Monthly OCT monitoring of Ozurdex for macular oedema related to retinal vascular diseases: re-treatment strategy (OCTOME Report 1)

Influence of prior treatment protocol on intravitreal dexamethasone implant behavior in patients with diabetic macular edema in real-world practice

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEXI) has been placed as an effective option to treat diabetic macular edema (DME). However, there is no consensus on the best time to introduce it. We conducted a study to evaluate anatomical and functional behavior after the first DEXI according to previous treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective, real-world study between 2013 and 2020 investigated changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT at months 2 and 6 after the first DEXI in DME. Patients were divided into naive, early switch (≤3 anti-VEGF injections), or late switch (>3 anti-VEGF injections) groups.

RESULTS

Among 112 consecutive eyes, mean BCVA and CMT improved significantly in all groups at month 2, with no difference between them. However, this improvement was not maintained at 6 months. The Naíve group presented better BCVA all over the study period. The previously treated groups, which started with worse initial visual acuity, showed more visual gain without reaching the BCVA of the naive group. CMT performance was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was similar anatomical and functional behavior in all groups. Poorer visual acuity at baseline was associated with worse functional outcome despite good anatomic response.

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.

Association Between Contrast Sensitivity and Central Subfield Thickness in Center-Involving Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose: To evaluate the association between contrast sensitivity (CS) and central subfield thickness (CST) in diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: This prospectively recruited, cross-sectional study included eyes with DME evaluated from November 2018 to March 2021. CST was measured using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography on the same day as CS testing. Only eyes with center-involving DME (CST >305 µm for women; >320 µm for men) were included. CS was evaluated using the quantitative CS function (qCSF) test. Outcomes included visual acuity (VA) and the following qCSF metrics: area under the log CS function, contrast acuity (CA), and CS thresholds at 1 to 18 cycles per degree (cpd). Pearson correlation and mixed-effects regression analyses were performed. Results: The cohort included 52 eyes of 43 patients. Pearson correlation analysis showed a stronger association between CST and CS thresholds at 6 cpd (r = -0.422, P = 0.002) than CST and VA (r = 0.293, P = 0.035). Mixed-effects univariate and multivariate regression analyses showed significant associations between CST and CA (β = -0.001, P = .030), CS at 6 cpd (β = -0.002, P = .008), and CS at 12 cpd (β = -0.001, P = .049) but no significant associations between CST and VA. Among the visual function metrics, the effect size of CST was largest on CS at 6 cpd (βStandardized = -0.37, P = .008). Conclusions: In patients with DME, CS may be more strongly associated with CST than VA. Including CS as an adjunct visual function outcome measure in eyes with DME may prove clinically valuable.

Polymer based sustained drug delivery to the ocular posterior segment: barriers and future opportunities for the treatment of neovascular pathologies

There is an increasing momentum in research and pharmaceutical industry communities to design sustained, non-invasive delivery systems to treat chronic neovascular ocular diseases that affect the posterior segment of the eye including age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. Current treatments include VEGF blockers, which have revolutionized the standard of care for patients, but their maximum therapeutic benefit is hampered by the need for recurrent and invasive administration procedures. Currently approved delivery systems intended to address these limitations exploit polymer technology to regulate drug release in a sustained manner. Here, we critically review sustained drug delivery approaches for the treatment of chronic neovascular diseases affecting the ocular posterior segment, with a special emphasis on novel and polymeric technologies spanning the spectrum of preclinical and clinical investigation, and those approved for treatment. The mechanism by which each formulation imparts sustained release, the impact of formulation characteristics on release and foreign body reaction, and special considerations related to the translation of these systems are discussed.

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.

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.

Anterior chamber changes assessment by Scheimpflug analysis after intravitreal dexamethasone implantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate structural changes in the anterior chamber and intraocular pressure (IOP) changes following intravitreal dexamethasone implantation.

METHODS

Forty-two eyes of 42 patients that received intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the management of macular edema secondary to diabetic retinopathy or branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) were included in the study. IOP was measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry. Anterior chamber depth (ACD) and iridocorneal angle (ICA) was measured by a Scheimflug camera (Sirius, CSO, Italy) the day before the injection of the dexamethasone implant and on postoperative day 1, first week, and first month.

RESULTS

Mean IOP was 15.14 ± 2.77 mmHg before the procedure and, 15.67 ± 3.70 mmHg, 15.86 ± 3.11 mmHg, 16.21 ± 2.75 mmHg on day 1, first week, and first month following intravitreal dexamethasone implantation, respectively. Mean ICA and ACD were significantly higher in pseudophakic eyes compared to phakic eyes. However, there was no statistically significant change in ICA before and after the procedure (on postoperative day 1, first week, and first month) among both phakic and pseudophakic patients (p = 0.783). Similarly, ACD remained unchanged after the procedure (on postoperative day 1, first week, and first month) compared to the initial measurement (p = 0.802).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that there was an increase in IOP. However, these changes were not accompanied with a change in ACD or ICA.

Treatment choices for diabetic macular oedema: a guideline for when to consider an intravitreal corticosteroid, including adaptations for the COVID-19 era

First-line treatment of centrally involved diabetic macular oedema (CI-DMO) is often with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agent. Although this can provide efficacy in the majority of eyes, a sizeable proportion do not respond sufficiently and many continue to receive anti-VEGF therapy after it may be optimal. This imposes a treatment burden on both patients and clinicians and, most importantly of all, can be sight threatening. Changing treatment to an intravitreal corticosteroid implant at the appropriate time may help optimise patient outcomes and reduce injection frequency, thereby reducing treatment burden. Eight retina specialists convened to discuss how to ensure eyes with CI-DMO receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy are evaluated for a potential change to intravitreal corticosteroid therapy at the most effective time in their treatment journey. They concluded that clear criteria on when to consider changing treatment would be helpful and so developed a consensus guideline covering key decision points such as when and how to assess response to anti-VEGF therapy, when to consider a change to corticosteroid therapy and when and how to assess the response to corticosteroid therapy. The guideline was developed before the COVID-19 pandemic but, with the additional challenges arising from this including even greater pressure on clinic capacity, it is more important than ever to reconsider current working practices and adopt changes to improve patient care while also easing pressure on clinic capacity, reducing hospital visits and maintaining patient safety. This publication therefore also includes suggestions for adapting the guidelines in the COVID-19 era.

Clinically established biodegradable long acting injectables: An industry perspective

Long acting injectable formulations have been developed to sustain the action of drugs in the body over desired periods of time. These delivery platforms have been utilized for both systemic and local drug delivery applications. This review gives an overview of long acting injectable systems that are currently in clinical use. These products are categorized in three different groups: biodegradable polymeric systems, including microparticles and implants; micro and nanocrystal suspensions and oil-based formulations. Furthermore, the applications of these drug delivery platforms for the management of various chronic diseases are summarized. Finally, this review addresses industrial challenges regarding the development of long acting injectable formulations.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Structure-Function Correlation Using OCT Angiography And Microperimetry In Diabetic Retinopathy

Purpose

To evaluate macular vasculature in diabetic retinopathy (DR) with optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and to correlate vessel density (VD) with retinal sensitivity (RS) as a way to assess structural and functional findings in DR.

Design

Prospective observational cross-sectional study.

Methods

Diabetic patients with DR but no clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) and healthy subjects were included in this study. All of them underwent comprehensive ophthalmic examination, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), OCTA with RS-3000 Advance AngioScan (Nidek, Gamagori, Japan) and microperimetry with MP-3 (Nidek, Gamagori, Japan). Retinal vascular density measured by OCT angiography in 9 areas was correlated with RS in the same 9 areas by Spearman correlation.

Results

In this study, 50 subjects were enrolled: 25 eyes of diabetic patients with DR and 25 eyes of non-diabetic subjects. Diabetic patients mean age was 51.88±13.62 years; non-diabetic subjects were 43.48±13.42 years. The BCVA was 20/25 in the diabetic group and 20/20 in the non-diabetic group. Mean RS was decreased in the DR group (27.68±2.71 dB) compared to the non-diabetic group (31.68±1.46 dB) (p<0.05) and in the 9 studied areas (p<0.05). Mean VD was decreased in the DR group compared to non-diabetics (p<0.05) and in 7 of the 9 areas (except temporal superior and inferior squares) (p<0.05). Correlations by areas between VD and RS were assessed, we found moderate correlation in the area temporal to the fovea (r=0.501, p=0.01) in the DR group but not in the non-diabetic subjects. There were no other statistical significant correlations with this pattern.

Conclusion

DR without DME results in a retinal VD decreased that might be the cause of a reduction of RS in one of the studied areas. Microangiopathic changes are correlated with microperimetry sensitivity drop in the temporal to the fovea grid but not in the other studied grids.

Comparison of ranibizumab versus dexamethasone for macular oedema following retinal vein occlusion: 1-year results of the COMRADE extension study

PURPOSE

The COMRADE studies are the first randomized controlled head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab versus dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). The COMRADE extension trial was designed to provide additional 6-month data of patients who completed the core studies.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase IV study patients who completed the COMRADE core studies were prospectively enrolled. Overall, 92 branch RVO (BRVO) patients (ranibizumab 52, DEX 40) and 83 central RVO (CRVO) patients (ranibizumab 61, DEX 22) were treated, and 94.6% of BRVO patients and 97.6% of CRVO patients completed the extension study. Patients were assigned to the same treatment group as in the core studies. Patients were monitored monthly and received either 0.5 mg ranibizumab or a 0.7 mg DEX implant as needed.

RESULTS

Over the course of the extension, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of the study eye occurred in 55.8% of BRVO patients on ranibizumab and in 62.5% of those on DEX. Among CRVO patients, 65.5% in the ranibizumab group and 59.1% in the DEX group developed TEAEs. Overall, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) was more frequent with DEX than ranibizumab treatment. Mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in BRVO patients was significantly better for ranibizumab than DEX (p = 0.0249). The CRVO results were consistent with BRVO's, although not significant (p = 0.1119).

CONCLUSION

When used according to the European labels, ranibizumab revealed a better ocular safety profile and produced greater average BCVA gains than DEX. By the end of the additional 6-month study period, this difference in BCVA was more pronounced in BRVO as in CRVO patients. The main limitation of the COMRADE studies was that DEX patients received only a single intravitreal treatment during the first 6 months, which is presumably not adequate. However, frequent DEX implants could lead to more steroid-related side effects, especially to an increased intraocular pressure.

Analysis of Morphologic and Functional Outcomes in Macular Edema due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion Treated with Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant

Purpose

To analyze anatomic and functional retinal changes and their correlation after intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX implant) in patients with central retinal vein occlusion- (CRVO-) related macular edema (ME) using optical coherence tomography and microperimetry.

Methods

Fifteen treatment-naïve patients with functional impairment due to CRVO-related ME were enrolled in this prospective interventional case series. Main outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal sensitivity (RS), and central retinal thickness (CRT). Secondary outcomes were ellipsoid zone (EZ) status and fixation behaviour. All patients underwent DEX implant and were retreated according to predefined criteria. Data were prospectively recorded at baseline and at month 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Correlation between main outcomes was analyzed.

Results

Fifteen eyes of 15 patients (9 men, 6 women; mean age 61.8 ± 10.9 years) were included. BCVA and CRT significantly improved at all follow-up visits, while RS significantly improved at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. EZ status and fixation behaviour did not change significantly. Baseline CRT had a significant negative correlation with BCVA and RS at different follow-up visits (r=−0.52  to −0.63, p ≤ 0.04; r=−0.52, p=0.04; resp.). At all time points, there was not a significant correlation between CRT and BCVA and RS, while RS and BCVA showed a significant correlation, increasing over time (r=−0.72  to −0.89; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

DEX implant led to a significant morphofunctional improvement. Baseline CRT is predictive of changes of functional outcomes whose correlation increases over time after treatment.

INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANTATION IN PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGICAL DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA HAVING INSUFFICIENT RESPONSE TO RANIBIZUMAB

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a single intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant in resistant diabetic macular edema that have different morphological types.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 31 patients (35 eyes) with persistent diabetic macular edema, who underwent a single injection of dexamethasone implant, were evaluated. Diabetic macular edema was classified into three types: diffuse retinal thickening (n = 10), cystoid macular edema (n = 13), and serous retinal detachment (n = 12). Primary outcome measures were best corrected visual acuity, and central macular thickness.

RESULTS

The three subgroups were similar in terms of age and gender (P > 0.05). Total duration of diabetes was significantly less in the serous retinal detachment subgroup (P = 0.01). There were no differences in the best corrected visual acuity between the three subgroups until the sixth month. However, the best corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the diffuse retinal thickness subgroup at the sixth month (P = 0.008). Regarding the central macular thickness values, it was statistically better in serous retinal detachment than in diffuse retinal thickening and cystoid macular edema subgroups till the sixth month (P = 0.001). However, at the sixth month, there was not any statistical difference between subgroups regarding central macular thickness values. Antiglaucomatous agents were required in 4 (11.4%) patients throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

Treatment algorithms should differ according to the morphology of diabetic macular edema; however, more data is needed to give specific recommendations.

Acuity and colour vision changes post intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection in patients with diabetic macular oedema

Purpose

To evaluate changes in colour vision following intravitreal injection of Dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Both red-green (RG) and yellow-blue (YB) chromatic sensitivity were assessed using the Colour Assessment & Diagnosis (CAD) test which isolates the use of colour signals and provides age-corrected, statistical limits for normal trichromats. To determine whether colour changes and visual acuity (VA) post-treatment relate to central sub-field retinal thickness (CST).

Methods

Fourteen patients with DMO who were undergoing treatment with Ozurdex were recruited for this study. RG and YB colour thresholds were measured using the CAD test, best corrected visual acuity was assessed using the ETDRS chart and CST was measured using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). All tests were performed monocularly at baseline and 24 weeks post injection.

Results

All patients (n = 14 eyes), had significant loss of RG and YB chromatic sensitivity at baseline (p<0.05). The mean age was 56 ± 9.5 years. The age specific, monocular, upper normal limits for a 56 year old subject are 2.66 for RG and 2.85 for YB. In this study, the measured, pre injection thresholds (mean±SD) were 22.6 ± 11.3 for RG and 16.2 ± 3.76 for YB. There was significant improvement in RG threshold post injection (i.e., 19.2 ± 10.8 (p<0.05)). No significant changes were found in the YB thresholds with corresponding mean and range values of: 15.8 ± 4.6 (p = 0.23). CST pre-treatment was 542 ±135 μm. After treatment and by week 24 the CST values decreased to 435 ±127 μm.

Conclusions

RG colour thresholds provide a sensitive measure of functional change in diabetic subjects with macular oedema. The YB system is damaged severely in the DMO patients studied and shows little or no recovery post treatment. The improvement in VA and particularly in RG colour vision correlate well with the measured decrease in CST. The results suggest that the improvement in the RG chromatic sensitivity can provide a useful biomarker for monitoring the efficacy of treatment in DMO.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TWO CASES OF ACUTE ENDOPHTHALMITIS AFTER INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT INJECTION

PURPOSE

To present two cases of acute endophthalmitis after intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection and discuss the management of intravitreal implant-associated endophthalmitis.

METHODS

Two patients, who underwent intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection for macular edema secondary to diabetic retinopathy in one and branch retinal vein occlusion in the other, were admitted with decreased vision, pain, and redness in their treated eyes, 3 days and 5 days after the injection, respectively. The clinical findings of both patients were consistent with acute endophthalmitis.

RESULTS

After obtaining aqueous and vitreous samples, the patients were treated with intravitreal antibiotic injection and topical fortified antibiotics. Both patients revealed favorable clinical response and functional vision was recovered.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant-associated endophthalmitis is an uncommon and a challenging situation. Intravitreal antibiotics may lead to favorable visual outcomes without the need for a pars plana vitrectomy and implant removal in selected cases.

Health-related quality of life, visual function and treatment satisfaction following intravitreal dexamethasone implant for diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore and describe quantitatively patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), ie, health-related quality of life (QoL), visual function and treatment satisfaction, in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) receiving two different regimens of Ozurdex (intravitreal dexamethasone implant).

METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective study, 100 patients with center-involving refractory DME were randomized 1:1 to either five monthly fixed dosing or optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided pro re nata (PRN) regimen of dexamethasone intravitreal implant therapy. The primary outcome was the difference between arms in change in PROMs and health-related QoL from baseline to 12 months, as measured by the Retinopathy-Dependent Quality of Life (RetDQoL) questionnaire, Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) and Retinopathy Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (RetTSQ).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the RetDQoL score and VFQ-25 score at month 12 compared to those at baseline, whereas the total mean RetTSQ score increased significantly at the exit visit. The two treatment arms did not differ significantly regarding the change in PROMs and health-related QoL questionnaires. Logistic regression analysis showed that visual acuity (VA) of ≥55 letters, central foveal thickness <300 μm and macular volume <9.2 mm³ at the exit visit (month 12) predicted a higher change in RetTSQ.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that there is a statistically significant improvement in treatment satisfaction, as measured by RetTSQ, in patients with DME treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant, independent of the dose regimen, namely, fixed or PRN. However, it should be noted that the clinically meaningful change could not be assessed accurately, since no thresholds for clinically meaningful change currently exist for the RetTSQ. On the other hand, there was no significant change in health-related QoL, as measured using VFQ-25 and RetDQoL. Factors affecting the patients' treatment satisfaction were the final VA, the central foveal thickness and the macular volume.

Interocular anatomical and visual functional differences in pediatric patients with unilateral cataracts

Background

Congenital cataracts are often complicated by anterior segment dysgenesis. This study aims to compare bilateral anterior segment parameters, macular thickness, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in pediatric cataract patients at 3 months after unilateral cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation.

Methods

Fifty-three pediatric patients with uncomplicated unilateral total cataracts were included. At 3 months post-surgery, bilateral corneal thickness at the thinnest location (CTTL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and anterior chamber volume (ACV) were measured using Pentacam. Central macular thickness (CMT) was evaluated using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. BCVA was measured by experienced optometrists concurrently. Descriptive statistics and bivariate corrections were performed to analyze the interocular differences in bilateral anatomic parameters and their relationships with BCVA.

Results

For all 53 included patients (mean age 5.2 ± 2.3 years), the median BCVA was 10/40 in the operated eyes and 40/40 in the contralateral eyes, which indicates a significant interocular difference. BCVA values in the contralateral eyes were significantly correlated with patient age at surgery, but this result differed for BCVA in the operated eyes. The Pentacam analysis revealed no significant interocular differences in bilateral CTTL and ACV, but significant differences were found for ACD.

Conclusions

At 3 months after surgery, unilateral pediatric cataract patients exhibited no significant interocular differences in identified anatomical parameters (except for ACD), and these parameters were not significantly correlated with BCVA in bilateral eyes. Therefore, amblyopia, but not anatomical factors, might be the main cause of interocular visual functional differences in our study population.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT02765230, 05/05/2016, retrospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12886-016-0371-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Ranibizumab Versus Dexamethasone for Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE C): A European Label Study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of the European labels of ranibizumab 0.5 mg vs dexamethasone 0.7 mg in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

DESIGN

Phase IIIb, multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either monthly ranibizumab followed by pro re nata (PRN) treatment (n = 124) or 1 sustained-release dexamethasone implant followed by PRN sham injections (n = 119). Main outcomes were mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 1 through month 6, mean change in BCVA, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Of 243 patients, 185 (76.1%) completed the study. No difference was observed in BCVA between ranibizumab and dexamethasone at months 1 and 2. From month 3 to month 6, there was significant difference in BCVA gains in favor of ranibizumab. At month 6, mean average BCVA gain was significantly higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone (12.86 vs 2.96 letters; difference 9.91 letters, 95% confidence interval [6.51-13.30]; P < .0001). Mean injection number of ranibizumab was 4.52. Ocular AEs were reported in more patients in the dexamethasone than in the ranibizumab group (86.6% vs 55.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the European labels, similar efficacy was observed for ranibizumab and dexamethasone at months 1 and 2. However, ranibizumab maintained its efficacy throughout the study, whereas dexamethasone declined from month 3 onward. The main limitation of the study was that dexamethasone patients received only a single treatment during the 6-month study. In clinical practice, dexamethasone retreatment may be required earlier than 6 months. Safety findings were similar to those previously reported.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of single-dose dexamethasone implantation in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema

To investigate the efficacy of single-dose intravitreal dexamethasone implantation in the treatment of persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) unresponsive to 3 consecutive ranibizumab injections over a period of 6 months. Forty-one patients with a previous history of treatment for DME including at least three consecutive intravitreal ranibizumab injections were enrolled in this retrospective study. Main outcome measures were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure from baseline to 6th month. At the baseline, the mean CMT was 572.4 ± 123.1 μm which improved to 264.2 ± 114.4, 317.7 ± 141.7, 410.6 ± 169.1, and 382.8 ± 181.5 μm at the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th month, respectively (p < 0.05). The preoperative mean BCVA was 0.85 ± 0.54 logMAR units which improved to 0.76 ± 0.5 (p = 0.08), 0.69 ± 0.4 (p = 0.02), 0.74 ± 0.4 (p = 0.284), and 0.72 ± 0.3 (p = 0.489) logMAR units at the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th months, respectively. Additional injections were required for 13 (31 %) eyes at 3rd month and 14 (34 %) eyes at 5th month due to recurrence of macular edema. Intravitreal dexamethasone implantation caused a significant improvement of BCVA and reduction of CMT in the patients with persistent DME that were unresponsive to 3 consecutive ranibizumab injections. However, retreatment before 6 months in the majority of the patients was needed despite the beneficial effects after the index procedure.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema: subgroup analysis of the MEAD study

Background

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) was approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) after demonstration of its efficacy and safety in the MEAD registration trials. We performed subgroup analysis of MEAD study results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX 0.7 treatment in patients with previously treated DME.

Methods

Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled phase 3 study in patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 34–68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (20/200–20/50 Snellen equivalent), and central retinal thickness (CRT) ≥300 μm measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of DEX (0.7 mg or 0.35 mg), or to sham procedure, with retreatment no more than every 6 months. The primary endpoint was ≥15-letter gain in BCVA at study end. Average change in BCVA and CRT from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) and adverse events were also evaluated. The present subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients randomized to DEX 0.7 (marketed dose) or sham based on prior treatment for DME at study entry.

Results

Baseline characteristics of previously treated DEX 0.7 (n = 247) and sham (n = 261) patients were similar. In the previously treated subgroup, mean number of treatments over 3 years was 4.1 for DEX 0.7 and 3.2 for sham, 21.5 % of DEX 0.7 patients versus 11.1 % of sham had ≥15-letter BCVA gain from baseline at study end (P = 0.002), mean average BCVA change from baseline was +3.2 letters with DEX 0.7 versus +1.5 letters with sham (P = 0.024), and mean average CRT change from baseline was −126.1 μm with DEX 0.7 versus −39.0 μm with sham (P < 0.001). Cataract-related adverse events were reported in 70.3 % of baseline phakic patients in the previously treated DEX 0.7 subgroup; vision gains were restored following cataract surgery.

Conclusions

DEX 0.7 significantly improved visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME previously treated with laser, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or a combination of these therapies. The safety profile of DEX 0.7 in previously treated patients was similar to its safety profile in the total study population.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389, registered 12 September 2005

A randomized clinical trial comparing fixed vs pro-re-nata dosing of Ozurdex in refractory diabetic macular oedema (OZDRY study)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of 5-monthly fixed dosing vs pro-re-nata (PRN) Ozurdex treatment in patients with refractory diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

DESIGN

Prospective, multicentre, randomized active-controlled non-inferiority clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 100 patients who attended Medical Retina Clinics for management of centre-involving refractory DMO.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized 1 : 1 to either 5-monthly fixed dosing or optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PRN regimen of Ozurdex therapy for DMO. Data were collected on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), macular thickness and morphology, diabetic retinopathy status, number of injections and adverse events from baseline for a period of 12 months.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the difference between arms in change in BCVA from baseline to 12 months. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was five ETDRS letters. Key secondary outcomes included change in PROM scores, change in macular thickness, change in retinopathy and macular morphology, and safety profile.

RESULTS

The mean change in BCVA was +1.48 (SD 14.8) in the fixed arm vs -0.17 (SD 13.1) in the PRN arm, with adjusted effect estimate +0.97, 90% confidence interval (-4.01, +5.95), P=0.02 (per protocol analysis). The conclusions of the ITT analysis were primarily supportive, -0.34 (-5.49, 4.81) P=0.07, but sensitive to an alternative assumption on missing data, +0.28 (-4.72, 5.27) P=0.04.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean change in BCVA with 5-monthly fixed dosing of Ozurdex was non-inferior to OCT-guided PRN Ozurdex therapy for refractory DMO based on a per protocol analysis.

A prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing a combination of repeated intravitreal Ozurdex and macular laser therapy versus macular laser only in centre-involving diabetic macular oedema (OZLASE study)

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of combined repeated Ozurdex and macular laser therapy (MLT) compared with MLT monotherapy in participants with visual impairment due to centre-involving diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

METHODS

80 patients with best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 54 and 78 ETDRS letters due to centre-involving DMO were randomised to combination therapy with Ozurdex and MLT or MLT only. The combination arm received mandated Ozurdex injections at baseline and 16 weeks followed by retreatment criteria-guided pro-re-nata therapy at 32 and 48 weeks. Patients randomised to MLT only were treated every 16 weeks if clinically significant macular oedema was present. The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in BCVA between arms at 56 weeks.

RESULTS

The mean change in BCVA at 56 weeks was -0.3 (SD 11.4) ETDRS letters in the combination arm versus +0.4 (SD 9.6) ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy study) letters in the MLT arm (effect estimate 1.15 (95% CI -3.32 to 5.61)). However, at 56 weeks, a post hoc comparison of central subfield thickness (CST) showed a decrease of -113 μm (IQR -218, -64) (combination) versus -17 μm (-128, 12) (MLT arm) (p<0.001). Elevated intraocular pressure requiring topical therapy was observed in 8 (20%) eyes in the combination versus 1 (2.5%) in the MLT arm. 33% (9/27) of phakic patients in the combination arm underwent cataract surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Visual outcome following combination therapy did not differ from MLT alone in the centre-involving DMO despite a significant decrease in CST likely due to an entry visual acuity-related ceiling effect and cataract development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT 2011-003339-74.

Changes in macular function after ozurdex for retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To investigate changes in macular function after intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

Nineteen treatment-naive patients with RVO-related ME were treated with intravitreal Ozurdex and followed up to 6 months to evaluate functional outcomes, by means of best-corrected visual acuity, microperimetry, and multifocal electroretinography, and their correlations with morphological parameters by enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

Nineteen eyes of 19 patients were included for analysis. At 1 month, mean best-corrected visual acuity, retinal sensitivity, and central macular thickness (CMT) improved from 0.50 ± 0.34 LogMAR, 10.51 ± 4.31 dB, and 762 ± 259 μm (baseline) to 0.38 ± 0.34 LogMAR (p = 0.043), 12.28 ± 5.06 dB (p = 0.025), and 385 ± 191 μm (p = 0.001), respectively. At 3 months, improvement of mean retinal sensitivity and CMT was still significant (11.62 ± 5.05 dB [p = 0.047] and 518 ± 251 μm [p = 0.006]). Multifocal electroretinography measurements also showed (nonsignificant) improvement. No significant changes in choroidal thickness were recorded. Improvements recorded during the first 3 months were no longer significant from month 4. At each time point, we found a negative significant correlation between CMT and retinal sensitivity. Interestingly, 7 eyes did not undergo retreatment of less than 6 months; these eyes showed a significantly better baseline retinal sensitivity than eyes requiring retreatment of less than 6 months (12.27 ± 3.52 dB vs. 9.48 ± 4.53 dB [p = 0.038]).

CONCLUSIONS

In eyes with ME secondary to RVO, intravitreal dexamethasone implant provides functional benefits as soon as 1 month after treatment. In most cases, the optimum retreatment interval is less than 6 months from first intravitreal Ozurdex. Microperimetry is a very useful tool to characterize macular function. Baseline macular sensitivity may predict the need for early (<6 months) retreatment.