Aflibercept-Related Sterile Intraocular Inflammation Outcomes

VEGF signaling: Role in angiogenesis and beyond

Angiogenesis is a crucial process for tissue development, repair, and tumor survival. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a key driver secreted by cancer cells, promoting neovascularization. While VEGF's role in angiogenesis is well-documented, its influence on the other aspects in tumor microenvironemt is less discussed. This review elaborates on VEGF's impact on intercellular interactions within the tumor microenvironment, including how VEGF affects pericyte proliferation and migration and mediates interactions between tumor-associated macrophages and cancer cells, resulting in PDL-1-mediated immunosuppression and Nrf2-mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition. The review discusses VEGF's involvement in intra-organelle crosstalk, tumor metabolism, stemness, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. It also provides insights into current anti-VEGF therapies and their limitations in cancer treatment. Overall, this review aims to provide a thorough overview of the current state of knowledge concerning VEGF signaling and its impact, not only on angiogenesis but also on various other oncogenic processes.

METHOD OF POVIDONE-IODINE APPLICATION AND ENDOPHTHALMITIS RISK

PURPOSE

To evaluate the proportion of patients developing endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents according to the mode of povidone-iodine (PI) antisepsis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections given in a 7-year period at a community-based retinal practice. Endophthalmitis was diagnosed to have occurred if an eye developed intraocular inflammation and was given antibiotics with or without supportive culture identification of an organism. As part of their habitual clinical practice, component physicians used 5% PI as two drops, one drop, or just a dot of PI administered with a cotton-tipped applicator to the site before injection.

RESULTS

There were 113,610 intravitreal injections administered and 23 cases were diagnosed with endophthalmitis over the 7-year period, for a rate of 1 case per 4,940 injections. The mode of PI antisepsis showed no significant relation to the rate of endophthalmitis ( P = 0.55, chi-square test). The proportion of endophthalmitis by physician demonstrated no significant difference ( P = 0.39, chi-square test).

CONCLUSION

The use of PI has been associated with decreased incidence of endophthalmitis, but the mode of application has not been standardized. The results of this study suggest that "more is not better" in PI antisepsis in endophthalmitis. Moreover, the toxicity of PI on the ocular surface is known to be dose-related.

Retinal Vasculitis After Intravitreal Pegcetacoplan: Report From the ASRS Research and Safety in Therapeutics (ReST) Committee

Purpose: To analyze post-marketing cases of retinal vasculitis after intravitreal pegcetacoplan. Methods: The American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) Research and Safety in Therapeutics (ReST) Committee as well as an expert panel performed a retrospective review of cases of retinal vasculitis reported to the ASRS. Clinical and imaging characteristics were reviewed for evidence of retinal vasculitis and analyzed. Results: Fourteen eyes of 13 patients were confirmed to have retinal vasculitis by review of imaging studies. All cases occurred after the first pegcetacoplan injection. Occlusive retinal vasculopathy was confirmed in 11 eyes (79%). Patients presented a median of 10.5 days (range, 8-23 days) after pegcetacoplan injection. All eyes had anterior chamber inflammation, and 12 eyes (86%) had vitritis. Vasculopathy involved retinal veins (100%) more than arteries (73%), and 12 eyes (86%) had retinal hemorrhages. The median visual acuity (VA) was 20/60 (range, 20/30-5/200) at baseline, 20/300 (range, 20/100-no light perception [NLP]) at vasculitis presentation, and 20/200 (range 20/70-NLP) at the last follow-up. Eight eyes (57%) had more than a 3-line decrease in VA, and 6 eyes (43%) had more than a 6-line decrease in VA from baseline to the final follow-up, including 2 eyes that were enucleated. Six eyes (43%) developed signs of anterior segment neovascularization. Conclusions: There is currently no known etiology for vasculitis in this series. Optimum treatment strategies remain unknown. Infectious etiologies should be considered, and corticosteroid treatments may hasten resolution of inflammatory findings. Continued treatment of affected patients with pegcetacoplan should be avoided.

Comparison of Endophthalmitis Rates after Alcohol-Based Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine Antisepsis for Intravitreal Injections

OBJECTIVE

Intravitreal injections (IVIs) are the most frequently performed intraocular procedure in Canada. Povidone-iodine (PI) is the current gold standard for antisepsis for IVI and is widely used; chlorhexidine (CH) is a possible alternative antiseptic agent. This study aims to compare rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 0.05% chlorhexidine with a 4% alcohol base antisepsis to rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 10% PI antisepsis.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Eyes that received IVI between May 2019 and October 2022 at a group retina practice in Edmonton, Canada.

METHODS

Eyes at a single center received focal conjunctival application of either 10% PI antisepsis or 0.05% CH in 4% alcohol antisepsis for 30 seconds before each IVI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Rates of endophthalmitis between the PI and CH groups.

RESULTS

A total of 170 952 IVIs were performed during the study period. A total of 31 135 were performed using CH prophylaxis compared with 139 817 with PI prophylaxis. Among all IVIs there were 49 total cases of endophthalmitis, 29 in the PI group (0.021%) and 20 in the CH group (0.064%). There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of endophthalmitis between the 2 groups (P < 0.001). The odds ratio for developing endophthalmitis with CH antisepsis was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-5.2) compared with PI antisepsis. There were increased odds of developing endophthalmitis with aflibercept injection compared with bevacizumab (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-7.24).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a statistically significant difference in rates of endophthalmitis between alcohol-based CH and PI antisepsis for IVI in our patient population utilizing the methods discussed. In our center, alcohol-based CH is now considered a second-line antiseptic agent. Further studies are warranted to further assess the endophthalmitis rate utilizing these 2 antiseptic agents.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

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

Uveitis Following Intravitreal Injections of Faricimab: A Case Report

PURPOSE

Faricimab, a novel pharmaceutical agent targeting both angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor-A pathways, has gained approval for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration and diabetic macular oedema. While clinical trials have demonstrated its favorable safety profile, this research presents two cases of hypertensive uveitis following intravitreal Faricimab injections.

METHODS

Medical history, clinical findings and multimodal images were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

The patients experienced elevated intraocular pressure, mutton-fat keratic precipitates, anterior and posterior segment inflammation shortly after faricimab administration.

CONCLUSIONS

These cases prompt further investigation into the potential risk of uveitis associated with faricimab and underscore the importance of continued monitoring and research to elucidate its real-world safety profile.

Long-term surveillance provides real-world evidences of safety and effectiveness in intravitreal aflibercept treatment for age-related macular degeneration

This prospective, multicentre, postmarketing surveillance were conducted to report on the long-term safety and effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment in clinical practice of Japanese patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) who newly initiated IVT-AFL treatment. The primary outcomes were the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) over 36 months. Number of injections, timing of ADR occurrence, and some effectiveness index were also summarised. A total of 3,872 patients received 7.2 ± 5.8 (mean ± standard deviation) injections, and AEs occurred in 5.73% of patients. ADRs were reported in 2.76% of patients, with ocular and nonocular ADRs in 2.07% and 0.72% of patients, respectively. Most vitreo-retinal events developed within 6 months of initial IVT-AFL treatment, and most instances of increased intraocular pressure and cerebral infarction developed after 6 months of follow-up. Mean best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness were numerically better throughout the follow-up period compared with baseline. These results indicated acceptable tolerability and effectiveness of IVT-AFL treatment in patients with nAMD in clinical practice in Japan. Information regarding the risk and the timing of ADRs is valuable for safe and effective long-term treatment of patients with nAMD.Trial registration number: NCT01756248.

Impact of Modifying Abicipar Manufacturing Process in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: MAPLE Study Results

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of modifying the abicipar pegol (abicipar) manufacturing process on the safety and treatment effect of abicipar in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Methods

A new process for manufacturing abicipar was developed to reduce host cell impurities. In a prospective, Phase 2, multicenter, open-label, 28-week clinical trial, patients (n=123) with active nAMD received intravitreal injections of abicipar 2 mg at baseline (day 1) and weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24. Outcome measures included proportion of patients with stable vision (<15-letter loss from baseline; primary endpoint), change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT), and adverse events.

Results

Overall, 8.9% (11/123) of patients experienced intraocular inflammation (IOI) and discontinued treatment. IOI cases were assessed as mild (2.4% [3/123]), moderate (4.9% [6/123]), or severe (1.6% [2/123]) and resolved with steroid treatment. Visual acuity in most patients with IOI (8 of 11) recovered to baseline BCVA or better by study end. No cases of endophthalmitis or retinal vasculitis were reported. Stable vision was maintained for ≥95.9% (≥118/123) of patients at all study visits. At week 28, treatment-naïve patients showed a greater mean improvement from baseline in BCVA compared with previously treated patients (4.4 vs 1.8 letters) and a larger mean CRT reduction from baseline (98.5 vs 45.5 μm).

Conclusion

Abicipar produced using a modified manufacturing process showed a moderately lower incidence and severity of IOI compared with Phase 3 abicipar studies. Beneficial effects of treatment were demonstrated.

Clinical Practice Update: Management of Infectious Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injection

Although infectious endophthalmitis after intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor injections is rare, it is the most feared and potentially devastating complication of this procedure. There is no high-level evidence to provide definitive guidance on the management of endophthalmitis occurring after intravitreal injection (IVI). This clinical practice update reviews the published literature regarding post-IVI endophthalmitis and highlights areas in which further research is needed to better guide its management.

Preventive factors, diagnosis, and management of injection-related endophthalmitis: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Intravitreal medication injections represent the gold standard treatment for a variety of potentially blinding chorioretinal vascular diseases. Despite their excellent safety profile, they are associated with the feared complication of injection-related endophthalmitis (IRE). Though the overall incidence of IRE is low, due to the ever-increasing number of injections being performed, it is a complication that all retina specialists are likely to encounter. This article reviews various factors that could potentially influence the risk of IRE and discusses evidence-based strategies for management.

METHOD

PubMed was searched for keywords "intravitreal injection" and "endophthalmitis" from the period of 1995-2021. Relevant articles were reviewed and selected articles were analyzed with respect to the incidence, potential preventive factors, clinical presentation, microbial profile, management, and outcomes for IRE.

RESULTS

There is strong consensus supporting the use of povidone iodine topical antiseptic, eyelid retraction away from the injection site, and avoiding treatment of eyes with active surface or eyelid disease, but there is less agreement on the use of face masks versus "no-talking" policies and optimal anesthetic technique. Current evidence comparing tap and inject or early vitrectomy for treatment of IRE is inadequate to determine an optimal treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal injections are sight saving, but even using established prophylactic measures there remains a small but real risk of infectious injection-related complications. Further investigations comparing tap and inject versus vitrectomy may help to establish optimal treatment, although the rarity of IRE makes designing adequately powered prospective trials a difficult task.

Ocular inflammation after agitation of siliconized and silicone oil-free syringes: a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial

Background

Noninfectious endophthalmitis may be misdiagnosed, leading to serious clinical implications. So far, its causative factors remain unknown. Therefore, this study assessed the role of silicone oil and syringe agitation in the development of inflammation after intravitreal injection of aflibercept.

Methods

A randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial included subjects with an indication of intravitreal antiangiogenic therapy prior to vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Aflibercept was injected 48 h before surgery. The control group received the injection without agitation, while the intervention group was injected with a previously agitated syringe by flicking with either a siliconized or silicone oil-free syringe. The primary endpoint was the presence of anterior chamber reaction (ACR) at 48 h. Aqueous samples were collected and underwent cytometric bead array analysis for quantification of interleukins and chemokines.

Results

Forty-one individuals were included (21 in the agitation group and 20 in the no-agitation group). None of the included eyes showed baseline signs of AC cells, hyperemia or pain complaint, while 10% of control group and 80% of agitation group showed AC cells 48 h after injection of aflibercept with SR syringe. There were no differences in the mean variations of all cytokines and chemokines by agitation status. However, there was a marginally significant increase between the mean variations of IP-10 (p = 0.057) and IL-8 (p = 0.058) in the siliconized one.

Conclusion

This clinical trial discloses a potential role of agitation and siliconized syringes in the development of inflammation after an intravitreal injection of aflibercept. These findings have important clinical implications for all healthcare practitioners who perform intravitreal injections.

Trial Registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, RBR-95ddhp. Registered 12 May 2019, http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-95ddhp/

Management Patterns and Outcomes for Intravitreal Injection–Related Endophthalmitis

Purpose:

This work describes the clinical management and outcomes in cases of presumed infectious endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection at a tertiary academic medical center.

Methods:

A retrospective review took place of eyes that presented to the Duke Eye Center over a 9-year period and were diagnosed with intravitreal injection–related endophthalmitis. Clinical presentation, management, microbiologic yield, visual outcomes, and complications were abstracted from medical records.

Results:

Of 23 eyes diagnosed with postinjection endophthalmitis, 52.2% underwent anterior chamber tap (33.3% of which first underwent dry needle vitreous tap), 47.8% underwent needle vitreous tap, 17.4% underwent neither, and none underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for initial management. Subsequent PPV was performed in 6 eyes (26.1%). Mean visual acuity (VA) improved by 50 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters at 6 months. Eyes that underwent initial anterior chamber tap had worse presenting VA than those that did not ( P = .01). Eyes undergoing subsequent PPV had worse VA at presentation ( P = .02) and at 6 months ( P < .001). Eyes presenting with VA of hand motion (20/8000) or worse were more likely to undergo subsequent PPV ( P = .02).

Conclusions:

Eyes with intravitreal injection–related endophthalmitis presenting with VA of hand motion or worse were more likely to undergo subsequent PPV. Future studies with larger cohorts may reveal whether earlier vitrectomy should be considered in these patients.

Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Factor Injections: Outcomes of Eyes Managed Without Microbiologic Cultures

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes of eyes that developed endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections that were managed without microbiologic cultures.

DESIGN

Retrospective, single-center, comparative cohort study.

METHODS

We included all eyes with postinjection endophthalmitis from July 1, 2013, to September 1, 2019. Endophthalmitis cases were divided into the culture group if treated with intravitreal antibiotics and a vitreous or aqueous tap sent for microbiologic sampling or into the no culture group if treated with immediate injection of intravitreal antibiotics with an anterior chamber paracentesis that was not sent for microbiologic sampling. The main outcome measures were visual acuity, the incidence of retinal detachment, and the need for additional procedures.

RESULTS

Of 165 endophthalmitis cases identified, 119 (72%) were in the culture group and 46 (28%) were in the no culture group. At endophthalmitis presentation, eyes in the culture group had a mean logMAR VA of 1.98 (∼20/1900) compared with 1.90 (∼20/1600) for eyes in the no culture group (P = .589). At the 6-month follow-up, the mean vision loss was 5.5 lines lost from baseline for the culture group compared with 2.5 lines lost for the no culture group (P = .017). Eyes in the culture group required a subsequent pars plana vitrectomy in 29 of 119 cases (24%) compared with 7 of 46 cases (15%) in the no culture group (P = .29). Six of 119 eyes (5%) in the culture group developed secondary retinal detachments compared with none in the no culture group (P = .143).

CONCLUSIONS

When access to microbiologic facility is not available, the management of postinjection endophthalmitis using intravitreal antibiotics without microbiologic cultures may be an acceptable treatment strategy.

Outcomes after switching eyes that were stable on aflibercept to ranibizumab versus continuing aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE

To describe outcomes of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) eyes that were stable on aflibercept but switched to ranibizumab compared to eyes maintained on aflibercept over the same period.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, eyes switched from aflibercept to ranibizumab due to intraocular inflammation (IOI) concerns with aflibercept were identified. Data was gathered from 3 visits pre-switch, switch visit (Sw), and 3 visits post-switch (P1, P2, P3). Similar data was gathered on eyes eligible to switch but continued on aflibercept with the middle visit considered the "presumed switch." Outcome measures included visual acuity (VA) and central foveal thickness (CFT).

RESULTS

A total of 142 eyes were analyzed with 71 in each of the switch and aflibercept groups. In the switch group, mean CFT increased from 165.7 µm at Sw to 184.7 µm at P1 (p = 0.009), 180.9 µm at P2 (p = 0.007), and 183.3 µm at P3 (p = 0.004). VA changed from logMAR 0.43 (20/54) at Sw to 0.49 (20/61) at P1 (p = 0.02), 0.54 (20/69) at P2 (p = 0.008), and 0.53 (20/68) at P3 (p = 0.04). In the aflibercept group, no significant change in CFT was found over the same period. VA changed from logMAR 0.56 (20/72) at the "presumed switch" to 0.58 (20/76) at P1 (p = 0.085), 0.62 (20/83) at P2 (p = 0.001), and 0.59 (20/77) at P3 (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

nAMD eyes that were stable or improving on aflibercept but were switched to ranibizumab worsened, while those in a comparable group maintained on aflibercept remained fairly stable, suggesting a potential efficacy difference between the two drugs.

Ganglion Cell Layer Thickness Change in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treated With Anti-VEGF Injections

Purpose:

This work assesses bilateral ganglion cell layer–inner plexiform layer (GCL-IPL) thickness changes in patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF).

Methods:

In this single-center, retrospective, cohort study, the medical records of patients with unilateral nAMD treated with anti-VEGF were reviewed. The treated group included eyes with newly diagnosed nAMD that subsequently underwent treatment with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. The control group was the fellow eye with dry AMD. Eyes receiving at least 10 intravitreal injections were included. Measurement of GCL-IPL thickness was performed at different time points using spectral domain–optical coherence tomography.

Results:

A total of 216 eyes of 108 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age ± SD was 80.1 ± 10.7 years. Eyes in the treated group underwent a mean ± SD of 20.2 ± 7.2 injections in 21.3 ± 6.8 months. At baseline, average mean ± SD of GCL-IPL thickness was 73.71 ± 8.81 µm and 73.84 ± 8.26 µm in the treated and fellow eye, respectively ( P = .795). After 10 injections the average thickness was 65.41 ± 14.08 µm and 68.77 ± 13.24 µm in the treated and fellow eye, respectively ( P = .007). The absolute decrease in thickness was significantly greater in the treated eye than the fellow eye (mean ± SD, 8.31 ± 11.19 µm vs 5.07 ± 10.83 µm, respectively; P = .002).

Conclusions:

GCL-IPL thickness decreased significantly in the treated group more than in the control group after 10 anti-VEGF injections. The mechanism and clinical significance of this observation warrants further study.

Side Effects of Brolucizumab

Age-related macular degeneration and its complication, subretinal neovascularization, are common causes of progressive, irreversible impairment of central vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy has improved the visual outcome and provided an evolution in the treatment of retinal disease. The current four anti-VEGF drugs – pegaptanib, ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab – have been administered for many years. A new anti-VEGF agent, brolucizumab, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late 2019 for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration. Brolucizumab is a novel single-chain fragment variable antibody that inhibits all isoforms of VEGF-A and has been suggested to have more tissue penetration. Despite all the benefits, there are some reports of serious side effects that need to be understood in managing patients. Brolucizumab has been reported to cause occlusive retinal vasculitis in the setting of intraocular inflammation, which has not been seen in other anti-VEGF medications. A PubMed and Scopus search was performed and all article types were included. In the present article, we have reviewed the reported side effects of brolucizumab.

Short-term Safety Evaluation of Resident-performed Intravitreal Injection

Purpose: This study evaluated the short-term safety of resident-performed intravitreal injections.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 503 patients (503 eyes) treated for the first time in our hospital from January 2018 to October 2020 via intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept, or triamcinolone acetonide injections by residents or retina specialists. In terms of short-term ophthalmic complications, patients were followed-up 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after injection.Results: A total of 503 eyes of 503 patients were included. Intravitreal injections were given to 211 and 292 eyes by residents (the resident group) and retina specialists (the retina specialist group), respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics except in terms of the indications for injection. Intraocular pressure elevation >5 mmHg occurred in two eyes (0.95%) in the resident group and five (1.71%) in the retina specialist group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Subconjunctival hemorrhage occurred in 29 eyes (13.74%) of the resident group and 32 eyes (10.96%) of the retina specialist group; again, the difference was not statistically significant. No case of noninfectious endophthalmitis occurred in the resident group but two (0.68%) cases occurred in the retina specialist group; again, the difference was not significant. There were two (0.95%) cases of infectious endophthalmitis in the resident group and one (0.34%) case in the retina specialist group; again, the difference was not significant. No corneal erosion, traumatic lens damage, vitreous hemorrhage, or retinal tearing or detachment were noted in either group.Conclusions: Resident-performed intravitreal injections appear to be safe.

Brolucizumab-associated intraocular inflammation in eyes without retinal vasculitis

Purpose

To analyze a series of eyes with brolucizumab-associated intraocular inflammation (IOI) without retinal vasculitis reported to the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS).

Methods

The ASRS Research and Safety in Therapeutics (ReST) Committee analyzed clinical characteristics from submitted reports of IOI after brolucizumab. Eyes with retinal vasculitis or that received intraocular antibiotics were excluded.

Results

Forty-nine eyes of 45 patients were collected. Mean visual acuity (VA) at baseline was 20/49 (range 20/20 - 5/200). Patients presented with IOI a mean of 24 (range 3-63) days after most recent brolucizumab injection; 61% presented for an unscheduled visit while 39% presented at routine follow-up. Mean VA at IOI presentation was 20/67 (range 20/20 - 3/200). Most common symptoms were floaters (78%) and blurry vision (76%). Pain (20%) and redness (16%) were less common; 3 (6%) eyes were asymptomatic. IOI was anterior only in 18%, posterior only in 31%, and both anterior and posterior in 51% of eyes. Treatment included topical steroids alone in 67% eyes, while 10% eyes received no treatment. Mean VA at last follow-up was 20/56 (range 20/20 - 1/200). Three (6%) eyes lost 3 or more lines and 1 (2%) eye lost 6 or more lines.

Conclusions

Brolucizumab-associated IOI without retinal vasculitis typically presented with a delayed onset of a few weeks. Often, visual acuity decline was relatively mild. Most symptoms resolved and nearly all had a return to baseline VA, but a small percentage of patients had a significant decrease in VA at last follow-up.

Silicone oil droplets in the vitreous after intravitreal injections: review of literature with clinical examples

Currently, intravitreal injections are firmly in the lead as a drug delivery method for treatment of a wide range of eye diseases. With the accumulation of clinical material, knowledge about the complications and side effects of this technique is expanding. One of the undesirable phenomena that has been actively studied recently is the ingress of silicone oil droplets from single-use syringes and needles used to perform the procedure into the vitreous cavity of patients eyes. The analysis of the results of original studies on this issue is carried out, and the currently available practical recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of this complication are presented. The article is illustrated with original clinical examples. It can be concluded that the penetration of silicone oil into the eye cavity during intravitreal injections is an urgent problem of modern ophthalmology that requires further investigation and solution.

Non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions secondary to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factors

Purpose

To describe a series of non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs).

Patients and methods

Retrospective report of 6 patients with cutaneous non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, 4 after ranibizumab, 1 after bevacizumab and 1 after aflibercept.

Results

Clinical manifestations ranged from mild maculopapular rash, purpura to severe generalized erythroderma, with or without systemic involvement such as microscopic hematuria and proteinuria or fever. In two out of the six patients, reintroduction of either the same or an alternative anti-VEGF drug did induce a recurrence of the drug hypersensitivity reaction, while 4 patients showed no recurrence.

Conclusion

Cutaneous non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions secondary to intravitreal anti-VEGF may occur. Continuation of the same drug or switch to another anti-VEGF may either induce recurrence or be well supported by the patient. The decision of drug discontinuation should be guided by the severity of the disease.

Impact of patient face mask use on endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections with and without patient face masking.

DESIGN

Two-centre retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving a total of 28 501 injections (period 1 before masking: n = 13 863; period 2 after masking: n = 14 638) METHODS: Periods before and after implementation of patient masking were compared: period 1 (July-December 2019) and period 2 (July-December 2020). All patients requiring treatment for endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections were reviewed. Endophthalmitis risks were compared. Statistical simulations were run to determine the number of injections or endophthalmitis cases required to detect a statistically significant difference between both periods.

RESULTS

Five patients (0.036%) had endophthalmitis in period 1 compared with 7 patients (0.048%) in period 2. Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, for risk of patient masking was 1.326, 0.421-4.179 (p = 0.63). Three patients (0.022%) in period 1 had culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 2 patients (0.014%) in period 2. Risk of patient masking for culture-positive endophthalmitis was 0.631, 0.105-3.779 (p = 0.61). Assuming similar rates of endophthalmitis, 476,806 injections in both groups would be required to detect a significant difference. Alternatively, assuming that masking would increase endophthalmitis risk in period 2, a significant difference would require twice as many cases (n = 15, 0.102%) for a risk of 2.843, 1.033-7.825 (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of patient masking in clinical practice did not significantly alter the rate of endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections.

Rates of Suspected Endophthalmitis Following Intravitreal Injections in Clinical Practices in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate rates of suspected endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections of aflibercept, bevacizumab, ranibizumab (vial and pre-filled), dexamethasone implant, and triamcinolone in clinical practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of aggregated electronic medical records from the Vestrum Health Database. Eyes with a diagnosis of suspected endophthalmitis based on billing codes between January 2013 and June 2019 were included.

RESULTS

Total number of injections, suspected endophthalmitis cases, and medication rate, respectively, were: aflibercept (1,412,699; 687; 0.049%); bevacizumab (1,467,722; 379; 0.026%); ranibizumab vial (884,061; 233; 0.026%), ranibizumab pre-filled (427,763; 96; 0.022%); dexamethasone implant (49,464; 53; 0.107%); and triamcinolone (75,038; 110; 0.147%). Rates were lower for bevacizumab and ranibizumab (vial and pre-filled) compared to aflibercept, dexamethasone implant, and triamcinolone (P < .05). Triamcinolone had a higher rate compared to all of the other medications (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Suspected endophthalmitis rates following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections in clinical practice were similar to reported rates in clinical trials. Rates of suspected endophthalmitis following steroid injections trended higher with significantly higher rates with triamcinolone. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2021;52:312-318.].

The Influence of Universal Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis Risk after Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections

Purpose

Routine use of face masks for patients and physicians during intravitreal anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has increased with the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study evaluates the impact of universal face mask use on rates and outcomes of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE).

Design

Retrospective, multicenter, comparative cohort study.

Participants

Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from October 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, at 12 centers.

Methods

Cases were divided into a “no face mask” group if no face masks were worn by the physician or patient during intravitreal injections or a “universal face mask” group if face masks were worn by the physician, ancillary staff, and patient during intravitreal injections.

Main Outcome Measures

Rate of endophthalmitis, microbial spectrum, and visual acuity (VA).

Results

Of 505 968 intravitreal injections administered in 110 547 eyes, 85 of 294 514 (0.0289%; 1 in 3464 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the “no face mask” group, and 45 of 211 454 (0.0213%; 1 in 4699) cases occurred in the “universal face mask” group (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–1.18; P = 0.097). In the “no face mask” group, there were 27 cases (0.0092%; 1 in 10 908 injections) of culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 9 cases (0.004%; 1 in 23 494) in the “universal face mask” group (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22–0.99; P = 0.041). Three cases of oral flora–associated endophthalmitis occurred in the “no face mask” group (0.001%; 1 in 98 171 injections) compared with 1 (0.0005%; 1 in 211 454) in the “universal face mask” group (P = 0.645). Patients presented a mean (range) 4.9 (1–30) days after the causative injection, and mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA at endophthalmitis presentation was 2.04 (~20/2200) for “no face mask” group compared with 1.65 (~20/900) for the “universal face mask” group (P = 0.022), although no difference was observed 3 months after treatment (P = 0.764).

Conclusions

In a large, multicenter, retrospective study, physician and patient face mask use during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections did not alter the risk of presumed acute-onset bacterial endophthalmitis, but there was a reduced rate of culture-positive endophthalmitis. Three months after presentation, there was no difference in VA between the groups.

Mechanisms of sterile inflammation after intravitreal injection of antiangiogenic drugs: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Intraocular inflammation is an uncommon but potentially vision-threatening adverse event related to anti-VEGF therapy. This is of increasing importance given both the volume of injections performed, as well as the increased prevalence of inflammation seen with newer anti-VEGF agents. Brolucizumab, the newest anti-VEGF agent, has been associated with an inflammatory retinal vasculitis and the underlying mechanism is unclear. Reviewing potential mechanisms and clinical differences of intraocular inflammation may assist clinicians and scientists in reducing the risk of these events in the future.

OBSERVATIONS

Two types of inflammation are seen with intravitreal injections, acute onset sterile inflammation and delayed onset inflammatory vasculitis. Acute onset inflammation can be subcategorized into subclinical anterior chamber inflammation and sterile uveitis/endophthalmitis. Subclinical anterior chamber inflammation can occur at rates as high as 19% after intravitreal anti-VEGF injection. Rates of sterile uveitis/endophthalmitis range from 0.05% to 4.4% depending on the anti-VEGF agent. Inflammatory vasculitis is only associated with brolucizumab and occurred in 3.3% of injections according to the post hoc review of the HAWK/HARRIER data. In addition, silicone oil from syringes can induce immunogenic protein aggregates. Agitation of the syringe, freeze thawing, shipping and improper storage prior to injection may increase the amount of silicone oil released from the syringe.

CONCLUSION

The main factors which play a role in intraocular inflammation after anti-VEGF injection can be divided into three causes: patient-specific, medication-specific and delivery-specific. The majority of clinically significant inflammation seen after intravitreal injection is an acute onset inflammatory response with most patients recovering baseline VA in 3-5 weeks. The presence of pain, hypopyon, severe anterior chamber reaction, hyperemia and significant vision loss may help distinguish infectious from non-infectious etiologies of post injection inflammation. Avoiding temperature fluctuation, mechanical shock, agitation during transport and handling of syringes/drugs, and the use of SO-free syringes may help minimize intraocular inflammation. While a definitive mechanism has not yet been established, current knowledge of the clinical presentation and vitreous histopathology of brolucizumab-retinal vasculitis favors an auto-immune type IV hypersensitivity reaction.

Drug-related adverse effects of antivascular endothelial growth factor agents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have provided historic therapeutic breakthroughs in the treatment of retinal disease. New anti-VEGF agents are emerging for the treatment of retinal vascular diseases. Both systemic and ocular adverse effect need to be understood in managing patients. This review aims to highlight the adverse effects seen with routine use of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept, as well as with new medications such as brolucizumab and abicipar.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review the recent findings of intraocular inflammation (IOI) of brolucizumab and abicipar in the context of the efficacy and safety reported with the routine anti-VEGF agents. Specifically, brolucizumab has been reported to cause occlusive retinal vasculitis in the setting of IOI, which has not been seen in other anti-VEGF medications. In addition, abicipar appears to cause IOI at a higher rate of patients than other anti-VEGF agents have previously.

SUMMARY

Newer anti-VEGF agents pose a significant risk of adverse events not seen with routine anti-VEGF agents.

Visual Outcomes after Anti-VEGF Therapy for Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration in a Real-Life Setting

BACKGROUND

To report visual outcomes of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in a real-life setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective case series of consecutive patients treated with either ranibizumab and/or aflibercept for monolateral or bilateral exudative AMD. A physician established the indication for treatment and administered the injections. An independent physician confirmed the indication for primary treatment. A Pro Re Nata and a Treat and Extend regimen were used. Assessment of subretinal and/or intraretinal fluid, retinal hemorrhage and increase in pigment epithelial detachment served as criteria for further treatment decisions. Visual acuity (VA) was measured in ETDRS letters at each examination and then analyzed using a specialized software. Evolution of mean VA was considered for all study eyes and subgroups of eyes with an initial VA ≥ 70 ETDRS letters (subgroup 1) and ≤ 69 ETDRS letters (subgroup 2).

RESULTS

A total of 102 eyes of 76 patients (30 men, mean age 75.9 years; 46 women, mean age 81.5 years) were included. Subgroup 1 consisted of 47 eyes, and subgroup 2 of 55 eyes. Mean follow-up was 55 months (range 6 to 150 months). For the entire collective as for subgroups 1 and 2, the mean VA was 64, 77, or 51 ETDRS letters at baseline. Mean VA improved at month 12 (68, 80, or 58 ETDRES letters) and then slowly decreased over time until month 150 (62, 72, or 54 ETDRS letters). Maximum improvement of + 5, + 3, or, + 9 ETDRS letters occurred after 9, 8, or 10 months of follow-up. Atrophy and fibrosis were mainly responsible for VA decrease. Ten serious adverse events were reported to Swissmedic: two cases of cardiovascular events and eight cases of intraocular inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF therapy carried out in a real-life setting shows good VA outcomes with a favorable safety profile.

Changes in complement activation products after anti-VEGF injection for choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration and pachychoroid disease

We evaluated changes in the complement system resulting from anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in eyes with age-related choroidal neovascularization (CNV) including neovascular age-related macular degeneration, pachychoroid neovasculopathy, and polypoidal choroidal neovasculopathy. We measured the concentrations of the complement activation products (C3a, C4a), VEGF, and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 in the aqueous humor during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for CNV. The VEGF level decreased significantly (P < 0.001), while the C3a and C4a levels increased significantly (P < 0.001 for both comparisons) 1 month after two monthly anti-VEGF injections. The VEGF level was correlated with the C3a (R = 0.328, P = 0.007) and C4a (R = − 0.237, P = 0.055) levels at baseline, but the correlation between the VEGF and C3a levels (R = − 0.148, P = 0.242) changed significantly (P = 0.028 by analysis of covariance) after anti-VEGF treatment. The C3a increase after anti-VEGF therapy did not change the visual outcomes in eyes with CNV for 1 year. Dysregulation of the complement system can be induced after anti-VEGF therapy.

Early Experience With Brolucizumab Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Importance

Outcome data are limited regarding early experience with brolucizumab, the most recently approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Objective

To report clinical outcomes after intravitreous injection (IVI) of brolucizumab, 6 mg, for nAMD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective case series conducted at 15 private or academic ophthalmological centers in the United States included all consecutive patients with eyes treated with brolucizumab by 6 retina specialists between October 17, 2019, and April 1, 2020.

Exposures

Treatment with brolucizumab IVI, 6 mg.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Change in mean visual acuity (VA) and optical coherence tomography parameters, including mean central subfield thickness and presence or absence of subretinal and/or intraretinal fluid. Secondary outcomes included ocular and systemic safety.

Results

A total of 172 eyes from 152 patients (87 women [57.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.0 [8.0] years) were included. Most eyes (166 [96.5%]) were not treatment naive, and 65.7% of these eyes (109 of 166) were switched from the prior anti-VEGF agent because of persistent fluid detected on optical coherence tomography scans. Study eyes received a mean (SD) of 1.46 (0.62) brolucizumab IVIs. The mean (SD) VA prior to starting brolucizumab was a 64.1 (15.9) Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter score (Snellen equivalent, 20/50) and was a 63.3 (17.2) ETDRS letter score (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) at the last study evaluation (mean difference, 0.8; 95% CI, -2.7 to 4.3; P = .65). When analyzed by number of brolucizumab IVIs, the presence or absence of fluid prior to starting brolucizumab, or the presence or absence of intraocular inflammation after receiving brolucizumab, there was no difference in mean VA prior to starting brolucizumab compared with after brolucizumab IVIs or at the final study evaluation. The mean (SD) central subfield thickness in all eyes prior to starting brolucizumab was 296.7 (88.0) μm and was 269.8 (66.5) μm at the last study examination (mean difference, 26.9 µm; 95% CI, 9.0-44.7 µm; P = .003). Intraocular inflammation was reported in 14 eyes (8.1%) and was self-limited and resolved without treatment in almost half those eyes (n = 6). One previously reported eye (0.6%) had occlusive retinal vasculitis and severe loss of vision.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this analysis of brolucizumab IVI for nAMD, VA remained stable, with a reduction in central subfield thickness. Intraocular inflammation events ranged from mild with spontaneous resolution to severe occlusive retinal vasculitis in 1 eye.

Inflammatory Complications of Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injections

Intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents is a commonly used therapy for numerous retinal diseases. The most commonly used of these medications are bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept, and brolucizumab. However, intravitreal administration of these agents is also associated with several inflammatory and non-inflammatory adverse events. The three inflammatory adverse events are sterile intraocular inflammation, brolucizumab-associated retinal vasculitis, and post-injection endophthalmitis. This narrative review summarizes the current literature regarding these conditions, including their epidemiology, presentation, management, outcomes, and pathogenesis. The inflammatory adverse events also share a number of overlapping features, which can make them difficult to discern from one another in a clinical context. This review discusses certain distinguishing features of these conditions that may aid providers in discerning between them and establishing the correct diagnosis.

Non-infectious Intraocular Inflammation Following Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection

Objectives

To evaluate the functional and anatomical results of patients with non-infectious intraocular inflammation (IOI) following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Materials and Methods

The medical records of patients receiving anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD between January 2015 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative routine ophthalmological examinations, central macular thickness, duration of inflammation, and follow-up time of the patients with non-infectious IOI following anti-VEGF injection were recorded.

Results

Non-infectious IOI was determined in 13 eyes (11 eyes with aflibercept, 2 eyes with ranibizumab) of 1,966 patients who received a total of 12,652 anti-VEGF (4,796 aflibercept and 7,856 ranibizumab) injections. IOI was detected after a mean of 7 injections (2-12 injections). All eyes had both anterior chamber reaction (Tyndall +1/+3) and vitritis (grade 1-3). None of the patients had pain, hypopyon, or fibrin reaction. Visual acuity progressed to baseline levels within 28.3 days. Vitritis continued with a mean of 40 days. All patients recovered with topical steroid therapy. In 11 eyes, injection of the same anti-VEGF agent was continued. No recurrence of IOI was observed in any patients.

Conclusion

Non-infectious IOI following intravitreal anti-VEGF injection typically occurs without pain, conjunctival injection, hypopyon, or fibrin and responds well to topical steroid therapy. Visual acuity returns to baseline levels within weeks according to the severity of inflammation.

The Impact of Physician Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of physician face mask use on rates and outcomes of postinjection endophthalmitis.

DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative cohort study.

METHODS

Setting: Single-center. StudyPopulation: Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections from July 1, 2013, to September 1, 2019.

INTERVENTION

Cases were divided into "Face Mask" group if face masks were worn by the physician during intravitreal injections or "No Talking" group if no face mask was worn but a no-talking policy was observed during intravitreal injections. MainOutcomeMeasures: Rate of endophthalmitis, visual acuity, and microbial spectrum.

RESULTS

Of 483,622 intravitreal injections administered, 168 out of 453,460 (0.0371%) cases of endophthalmitis occurred in the No Talking group, and 9 out of 30,162 (0.0298%) cases occurred in the Face Mask group (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.57; P = .527). Sixteen cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis were found in the No Talking group (1 in 28,341 injections), compared to none in the Face Mask group (P = .302). Mean logMAR visual acuity at presentation in cases that developed culture-positive endophthalmitis was significantly worse in the No Talking group compared to the Face Mask group (17.1 lines lost from baseline acuity vs 13.4 lines lost; P = .031), though no difference was observed at 6 months after treatment (P = .479).

CONCLUSION

Physician face mask use did not influence the risk of postinjection endophthalmitis compared to a no-talking policy. However, no cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis occurred in the Face Mask group. Future studies are warranted to assess the role of face mask use to reduce endophthalmitis risk, particularly attributable to oral flora.

Endophthalmitis following Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy: Changes in Incidence and Outcomes over a 9-Year Period

Aims: To evaluate whether the incidence, microbial spectrum, and visual outcomes of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections have changed over time.Methods: Retrospective cohort study of endophthalmitis in eyes receiving intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor between 2009-2012 and 2016-2017 at a single, large retina practice.Results: A total of 283,315 injections resulted in 96 suspected infectious endophthalmitis cases. Comparing 2009-2012 and 2016-2017, the rate of suspected endophthalmitis changed from 1 in 2,663 injections to 1 in 3,195 injections (p = .37). Visual outcomes 6 months after endophthalmitis were significantly better during the latter period (p = .04), with an average loss of 6.3 lines of VA in 2009-2012 compared to a loss of 3.6 lines in 2016-2017. In multivariate analysis, a "no-talking" policy during injections resulted in a trend towards a decrease in endophthalmitis incidence (p = .08). Cessation of post-injection topical antibiotic use did not independently decrease endophthalmitis incidence (p = .24) when the effect of a "no-talking" policy was taken into account. A lower rate of endophthalmitis was seen after prefilled vs. conventionally prepared ranibizumab syringe use for injection (0.014% vs. 0.035%, respectively), though this difference did not meet statistical significance (p = .16).Conclusion: The incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection decreased and visual outcomes improved between the periods of 2009-2012 and 2016-2017. A "no-talking" policy during injections was associated with a trend toward a decrease in endophthalmitis rate.

Risk of Infectious Endophthalmitis From a Resident-Performed Intravitreal Injection

Purpose

This work assesses the safety of resident-performed intravitreal injections by comparing the incidence of postinjection endophthalmitis associated with residents vs surgical retina attendings.

Methods

In this retrospective noninferiority cohort study, the Current Procedural Technology code for an intravitreal injection was used to identify patients from July 1, 2015, to October 31, 2018, at a single-center Veterans Affairs hospital where patients receive intravitreal injections from attending vitreoretinal surgeons and residents. The medical record for each injection was reviewed for the training level of the proceduralist, indication, medication, and laterality. The main outcome was the incidence of postinjection endophthalmitis occurring within 30 days of an intravitreal injection, which was confirmed by at least 2 medical-record reviewers.

Results

In this cohort of 593 patients, most were male (97.0%), and the average age was 70.3 years (±10.8 years). Of the 6934 injections given, 3877 (55.9%) were performed by residents and 3057 (44.1%) by attendings. Of the 5 cases of endophthalmitis identified, 3 were associated with a resident-performed injection in his or her fourth year of postgraduate training. The difference (0.012%; 95% CI, -0.168% to 0.169%) in the incidence of postinjection endophthalmitis between residents (0.077%) and attendings (0.065%) did not cross the predetermined noninferiority limit (0.200%).

Conclusions

At our teaching clinic, resident-performed injections were not associated with an elevated risk of endophthalmitis when compared with attending-performed injections. Under varying levels of supervision, residents appeared to demonstrate appropriate sterile injection technique.

Postoperative Endophthalmitis and Toxic Anterior Segment Syndrome Prophylaxis: 2020 Update

Improved surgical techniques have led to an increase in the number of outpatient ophthalmic procedures. In spite of decreased surgical times and overall improved outcomes, endophthalmitis remains one of the most severe complications of ophthalmic surgery. Although there are well known risk factors for postoperative endophthalmitis, some prophylaxis strategies remain controversial. A category of noninfectious postoperative inflammation, known as toxic anterior segment syndrome (TASS), is a rare but important complication of cataract surgery. While several worldwide outbreaks of TASS have occurred, it is challenging to identify an etiology in order to reduce the risk of further cases. Endophthalmitis and TASS cannot be prevented completely, but their rates may be decreased through risk reduction strategies supported by peer-reviewed evidence. This review highlights the current evidence in the prevention strategies for postoperative endophthalmitis and TASS.

Occlusive Retinal Vasculitis Following Intravitreal Brolucizumab

Purpose

To analyze a case series of retinal vasculitis reported to the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) following Food and Drug Administration approval of brolucizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Methods

The ASRS Research and Safety in Therapeutics Committee analyzed clinical and imaging characteristics from submitted reports of retinal vasculitis after brolucizumab.

Results

Retinal vasculitis was reported in 26 eyes of 25 patients (22 [88%] female) after treatment with brolucizumab. Imaging studies were available for 24 of 26 eyes. Most cases (92%) were associated with intraocular inflammation, which presented at a mean of 25 days (range, 3-63 days) after the most recent brolucizumab injection. Mean visual acuity (VA) was 20/52 (range, 20/25-4/200) before the adverse event, 20/151 (range, 20/25-hand motion) at presentation of the adverse event, and 20/243 (range, 20/30-light perception) at last follow-up. Twelve eyes (46%) had a greater than 3-line decrease in VA at final follow-up, and 12 eyes (46%) had a final VA of 20/200 or worse. Analysis of retinal imaging identified vasculopathy that involved retinal arteries (91%), retinal veins (79%), and choroidal vessels (48%). Occlusive disease was apparent on imaging in 83% of eyes. Treatment approaches were varied.

Conclusions

Retinal vasculitis has been identified in a series of eyes following brolucizumab. Although a few eyes in this series were asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, some eyes had significant vision loss. A careful examination for signs of active inflammation prior to brolucizumab injection is recommended. Once vasculopathy is suspected, angiographic imaging may help define the spectrum of involvement. Optimal treatment strategies remain unknown.

Critical analysis of techniques and materials used in devices, syringes, and needles used for intravitreal injections

Intravitreal injections have become the most commonly performed intraocular treatments worldwide. Because intravitreal injections may induce severe adverse events, such as infectious and noninfectious endophthalmitis, cataract, ocular hypertension, vitreous hemorrhage, or retinal detachment, appropriate awareness of the materials and techniques used are essential to reduce these sight-threatening complications. This review provides insights into the needles, syringes, silicone oil coating, sterilization methods, devices to assist intravitreal injections, scleral piercing techniques using needles, syringe handling, anesthesia, and safety issues related to materials and techniques. It is paramount that physicians be aware of every step involved in intravitreal injections and consider the roles and implications of all materials and techniques used. The ability to understand the theoretical and practical circumstances may definitely lead to state-of-the-art treatments delivered to patients. The most important practical recommendations are: choosing syringes with as little silicone oil as possible, or, preferably, none; avoiding agitation of syringes; awareness that most biologics (e.g., antiangiogenic proteins) are susceptible to changes in molecular properties under some conditions, such as agitation and temperature variation; understanding that improper materials and techniques may lead to complications after intravitreal injections, e.g., inflammation; and recognizing that some devices may contribute to an enhanced, safer, and faster intravitreal injection technique.