intravitreal drugs for DME: bevacizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone. Stratification of patients into 'Naive' or 'Switch' group was based on treatment history. We estimated the costs from healthcare and 'extended' healthcare perspectives. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the impact of various parameters.

RESULTS

The average injections per patient per year for the Naive group (bevacizumab), Switch group (aflibercept) and dexamethasone were 9.5, 9.1 and 3.0 respectively. From a healthcare perspective, the 1-year costs for the Naive group were 15% lower (bevacizumab, €3619), and for the Switch group, 23% higher (aflibercept, €5226) compared with dexamethasone (€4252). The 'extended' healthcare perspective showed the cost per patient per year for bevacizumab remained nominally lower in the Naive group, while dexamethasone remained lower for the Switch group (€5116 for dexamethasone, compared to €4987 for bevacizumab and €6537 for aflibercept).

CONCLUSIONS

From a primary healthcare perspective, the dexamethasone as a first-line DME treatment may increase economic costs in settings where bevacizumab is used off-label. Treating resistant DMEwith dexamethasone may reduce the costs and treatment burden compared with switching to aflibercept.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of intravitreal VEGF inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi) have transformed the treatment of many retinal diseases, including diabetic maculopathy. Increasing evidence supports systemic absorption of intravitreal VEGFi and development of significant cardiorenal side effects.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020189037) of randomised controlled trials of intravitreal VEGFi treatments (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) for any eye disease. Outcomes of interest were cardiorenal side effects (hypertension, proteinuria, kidney function decline and heart failure). Fixed-effects meta-analyses were conducted where possible.

RESULTS

There were 78 trials (81 comparisons; 13 175 participants) that met criteria for inclusion: 47% were trials in diabetic eye disease. Hypertension (29 trials; 8570 participants) was equally common in VEGFi and control groups (7.3 versus 5.4%; RR 1.08 [0.91; 1.28]). New or worsening heart failure (10 trials; 3384 participants) had similar incidence in VEGFi and control groups (RR 1.03 [0.70; 1.51]). Proteinuria (5 trials; 1902 participants) was detectable in some VEGFi-treated participants (0.2%) but not controls (0.0%; RR 4.43 [0.49; 40.0]). Kidney function decline (9 trials; 3471 participants) was similar in VEGFi and control groups. In participants with diabetic eye disease, risk of all-cause mortality was higher in VEGFi-treated participants (RR 1.62 [1.04; 2.46]).

CONCLUSION

In trials of intravitreal VEGFi, we did not identify an increased risk of cardiorenal outcomes, though these outcomes were reported in only a minority of cases. There was an increased risk of death in VEGFi-treated participants with diabetic eye disease. Additional scrutiny of post-licensing observational data may improve recognition of safety concerns in VEGFi-treated patients.

The Efficacy and Safety of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema and Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) with retinal vein occlusion secondary to macular edema (RVO-ME).

Materials and Methods

Relevant databases were searched to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DEX for DME and RVO-ME. The search was conducted until March 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.4.1 software after screening the literature by inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting information, and evaluating the methodological quality of the included studies.

Results

The study showed that DEX treatment of RVO-ME was associated with an improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (MD = −9.08, 95% CI: −10.89–7.27, P < 0.00001) and central retinal thickness (CRT) (MD = 93.47, 95% CI: 28.55–159.39, P=0.005). DEX treatment of DME was significantly better than anti-VEGF treatment in terms of CRT reduction (MD = −72.35, 95% CI: −115.0–29.69, P=0.0009). The safety study showed that the risk of cataract from RVO-ME (OR = 5.06, 95% CI: 1.96 to 13.06, P=0.0008) and the incidence of high intraocular pressure (OR = 6.67, 95% CI: 3.46 to 12.86, P < 0.00001) were significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy. The risk of cataract from DME (OR = 4.70, 95% CI: 2.10 to 10.54, P=0.00022) was significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy (OR = 4.70, 95% CI: 2.10 to 10.54, P=0.0002). The incidence of high IOP (OR = 13.77, 95% CI: 4.96 to 38.18, P < 0.00001) was significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy.

Conclusions

In patients with DME and RVO-ME, DEX was more efficacious but slightly less safe than anti-VEGF therapy.

Real-Life Efficacy, Safety, and Use of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Posterior Segment Inflammation Due to Non-infectious Uveitis (LOUVRE 2 Study)

Introduction

To evaluate real-life efficacy, safety, and treatment patterns with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis (treatment-naïve or not) in French clinics.

Methods

In this prospective, multicenter, observational, non-comparative, post-reimbursement study, consecutive patients with posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis were enrolled and evaluated at baseline (day 0). Those who received DEX on day 0 were re-evaluated at months 2, 6, and 18. Retreatment with DEX and/or alternative therapies was allowed during follow-up. Primary outcome: patients (%) with at least a 15-letter gain in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 2 months. Secondary outcomes included patients (%) with at least 15-letter BCVA gains at 6 and 18 months; mean BCVA change from baseline at 2, 6, and 18 months; and patients (%) retreated, mean central retinal thickness (CRT), and adverse events (AEs) at all post-baseline visits.

Results

Ninety-seven of 245 enrolled patients with posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis (80% previously treated) and disease duration of 5 years (average) received DEX on day 0 and were included in efficacy analyses. At month 2 (n = 91), 20.5% of patients (95% CI 12.0–28.9) gained at least 15 letters from a baseline mean of 60.9 letters; the mean gain was 6.2 letters (95% CI 3.5–8.9). At month 6, 50.0% (n = 38/76) of patients did not receive alternative treatment or DEX retreatment, mostly because inflammation had sufficiently subsided (n = 27/38, 71.1%). Although early study termination prevented efficacy analysis at 18 months (n = 12), CRT reductions persisted throughout follow-up. From baseline to month 18, 21/245 (8.6%) patients had DEX-related AEs; 17/245 (6.9%) had ocular hypertension (most common AE).

Conclusion

LOUVRE 2 confirms DEX efficacy on visual acuity and CRT in predominantly DEX-pretreated patients with relatively old/stabilized uveitis. DEX tolerability was consistent with known/published data, confirming treatment benefits in posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier

NCT02951975.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40123-022-00525-8.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Macular Edema and Uveitis: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Purpose

The purpose of this review article is to provide a comprehensive review of the current applications of intravitreal DEX implant (Ozurdex^®, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA) for a variety of ophthalmic conditions – ranging from FDA approved indications to off-label uses. We have attempted to provide relevant evidence from the literature to help a reader develop an understanding of the biological and pharmacokinetic properties of DEX implant, its uses, and potential side effects.

Methods

PubMed searches were performed using the terms “Ozurdex”, or “intravitreal DEX implant”, AND “retinal vein occlusion”, or “diabetic macular edema”, or “uveitis”. The search was performed in July of 2021, with an additional search in October 2021. All original English language articles were considered for this review.

Results

DEX implant has evidence of efficacy in a variety of clinical situations including macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion, diabetes, uveitis, and others. Safety concerns include cataract formation and progression, intraocular pressure elevation, complications related to intravitreal injection, and opportunistic infections secondary to steroid-induced immune suppression.

Conclusion

DEX implant is a useful tool in the management of several retinal disorders. Further studies are needed for head-to-head comparison with other treatment modalities and to determine its precise place in clinical practice.

Intravitreal Corticosteroid Implantation in Diabetic Macular Edema: Updated European Consensus Guidance on Monitoring and Managing Intraocular Pressure

Intravitreal therapy for diabetic macular edema can, in susceptible patients, increase intraocular pressure (IOP). As uncontrolled IOP can potentially be sight threatening, monitoring is an essential component of patient management. It can be challenging for retina specialists to ensure that monitoring is rigorous enough to detect and resolve any potential problems at the earliest opportunity without it also being overburdensome for patients who have the lowest risk of developing an IOP rise. We have developed dynamic algorithms that: (1) tailor the frequency and extent of monitoring according to individual susceptibility and current IOP and (2) assist retina specialists in deciding when they should consider a referral to a glaucoma specialist. One algorithm is for patients with a relatively low susceptibility to developing an IOP rise (those whose baseline IOP is < 22 mmHg and who do not have a history of IOP events). Depending on their first post-implantation IOP check, the algorithm classifies them as: low risk if IOP remains < 22 mmHg; medium risk if IOP is 22-25 mmHg and any rise from baseline is < 10 mmHg; or high risk if IOP is > 25 mmHg or any rise from baseline is ≥ 10 mmHg. Thereafter, the algorithm guides on the frequency and extent of monitoring required in each of these groups and, if IOP rises or falls during treatment, patients may move up or down the risk groups accordingly. A different algorithm is provided for patients who are more susceptible to developing an IOP rise (those with a baseline IOP of ≥ 22 mmHg or a prior history of an IOP event). These patients need monitoring more closely so this algorithm has only medium- or high-risk classifications. These algorithms update the previous monitoring guidance by Goñi et al. (Goñi et al. in Ophthalmol Ther 5:47-61, 2016).

Novel biomarkers and therapeutic approaches for diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy: Recent progress and future perspectives

The global burden due to microvascular complications in patients with diabetes mellitus persists and even increases alarmingly, the intervention and management are now encountering many difficulties and challenges. This paper reviews the recent advancement and progress in novel biomarkers, artificial intelligence technology, therapeutic agents and approaches of diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy, providing more insights into the management of microvascular complications.

Cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and triamcinolone for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema in Finland: A Markov-model

PURPOSE

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO), a complication of diabetes, causes vision loss and blindness. Corticosteroids are usually used as a second-line treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone implants compared to cheaper and more frequently applied triamcinolone injections.

METHODS

Markov-modelling, which incorporated both eyes, was used for economic evaluation. The model consisted of five health states based on visual acuity, illustrating the progression of DMO. A cycle length of five months was chosen for dexamethasone and four months for triamcinolone. Time horizons of two and five years were applied. Transition probabilities and health state utilities were sourced from previous studies. The perspective used in this analysis was the hospital perspective. The health care costs were acquired from Kuopio University Hospital in Finland.

RESULTS

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER with 3% discount rate was €56 591/QALY for a two-year follow-up and -€1 110 942/QALY for a five-year follow-up. In order to consider dexamethasone as cost-effective over a 2-year time horizon, the WTP needs to be around €55 000/QALY. Over the five-year follow-up, triamcinolone is clearly a dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses support the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone over a 2-year time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the sensitivity analyses support the results, dexamethasone would be a cost-effective treatment during the first two years with WTP threshold around €55 000/QALY, and triamcinolone would be a convenient treatment after that. This recommendation is in line with the guidelines of EURETINA.

Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema in the Asia-Pacific Region

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) compared with laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

Patients and Methods

This Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, efficacy evaluator–masked, parallel-group, 12-month clinical study enrolled adults in China and the Philippines with reduced visual acuity secondary to fovea-involved DME in the study eye. Participants were randomized 1:1 to study eye treatment with laser photocoagulation every 3 months as needed (n = 139) or DEX every 5 months (n = 145). The main efficacy measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and leakage area. The primary endpoint was the average change in BCVA from baseline over 12 months (area-under-the-curve method). Preplanned subgroup analyses evaluated outcomes in Chinese patients.

Results

Mean average change in BCVA from baseline during the study (letters) was 4.3 with DEX (n = 145) versus 1.4 with laser (n = 127) overall (P = 0.001) and 4.6 with DEX (n = 129) versus 0.6 with laser (n = 113) in Chinese patients (P < 0.001). At Month 12, mean change in CRT from baseline was −209.5 μm with DEX versus −120.3 μm with laser (P < 0.001) and mean change in total leakage area from baseline was −8.367 mm² with DEX versus −0.637 mm² with laser (P < 0.001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the DEX group were increased intraocular pressure and cataract.

Conclusion

DEX administered every 5 months provided significantly greater improvement in BCVA, CRT, and total leakage area compared with laser treatment. DEX demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, consistent with an intraocular corticosteroid, and similar to that reported in completed global registration studies.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) in diabetic macular edema: real-world data versus clinical trials outcomes

AIM

To investigate the safety and efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex^®/DEX) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) either naïve or non-naïve to anti-VEGF therapies who switched to DEX implant independent of response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs).

METHODS

This was an audit retrospective review of medical records of patients with DME who switched to the DEX intravitreal implant. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients naïve to antiangiogenic therapy and patients who were previously treated with anti-VEGFs. Data regarding demographics, changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) was collected over 6mo. The demographic data mean changes in BCVA, CMT, and IOP were compared. Six-month follow-up data of 47 patients (57 eyes), who either switched to DEX implant irrespective of response to previous treatments or were treatment naïve before receiving DEX implant, was collected.

RESULTS

Improvement in mean BCVA was observed from 1-4mo after injection with a decreased effect at month 6 as expected, with better outcomes in naïve compared to non-naïve patients. A statistically relevant decrease in mean CMT was observed during the follow-up period. An increase in mean IOP was observed in the first 2mo after DEX therapy. The mean number of injections of the overall population during the 6mo was 1.3. A subgroup analysis showed no relevant difference between phakic versus pseudophakic patients relative to measured outcomes. There was no cataract progression during the follow-up period and no adverse events reported.

CONCLUSION

This real-life setting study shows that intravitreal DEX implant is effective and safe. The timings of greater therapeutic impact are concordant with previous studies and suggest that earlier treatment with corticosteroids may have an additional benefit in naïve patients.

Comparison of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab in Vitrectomized Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a single institution.

Methods

Pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve center-involved DME were enrolled, with one eye in each patient. They were divided into two groups: one group receiving IDI every 3 to 4 months and another group receiving IVR using 3 monthly plus treat-and-extend injections, all with monthly follow-up for 6 months. Switch of intravitreal drugs or deferred macular laser was not allowed. Primary outcome measures included change in central foveal thickness (CFT) in 1 mm by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at Month 6.

Results

Twenty-two eyes were included in the IDI group and 26 eyes in the IVR group. The baseline demographics, glycosylated hemoglobin level, intraocular pressure (IOP), BCVA, and CFT did not significantly differ (p > 0.05). Compared to baseline data, CFT decreased and BCVA improved significantly after either IDI or IVR at Month 6 (p < 0.05). Significantly better mean final BCVA (0.38 logMAR vs. 0.62 logMAR, p=0.04), more mean visual gain (−0.30 logMAR vs. −0.15 logMAR, p=0.02), lower mean final CFT (310.9 μm vs. 384.2 μm, p=0.04), and larger mean CFT decrease (−150.0 μm vs. −60.1 μm, p=0.03) were found in the IDI group compared to those in the IVR group. A smaller mean treatment number (2.6 vs. 5.6, p < 0.001) and higher rate of postinjection ocular hypertension requiring topical hypotensive agent therapy (27.3% vs. 0%, p=0.0002) were demonstrated in the IDI group than those in the IVR group.

Conclusion

We concluded that IDI and IVR can both effectively treat vitrectomized eyes with DME. Dexamethasone implants had significantly better visual/anatomical improvement, smaller treatment number, and higher rate of elevated IOP after injection than IVR in pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with DME in a 6-month period.

Risk of Death Associated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Although intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment represents the first-line therapy for many retinal diseases, the issue of their systemic safety is debatable.

Objectives

To assess whether intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy might be associated with increased risk of mortality and which variables are associated with the increase.

Data Sources

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to May 6, 2019.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment with control groups and with follow-up of at least 6 months were selected.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were independently collected by 2 investigators. Meta-analyses were conducted using the frequentist and Bayesian methods. For the frequentist approach, random- and fixed-effects models were used, with random-effects models considered the primary technique. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were computed. For the bayesian approach, uninformative and informative priors were used. Odds ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were computed. Meta-regression analyses were based on random-effects models.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was the all-cause death rate. Secondary outcomes included meta-regression analyses on the following variables: type of drug, number of injections, follow-up time, diagnosis, and cardiovascular risk.

Results

Of 2336 studies identified, 34 unique studies with 8887 unique participants were included in the present meta-analysis. For the frequentist analysis, fixed- and random-effects models yielded similar estimates (ORs, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.95-2.07; P = .09] and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.89-2.01; P = .17], respectively). For the Bayesian approach, noninformative and informative priors yielded similar results (ORs, 1.34 [95% CrI, 0.79-2.34; 0.13 probability of OR≤1.00] and 1.40 [95% CrI, 0.82-2.32; 0.11 probability of OR≤1.00], respectively). Meta-regression analyses showed the following risk for 1 injection more: frequentist OR of 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.22; P = .005) and Bayesian OR of 1.06 (95% CrI, 0.98-1.15; 0.06 probability of OR≤1.00).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, no difference was found in the mortality rate between intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment and control groups. Additional data seem warranted to determine whether the mortality rate is increased in patients receiving a greater number of injections.

COMPARISON OF INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT AND AFLIBERCEPT IN PATIENTS WITH TREATMENT-NAIVE DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA WITH SEROUS RETINAL DETACHMENT

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant versus aflibercept in patients with treatment-naive diabetic macular edema with inflammatory biomarkers.

METHODS

Ninety-eight eyes of 62 treatment-naive patients with diabetic macular edema with serous retinal detachment and hyperreflective foci were enrolled. Each patient was randomized to receive either aflibercept or DEX implant treatment. The treatment protocol included 3 monthly injections of 2 mg of aflibercept as a loading phase in the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor group and 0.7 mg of DEX implant in the DEX group and then pro re nata treatment. Primary outcome measures were mean changes in visual acuity and central retinal thickness at the end of the 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty-eight eyes of 29 patients were received DEX implant, and 50 eyes of 33 patients received the aflibercept injection. Mean central retinal thickness decreased from 615.2 µm at baseline to 297.7 µm at 12 months in the DEX group (P < 0.001) and from 576.5 µm to 367.4 µm in the aflibercept group (P < 0.001). Except for the first month, mean central retinal thickness reduction was significantly higher in the DEX group (P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U Test). Visual acuity improved significantly at the end of the follow-ups (46.3-52.7 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters in the DEX group and 47.5-56.8 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters in the aflibercept group at 12 months, P < 0.001, paired-sample t-test). Adjusting by baseline values, the increase in mean visual acuity during the 12-month follow-ups favored the aflibercept group (P < 0.01), 25% of the DEX-treated eyes and 42% of the aflibercept treated eyes experienced 10 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters visual gain (P: 0.058). The DEX group received significantly fewer (2.6 vs. 7.2) injections (P: 0.001).

CONCLUSION

It was observed that the both of DEX implant and aflibercept were effective and safe in treatment-naive diabetic macular edema patients with inflammatory phenotype. Anatomical results were found to be better in the DEX group, and functional results were found to be better in the aflibercept group. In pseudophakic eyes, the functional superiority of aflibercept ceased to exist, and the low number of injections in the DEX implant group was seen as an advantage.

DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA AND CATARACT SURGERY: Phacoemulsification Combined With Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Compared With Standard Phacoemulsification

PURPOSE

To compare functional and anatomical results of combined phacoemulsification and dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; DEX-I) with standard phacoemulsification in diabetic patients with cataract.

METHODS

Retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, macular edema, and cataract, treated routinely at the Eye Clinic, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico, Bari, Italy with phacoemulsification associated with DEX-I (n = 23; Phaco-Dex) or standard phacoemulsification (n = 23; Phaco-alone). Best-correct visual acuity, central subfield thickness, and intraocular pressure were assessed at baseline and monthly for 3 months after surgery, and t-test was used to assess change from baseline. A multilevel regression model with an unstructured correlation-type matrix to account for repeated data measures was used for statistical analysis in and between groups.

RESULTS

With Phaco-Dex, best-correct visual acuity increased significantly from the first month (P = 0.0005 vs. baseline) and remained stable at the following visits; central subfield thickness decreased significantly from Month 2 (P = 0.049 and P = 0.04 vs. baseline, respectively); at each timepoint, central subfield thickness was significantly lower in the Phaco-Dex group versus Phaco-alone. Intraocular pressure increased significantly during follow-up (P = 0.001 at Month 3 vs. baseline) but remained within the normal range. In the Phaco-alone group, best-correct visual acuity, and intraocular pressure did not show any significant changes after surgery, whereas central subfield thickness increased from Month 2 (P = 0.05 vs. baseline).

CONCLUSION

In diabetic patients with macular edema and visually significant cataract, combined treatment with phacoemulsification and DEX-I seemed to be effective, safe, and superior to standard phacoemulsification considering both functional and tomographic parameters.

Cardiovascular Adverse Events With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Systemic safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) is a matter of debate and regular updates are necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate systemic adverse events (SAEs) associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs compared with non-anti-VEGF treatments in patients with ocular diseases.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to July 7, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials conducted in adults with retinal diseases who received intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Studies and treatment characteristics and outcome data were extracted and analyzed, and study quality was evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Main outcomes were major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and total mortality. Secondary outcomes included nonocular hemorrhage, components of MACEs, other cardiovascular outcomes, serious SAEs, and all SAEs.

RESULTS

A total of 74 randomized clinical trials were analyzed: 32 trials (43%) included 14 190 patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), 24 (32%) included 5424 patients with diabetic retinopathy (diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy), 17 trials (23%) included 3757 patients with retinal vein occlusion, and 1 trial (1%) included 122 patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization. Anti-VEGF drug administration did not increase MACEs compared with control agents (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 0.85-1.58) or total mortality (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.82-1.96). There was an interaction (subgroup difference, P = .04) in mortality risk depending on the underlying disease with an increase (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03-3.16; P = .04) in the risk of death in patients with diabetic retinopathy; however, no increase was observed in patients with AMD or retinal vein occlusion. Administration of anti-VEGF drugs increased the risk of nonocular hemorrhage (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10), mainly in patients with AMD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Intravitreal anti-VEGF was not associated with an increase in MACEs in the trials examined herein. Increased mortality in patients with diabetes and nonocular hemorrhages, especially in those with AMD, could represent a safety signal, but the evidence was not strong. However, continued surveillance of SAEs remains warranted.

Managing Diabetic Macular Edema in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Strategies and Treatment Options

Purpose

This meta-analysis aims to summarize 12-month best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and to identify factors affecting treatment response using evidence generated from meta-regression.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life/observational studies that reported 12-month changes in BCVA in patients with DME on anti-VEGF or dexamethasone implant treatment in monotherapy. Study factors that were analyzed are baseline patient characteristics, study type, drug employed, number of injections and 12-month change in BCVA. Data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis with BCVA change as the main outcome. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the impact of multiple covariates.

Results

One-hundred-five heterogeneous study populations (45,032 eyes) were identified and included in the analysis. The use of anti-VEGFs and dexamethasone implant induced an overall increase of +8.13 ETDRS letters in BCVA at 12 months of follow-up. Meta-regression provided evidence that mean BCVA change using anti-VEGFs was not statistically higher for RCTs (p=0.35) compared to observational studies. Dexamethasone implant showed a trend for better results in observational studies over RCTs. Populations following a fixed aflibercept regimen performed better than those following a reactive treatment regimen. Mean BCVA gain was higher in younger populations (p<0.001), with lower baseline BCVA (p<0.0001) and longer diabetes duration (p<0.0001), receiving a higher number of injections (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

Intravitreal therapy with anti-VEGFs or dexamethasone implant produces a significant improvement in BCVA at 12 months in patients with DME. Meta-regression identified the modifiable covariates that can be targeted in order to maximize functional results.

Real-World Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema Treated Long Term with Ranibizumab (VISION Study)

Aim

Evaluate long-term real-world treatment patterns and associated effectiveness and safety outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated ≥36 months with 0.5mg ranibizumab.

Methods

Open-label observational effectiveness study in 9 Belgian clinics. Included were primary treated eyes of 55 DME patients between August 2014 and March 2015 and followed for 3.5±1.8 years. Eyes were 21.8% treatment (TX)-naïve, 9.1% non-naïve with exclusive prior anti-VEGF treatment (PRIOR-anti-VEGF), and 63.6% non-naïve with other prior treatments (PRIOR-other). Intravitreal injections with ranibizumab were administered per ophthalmologists’ best clinical judgment. Trend testing of changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) over time occurred using mixed regression analysis.

Results

The mean±SD number of treatments in the first year was 5.1±3.0 (TX-naïve), 4.5±2.7 (PRIOR-anti-VEGF) and 5.6±3.1 (PRIOR-other). At 12 months, BCVA increased by 8.9±16.4 letters from 59.7±9.3 at baseline in TX-naïve (p<0.0001), by 11.8±9.9 from 61.6±8.5 in PRIOR-anti-VEGF (p=0.03), and by 4.2±10.6 from 58.2±14.6 in PRIOR-other groups (p=0.0002). BCVA remained stable for the remainder of follow-up in all groups. CRT decreased over the first 2 months by monthly rates of −43.8µm in TX-naïve (p=0.04), −75.7µm in PRIOR-anti-VEGF (p=0.02), and −65.8µm in PRIOR-other eyes (p=0.0003), showing stability afterwards. No unknown adverse events were recorded; a painful eye following injection was registered with a possible relationship to the treatment.

Conclusion

This real-world study confirms the effectiveness of ranibizumab in preventing a decline in BCVA and demonstrated initial improvement and subsequent retention of BCVA in DME patients ≥36 months. Ranibizumab initially reduced and then maintained CRT. However, these data reveal that treatment intensity and BCVA and CRT outcomes are lower than those found in early efficacy trials. Under-treatment likely accounts for this efficacy-effectiveness gap. Yet, intravitreal ranibizumab is an effective and safe long-term treatment for DME under conditions of significant heterogeneity in patients and treatment patterns.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab Injection for Treatment of Non-Proliferative Diabetic Macular Edema: A Prospective, Randomized and Blinded Trial

INTRODUCTION

In the working age population, Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) is the most common cause of visual loss.

PURPOSE

The present study is aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of intravitreal injection of Ranibizumab (IVR) versus intravitreal Dexamethasone implant (IVD) in patients with DME in a tertiary care centre upto 4 months.

METHODS

This is a comparative, prospective, randomized study that was done on 140 patients with macular edema confirmed on optical coherence tomography (OCT). IVD group received Ozurdex® (Allergan, Inc, Ireland) while the IVR group received Lucentis® (Novartis, Basel, Switzerland); the groups were followed up at day-1 and weeks 4, 8, 12, 16. Patients were divided into Group A, in which patients were given 3 doses (monthly) of IVR 0.3 mg in 0.05 ml (n=70). Group B patients were given a single dose of IVD implant 0.7 mg (n=70).

RESULTS

The mean number of injections given was 1 Ozurdex® per patient vs. 3 Lucentis® per patient. The maximum reduction in central macular thickness (CMT) with IVD was 167.8 μm and 138.8μm in the 2nd and 3rd months, respectively, with IVR. The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the 4th month was 0.34 logMAR and 0.33 logMAR, in IVD and IVR groups, respectively, with consistent improvement. Patients with 0-5 letters, 6-10 letters and 10-15 letters, and >15 letters visibility in IVD group were 9.5, 20.6, 4.8, 6.4%, and 20.4, 18.8, 20.3 20.3% in IVR groups, respectively. The maximum intraocular pressure (IOP) rise with IVD was found to be 16 mmHg in 2 patients (3.17%). IOP rise >10 mmHg was observed in 14/63 patients (22.22%); the majority of patients indicated a high rise at 2nd month with all returning to baseline by 4th month. No reports of infectious endophthalmitis or new cataracts were detected in either of the treated groups.

CONCLUSION

Both intravitreal Ranibizumab injection and Dexamethasone implants were found to be safe and effective in lowering CMT and improving BCVA at the 4-month follow up in patients with DME. Since there was no recurrence of CMT in the Dexamethasone implant group, we suggest that early administration before the 4th month may indicate superior efficacy over the ranibizumab injection. Further randomized trials in a large sample size with a longer period follow- up would be performed to justify the obtained results in the present study.

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I² = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.

Efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in treatment naïve eyes with diabetic macular edema: Real world experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in treatment naïve eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of treatment naïve eyes with DME which received intravitreal dexamethasone implant between January 2016 and March 2018 was done. Demographic details of the patients, ocular examination findings at baseline and on follow up visits were noted. Morphological features of DME and central macular thickness were noted on optical coherence tomography at each visit. The details regarding additional treatment for macular edema on follow up were noted.

RESULTS

Sixty five eyes were included in the study. The mean age was 59.14 ± 9.59 years. The follow up ranged from 6 to 48 months. Psuedophakic eyes showed visual improvement whereas the phakic eyes showed stable vision. The central foveal thickness showed significant reduction (p = 0.05) in all the eyes. The best corrected visual acuity at final follow up (+0.65 logMAR) was slightly less as compared to baseline (+0.62 logMAR). Retreatment was needed in 37% eyes and antiglaucoma medications in 8% eyes. Cataract progression was noted in 24 eyes (37%); 17 eyes (26.1%) underwent surgery. Notably, 27 eyes (41.5%) had some degree of macular ischemia at baseline. And five eyes (7.7%) showed progression of retinopathy leading to vitreous hemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone implant is helpful in reducing the macular thickness and stabilizing the vision in treatment naïve DME; requiring less number of treatment sessions. However, it does not prevent progression of diabetic retinopathy. The visual improvement may be affected by cataract and macular ischemia.

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus dexamethasone implant in macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Intravitreal ranibizumab (RNB) and dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DII) were developed in the recent past and has been widely used for macular edema secondary to BRVO. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab (RNB) compared to dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DII) in patients with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search on topics that assess RNB and DII in patients with macular edema secondary to BRVO from several electronic databases.

RESULTS

There were 678 subjects from five studies. Ranibizumab was associated with a greater increase in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference 9.13, I²: 0%) compared to DII. Ranibizumab also demonstrated a greater ⩾10 (OR 2.76, I²: 0%) and ⩾15 letters (OR 2.78, I²: 0%) gain. RNB has better BCVA (logMAR scale) improvement at 6 months' follow up (mean difference -0.15, I²: 64%) in favor of RNB. Higher IOP was found in DII group on follow-up (mean difference -2.92, I²: 89%) and RNB has lesser IOP ⩾10 mmHg increase compared to DII (OR 0.08, I²: 0%). Cataract formation and/or progression was less in RNB (OR 0.53, I²: 75%). The need for rescue laser was similar the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal RNB was more effective with less pronounced effect on IOP and cataract formation and/or progression compared to DII for patients with macular edema secondary to BRVO.

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.

INVICTUS: Intravitreal anti-VEGF and dexamethasone implant comparison for the treatment of diabetic macular edema: A 12 months follow-up study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of intravitreal injections (IVI) of ranibizumab (Lucentis^®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland; RAN), aflibercept (Eylea^®, Bayer, Leverkusen, Germany; AFL) and dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex^®, Allergan, Irvine, California; DXI) in the treatment of naive diabetic macular oedema (DME) during a 12-month follow-up, in real life.

METHODS

Nineteen eyes treated with RAN, 20 with AFL and 21 with DXI were analysed from inclusion up to 12 months (M12) with intermediate analysis at M6. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), fundus and central retinal thickness (CRT) using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT; Spectralis/HRA, Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) were performed at inclusion, M3, M6 and M12.

RESULTS

BCVA improved until 67.9 letters ±13.3 SD (+5.5 letters) at M6 and 69.6 letters ±12 SD (+7.2 letters) at 12 months for RAN group (p = 0.036). For the AFL group it improved until 63.6 letters ±15.2 SD (+6.6 letters) at M6 and 67.5 letters ±12.2 SD (+8.5 letters) at 12 months (p = 0.014). Lastly DXI group improved by 66.9 letters ±15.1 SD (+7.9 letters) at M6 and 68.4 letters ±11.2 SD (+9.4 letters) at 12 months (p = 0.0023). CRT decreased by 124.4 µm at M6 and 99.3 µm at M12 in RAN group, 144.3 µm and 101.5 µm in AFL group and finally 95.6 µm and 162.7 µm in DXI group.

CONCLUSION

In summary, these three drugs provide an efficient treatment option with an acceptable benefit-risk ratio for the treatment of naive patients with DME, whether on BCVA or CRT on the first year of treatment.

Diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, and cardiovascular risk: the importance of a long-term perspective and a multidisciplinary approach to optimal intravitreal therapy

Diabetic retinopathy (DR), diabetic macular edema (DME), and cardiovascular disease (CVD) resulting from vascular damage from persistently elevated blood glucose levels are among the serious secondary pathologies associated with long-standing diabetes mellitus. The established link between DR and CVD suggests the need for appropriate and early management of patients with diabetes to minimize CV risk. This is of particular importance in patients with recent, or a history of, major CV events. Early management of DR is a complex task that requires comprehensive evaluation and a multidisciplinary approach to manage complications, risk factors, and interactions between different aspects of the disease. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have become an important therapeutic modality in ophthalmology. However, their use is contraindicated in patients with DR and/or DME with a CV event in the previous 3 months. In patients with DME, corticosteroids target the multifaceted inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of DR, with a broader spectrum of action than anti-VEGF agents. In this context, recent guidelines suggest the use of corticosteroids, and in particular dexamethasone intravitreal implant, as a well-tolerated and efficacious first-line treatment in patients with high CV risk, such as a history of or recent major CV events. This review focuses on the subset of diabetic patients with a prior CV event, DR, and DME and discusses the need for a holistic approach in evaluating the optimal therapeutic choice for the care of the individual patient, supported by real-world clinical experience on long-term dexamethasone intravitreal implant therapy.