Ocular hypertension and intravitreal steroids injections, update in 2023. French guidelines of the French glaucoma society and the French ophthalmology society

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.

Dexamethasone Implant under a Proactive Treatment Regimen in a Clinical Setting: The ProDEX Study

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of switching intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX-implant) from pro re nata (PRN) treatment regimen to a proactive regimen in patients with macular edema of diverse etiologies.

DESIGN

An observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, multicenter, national case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-one eyes from 68 patients treated between October 2015 and June 2023 were included.

METHODS

This study included consecutive eyes treated with DEX-implant who were switched from a PRN regimen to a proactive regimen for diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), noninfectious uveitis macular edema (UME; including postsurgical macular edema), and radiation maculopathy (RM).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) at each visit.

RESULTS

According to the etiology, DME represented 49.4% of eyes, UME 24.3%, RVO 21.0%, and RM 6.2%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of follow-up under the PRN and proactive regimens was 20.6 (13.3) and 14.2 (10.3) months, respectively. Switching from a PRN to a proactive regimen significantly improved mean (SD) BCVA by 3.7 (12.9) ETDRS letters (P = 0.01) with a mean (SD) decrease in CMT of 108.0 (151.4) μm (P < 0.001). The proportion of visits with significant anatomic recurrence (> 50 μm) also decreased from 40.1% to 6.0% after switching to a proactive regimen (P < 0.001). The number of DEX-implant injections significantly increased during the proactive treatment period (P < 0.001), but the change in the number of visits was not significantly different (P = 0.2). The proactive treatment period was not associated with a significant increase in IOP (P = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to a proactive regimen in patients already treated with DEX-implant seems to significantly improve BCVA and CMT while maintaining stable IOP.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.