Clinical Effectiveness of Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) (ILUVIEN™) in Patients with Diabetic Macular Oedema (DMO) Refractory to Prior Therapy: The Manchester Experience

What have we learned from a decade treating patients with diabetic macular oedema with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant?

Diabetic macular oedema [DMO] is a prevalent and sight-threatening condition among diabetic patients, which can cause irreversible blindness. Since angiogenesis and inflammation are two key elements in the etiopathogenesis of DMO, intravitreal injections of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors [anti-VEGF] and sustained released intravitreal corticosteroid implants are currently considered as treatments of choice. The introduction, 10 years ago, of the 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide [FAc] implant for treating eyes with vision impairment associated with recurrent and persistent DMO represented an important advance. Since then, two randomized-control trials and many real-world studies have shown its good efficacy/safety profile and the replicability of its treatment regimen. The FAc implant is, in general terms well tolerated, although it is associated with intraocular pressure-[IOP] and cataract-related adverse events [AEs]. Most IOP-related AEs are effectively controlled with ocular-hypotensive therapies. The objective of this paper is to review the role of FAc implant in the treatment of DMO over the 10 years since its launch, as well as its impact on clinical practice outcomes.

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in diabetic macular edema patients considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies (REACT): a prospective, non-randomized, and multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the intravitreal fluocinolone-acetonide implant (FAc-i) in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema who did not sufficiently respond to other available therapies.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, non-randomized, and phase-IV observational study conducted on patients with recurrent-DME who were insufficient responders to currently available therapies (REACT-Study). The primary end-point was the mean change in best-corrected-visual-acuity from baseline to month-24 values.

RESULTS

Thirty-one eyes from 31 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 68.0 ± 7.7 years, and 10 (32.3%) were women. Study patients had received 5.3 ± 7.3 previous DME treatments before starting the study. In the overall study sample, BCVA improved from 56.1 ± 12.3 letters at baseline to 62.4 ± 17.0 letters at month-24 (p = 0.0510). The eyes with a baseline BCVA < 70 ETDRS letters had a significant improvement in BCVA from 53.2 ± 10.2 letters at baseline to 61.5 ± 17.9 letters at month-24 (p = 0.0165). In the overall study population, central-subfoveal-thickness (CST) was significantly reduced from 474.0 ± 135.1 µm at baseline to 333.4 ± 135.6 at month-24 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, macular-volume (MV) was significantly reduced from 10.7 ± 2.7 mm3 at baseline to 9.6 ± 2.9 mm3 (p = 0.0027) at month-24. Among the 31 study eyes, 19 (61.3%) required an additional treatment for DME. Throughout the study, 9 (29.0%) eyes required ocular hypotensive medication for controlling their intraocular-pressure and 5 (16.1%) eyes underwent cataract surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In DME eyes who did not sufficiently respond to previous therapies, the FAc-i was associated with an improvement in visual and anatomic outcomes. There were no unexpected adverse-events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT identifier: 2016-001680-37.

Intraocular Pressure Changes After Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant: Results from Four European Countries

INTRODUCTION

The 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant delivers a continuous intravitreal corticosteroid dose for the treatment of refractory diabetic macular oedema (DMO). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an FAc intravitreal implant on intraocular pressure (IOP).

METHODS

We retrospectively collected anonymised data on the patients' characteristics, DMO treatment, and IOP and IOP-lowering treatments before and after the FAc intravitreal implant between September 2013 and March 2020 in several European centres.

RESULTS

A total of 221 eyes from 179 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 13.4 (± 12.5, range 2.4-33.5) months. Overall, 194 eyes (88.2%) had received an intravitreal dexamethasone injection before the FAc intravitreal implant. For 25 eyes (11.3%) there was a history of glaucoma, and 52 eyes (23.5%) had previous IOP-lowering treatment. Mean IOP before injection was 14.7 (3.4) mmHg and increased to 16.9 (3.7) mmHg 12 months after injection (P < 0.0001). During follow-up, 55 eyes (24.9%) required the addition or initiation of topical IOP-lowering medication, only one patient (0.5%) had laser trabeculoplasty and one patient (0.5%) a minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, and no patient required incisional IOP-lowering surgery.

CONCLUSION

The FAc intravitreal implant led to substantial IOP elevation. This elevation was monitored most of the time with addition or initiation of topical IOP-lowering medication.

Extended real-world experience with the ILUVIEN® (fluocinolone acetonide) implant in the United Kingdom: 3-year results from the Medisoft® audit study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the long-term effectiveness of the 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant over ≥3 years for patients with diabetic macular oedema.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of pseudo-anonymised data from patients with chronic diabetic macular oedema (cDMO) and treated with the FAc implant across 14 UK clinical sites. Safety and clinical effectiveness were measured.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and fifty-six eyes had ≥3 years of follow-up (mean 4.28 years), during which a mean of 1.14 FAc implants were used per eye. Mean best-recorded visual acuity (BRVA) increased from 52.6 to 56.7 letters at month 3 and remained stable thereafter; this trend was also seen in pseudophakic eyes. The proportion of patients attaining a BRVA ≥6/12 increased from 17% at baseline to 27% 1 month after FAc implant and remained stable above 30% from month 12 onwards. Eyes with no prior history of intraocular pressure (IOP)-related events required significantly less treatment-emergent IOP-lowering medication than those with a prior history of IOP events (17.9% vs. 50.0% of eyes; p < 0.001). The incidence of an IOP increase of ≥10 mmHg, use of IOP-lowering medication, laser trabeculoplasty and IOP-lowering surgery was 28.9%, 29.7%, 0.8% and 2.7%, respectively, for the whole cohort. There were significant reductions in mean central foveal thickness and macular volume (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The FAc implant was well tolerated, with predictable and manageable IOP-related events while delivering a continuous microdose of corticosteroid to eyes with cDMO, providing prolonged vision preservation and a reduced number of treatments.

Fluocinolone acetonide implant in diabetic macular edema: International experts' panel consensus guidelines and treatment algorithm

Center-involving diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision impairment in working-age adults. While its management is particularly challenging in a poorly compliant population, continuous innovation and the advent of new molecules have improved its outcome. The control of glycemia and of systemic aggravating factors remain essential to slow down progression of disease complications including DME. The indications for macular laser photocoagulation has progressively been phased out as a standard of care and replaced by local intraocular anti-VEGFs biologics and glucocorticoids (GCs). Intravitreal GCs in controlled-release drug delivery systems have allowed to reduce injection frequency and treatment burden. The non biodegradable Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) implant allows a long-lasting stabilization of both functional and anatomic improvements. However, adequate patient selection and monitoring through regular follow-up are essential for optimal results. Based on their experience and the latest literature, the aim of the present review is to provide international expert panel consensus on the place of the FAc implant in the treatment algorithm of DME, as well as its safety profile and how to manage it.

Fluocinolone acetonide vitreous insert for chronic diabetic macular oedema: a systematic review with meta-analysis of real-world experience

We conducted a meta-analysis of real-world studies on the 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant for chronic diabetic macular oedema (DMO), comparing these findings with the Fluocinolone Acetonide for Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) study. The primary outcome was mean change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were 36-month mean BCVA, mean central macular thickness (CMT) change, rates of eyes receiving supplementary intravitreal therapy, cataract surgery, intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering drops and glaucoma surgery. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Nine real-world studies were included. The FAc implant yielded a significantly improved BCVA at 24 and 36 months (24-month MD = 4.52; 95% CI 2.56–6.48; 36-month MD = 8.10; 95% CI 6.34–9.86). These findings were comparable with the FAME study. The FAc implant yielded significantly reduced 24- and 36-month CMT. Pooled proportions of cataract surgery, IOP-lowering drops and glaucoma surgery were 39%, 27% and 3%, respectively, all lower than the FAME study. Pooled estimate of supplementary intravitreal therapy was 39%, higher than the 15.2% of the FAME study. This meta-analysis of real-world studies confirms favorable visual and anatomical outcomes following FAc insert for chronic DMO. In real-life studies more than one third of patients received supplementary intravitreal therapy, an issue that needs to be further explored.

Intravitreal Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: An Update

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

Switching to intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant for refractory diabetic macular edema: 12- and 24-month results

PURPOSE

To report visual and anatomical outcomes of chronic/refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant.

SETTING

Retrospective, one arm, multicentric study.

METHOD

Between 2013 and 2018, 27 consecutive eyes of 25 patients with chronic/refractory DME were treated with a fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant. Best registered visual acuity (BRVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and Goldmann tonometry intraocular pressure (IOP) were assessed at 12 and 24 months. The need for IOP lowering treatment as well as top-up therapy during the follow-up were also assessed.

RESULTS

The duration of DME prior to treatment in our study was 54 ± 24 months. The baseline mean BRVA of 0.7 ± 0.34 logMAR improved to 0.5 ± 0.3 (p = 0.01) at 12 months and 0.46 ± 0.3 (p = 0.04) at 24 months. At 12 months, BRVA improved in 14 eyes (52%), stabilized in 5 eyes (20%), and decreased in 3 eyes (11%). At 24 months, BRVA improved further in 6 eyes (24%), stabilized in 3 eyes (12%), and decreased in 6 eyes (24 %). Mean CRT decreased from 497 ± 176 to 349 ± 186 μm at 12 months (p = 0.0005) and to 267 ± 104 μm at 24 months (p = 0.001). Only five eyes required additional treatment for DME and only three eyes required treatment for raised IOP.

DISCUSSION

Our results show that the visual and the anatomical improvements achieved by a single injection of a fluocinolone acetonide implant were maintained up to 24 months with minimal additional therapy even in eyes with a long and heavy history; however, IOP monitoring remains essential.

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review

To assess real-world outcomes of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in treating diabetic macular edema (DME), a systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed in order to identify publications assessing the efficacy and safety of the FAc implant in DME in daily practice. Case reports and randomized controlled trials were excluded. Twenty-two observational real-world studies analyzing a total of 1880 eyes were included. Mean peak visual gain was +8.7 letters (11.3 months post-FAc injection) and was greater for lower baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and for more recent DME. Mean central retinal thickness (CRT) decreased 34.3% from baseline. 77.0% of the analyzed studies reported both BCVA improvement of at least five letters and a CRT decrease by 20% or more. Rescue therapy was needed more frequently when FAc was administered for chronic DME. FAc-induced ocular hypertension was reported in 20.1% of patients but only 0.6% needed surgery. Cataract extraction was performed in 43.2% of phakic patients. Adequate patient selection is essential for optimal FAc response and better safety profile. Currently positioned as second- or third-line treatment in the management algorithm, FAc implant decreases treatment burden and provides better letter gain when administered for more recent DME.

Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarkers of Inflammation in Diabetic Macular Edema Treated by Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Drug-Delivery System Implant

Introduction

The fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal drug-delivery system implant is a recent, second-line, intravitreal drug for the management of diabetic macular edema (DME). FAc acts against DME with a major anti-inflammatory effect. Despite the already proved efficacy, a number of patients still show persistent DME and require anti-VEGF retreatment. The main aim of the present study was to assess the relationship between quantitative biomarkers of inflammation and both DME recovery and the need for additional anti-VEGF in eyes treated by FAc implant.

Methods

The study was designed as prospective and interventional with 1 year of follow-up. We analyzed structural optical coherence tomography (OCT) quantitative biomarkers of inflammation, namely choroidal hyperreflective foci (HF) and the choroidal vascularity index (CVI), and we assessed the relationship with other clinically relevant biomarkers and the outcome achieved after 1 year. Moreover, we stratified DME eyes in good and poor responders to FAc implant to highlight clinically relevant differences.

Results

Our study included 50 eyes (50 patients) treated by FAc implant. We found significant best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) improvements after 1 year. Good responders started with worse visual acuity and higher CMT than poor responders, but gained letters significantly at the end of the follow-up, whereas poor responders showed stable BCVA values. Good responders were characterized by significantly higher choroidal HF and lower CVI than poor responders. Poor responders required significantly higher additional anti-VEGF treatments.

Conclusions

Quantitative structural OCT biomarkers of inflammation allowed distinguishing different inflammatory profiles of DME. The inflammatory component helped to categorize DME eyes in good and poor responders to FAc implant.

Clinical-Decision Criteria to Identify Recurrent Diabetic Macular Edema Patients Suitable for Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Therapy (ILUVIEN®) and Follow-Up Considerations/Recommendations

Current management of diabetic macular edema (DME) predominantly involves treatment with short-acting intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs) and/or corticosteroids; however, short-acting therapies (lasting between 1 and 6 months) require frequent injections to maintain efficacy, meaning a considerable treatment burden for diabetic patients with multiple comorbidities. Continuous injections needed in some cases are an economic burden for patients/healthcare system, so real-life clinical practice tends to adopt a reactive approach, ie, watch and wait for worsening symptoms, which consequently increases the risk of undertreatment and edema recurrence. On March 7th 2019, a group of experts in retinal medicine and surgery held a roundtable meeting in Madrid, Spain to discuss how to (1) optimize clinical outcomes through earlier use of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant (ILUVIEN^®) in patients with persistent or recurrent DME despite therapy; and, (2) to provide guidance to assist physicians in deciding which patients should be treated with ILUVIEN. In this regard, a 36-month follow-up consensus protocol is presented. In conclusion, patients that achieve a complete or partial anatomical, and preferably functional, response following one or two intravitreal dexamethasone implants, but with recurrence of edema after 3-4 months, are deemed by the authors most likely to benefit from ILUVIEN, and the switch to FAc implant should not be delayed more than 12 months after the initiation of at least the first dexamethasone implant.

Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema

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