Intravitreal Bevacizumab Versus Triamcinolone Acetonide for Refractory Uveitic Cystoid Macular Edema: A Randomized Pilot Study

Treatment of Noninfectious Uveitic Macular Edema with Periocular and Intraocular Corticosteroid Therapies: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To review the evidence on the effectiveness and complications of periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies for noninfectious uveitic macular edema.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed database was conducted last in December 2021 and a post-assessment search was conducted in March 2023. The searches were limited to articles published in English and no date restrictions were imposed. The combined searches yielded 739 citations; 53 articles were selected for inclusion because the studies (1) evaluated periocular corticosteroid injection, intraocular corticosteroid injection or implant, suprachoroidal corticosteroid injection, or a combination thereof for uveitic macular edema; (2) had outcomes that included visual acuity (VA) or macular edema assessed clinically or imaged by OCT or fluorescein angiography; and (3) included more than 20 patients.

RESULTS

This assessment reviewed 23 articles that provided level I or level II evidence from 18 studies on the use of periocular, suprachoroidal, and intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injections and intravitreal dexamethasone and fluocinolone acetonide implants or inserts in noninfectious uveitic macular edema. These reports consistently demonstrated that all investigated periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies improved VA, macular structure, or both. One comparative study showed that intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection and the dexamethasone intravitreal implant had effectiveness superior to that of periocular triamcinolone acetonide injection for these outcomes. As a group, the studies highlighted the potential for these therapies to elevate intraocular pressure and to accelerate cataract formation.

CONCLUSIONS

The published literature provides high-quality evidence that periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies are effective and safe for the treatment of noninfectious uveitic macular edema. However, information on the relative effectiveness and complication rates across the different therapies is limited.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

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

Healthcare professionals' views on the most important outcomes for non-infectious uveitis of the posterior segment: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Uveitis comprises a range of conditions that result in intraocular inflammation. Most sight-threatening uveitis falls into the broad category known as Non-infectious Posterior Segment-Involving Uveitis (PSIU). To evaluate treatments, trialists and clinicians must select outcome measures. The aim of this study was to understand healthcare professionals' perspectives on what outcomes are important to adult patients with PSIU and their carers.

METHODS

Twelve semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken to understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Findings were compared with the views of patients and carers and outcomes abstracted from a previously published systematic review.

RESULTS

Eleven core domains were identified as important to healthcare professionals: (1) visual function, (2) symptoms, (3) functional ability, (4) impact on relationships, (5) financial impact, (6) psychological morbidity and emotional well-being (7) psychosocial adjustment to uveitis, (8) doctor / patient / interprofessional relationships and access to health care, (9) treatment burden, (10) treatment side effects, (11) disease control. Healthcare professionals recognised a similar range of domains to patients and carers but placed more emphasis on certain outcomes, particularly in the disease control domain. In contrast the range of outcomes identified via the systematic review was limited.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals recognise all of the published outcome domains as patients/carers in the previous publication but with subtly differing emphasis within some domains and with a priority for certain types of measures. Healthcare professionals discussed the disease control and side effects/complications to a greater degree than patients and carers in the focus groups.

SER recommendations for the treatment of uveitis

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based expert-consensus recommendations for the management of non-infectious, non-neoplastic, non-demyelinating disease associated uveitis.

METHODS

Clinical research questions relevant to the objective of the document were identified, and reformulated into PICO format (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) by a panel of experts selected based on their experience in the field. A systematic review of the available evidence was conducted, and evidence was graded according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. Subsequently, recommendations were developed.

RESULTS

Three PICO questions were constructed referring to uveitis anterior, non-anterior and complicated with macular edema. A total of 19 recommendations were formulated, based on the evidence found and/or expert consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Here we present the first official recommendations of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology for the treatment of non-infectious and non-demyelinating disease associated uveitis. They can be directly applied to the Spanish healthcare system as a tool for assistance and therapeutic homogenisation.

Comparing the Efficacy of Intravitreal Dexamethasone and Time-displaced Fluocinolone Acetonide on Central Retinal Thickness in Patients with Uveitis

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy of intravitreally administered dexamethasone (Dex) and subsequent time-displaced fluocinolone acetonide (FA) on central subfield thickness (CST) in eyes with noninfectious uveitis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of twenty-three eyes (18 patients) subsequently receiving intravitreal Dex and FA implants. The main outcome measures were CST, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and status of inflammation.

RESULTS

CST (Dex: p < .0001; FA: p = .0008) and BCVA (Dex: p = .0009; FA: p = .0005) improved significantly with both implants. Significantly better effects were noted with Dex for absolute and relative CST reduction (p = .0089 and p = .0051, respectively). Final BCVA did not differ between groups (p = .1893). Dex significantly increased IOP, whereas FA did not. One eye was actively inflamed after Dex and FA injection at follow-up (inflamed eyes before injection: [Dex: 2; FA: 6]).

CONCLUSION

Both implants significantly reduced CST and induced a significant gain in visual acuity. Dex might be more effective in reducing CST.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.

Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).

Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.

Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953

Intraocular therapy in noninfectious uveitis

Systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressant agents are the mainstay of therapy for non-infectious uveitis (NIU). However, the risks associated with systemic administration and the need of delivering an effective and safe anti-inflammatory treatment targeted to the site of inflammation have prompt the use of local therapy in the management of NIU. This review will analyse the different local treatment options available, including corticosteroids, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), methotrexate and the recent biologics.

New pharmacotherapy options for noninfectious posterior uveitis

INTRODUCTION

Noninfectious inflammation of the posterior eye segment represents an important cause of visual impairment. It often affects relatively young people and causes a significant personal and social impact. Although steroids and nonbiologic- Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (nbDMARDs) are effective both in acute and long- lasting diseases, however they are increasingly being replaced by biologic (DMARDs). bDMARD. This article therefore aims to identify recent advances in the therapy of noninfectious posterior segment uveitis.

METHODS

A Medline-search was conducted using the terms: nbDMARD, bDMARD, posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, treatment, corticosteroid. In addition, clinical studies were included as registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

RESULTS

Currently two major lines of treatments can be identified: (1) the intraocular application of anti-inflammatory agents and (2) the introduction of new agents, e.g., (bDMARDs) and small-molecule-inhibitors. Whereas intravitreal treatments have the advantage to avoid systemic side effects, new systemic agents are progressively earning credit on the basis of their therapeutic effects.

CONCLUSION

Even when current treatment strategies are still hampered by the limited number of randomized controlled trials, promising progress and continuous efforts are seen.

Recommendations statement on the immunosuppressive treatment of non-infectious, non-neoplastic, non-anterior uveitis

OBJECTIVE

To generate recommendations on the use of immunomodulators in patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic intermediate uveitis (IU), posterior uveitis (PU) and panuveitis (PanU) based on best evidence and experience.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of 5 experts was established, who defined the scope, users, and sections of the document. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory drugs in patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic, non-anterior uveitis. The results of the SLR were presented and discussed during an expert meeting in which 34 recommendations were generated. The level of agreement with the recommendations was also tested in 25 additional experts following a Delphi process. Recommendations were voted from 1 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). We defined agreement if at least 70% of the experts voted ≥7. The level of evidence and grade or recommendation were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

The SLR included 33 articles. The 34 recommendations were accepted after 2 Delphi rounds (3 of them were modified after the first round). They include specific recommendations on patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic, PU and PanU, as well as different treatment guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic, non-anterior uveitis these recommendations might help treatment decision making, due to the lack of robust evidence or other globally accepted algorithms.

Efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory drugs in patients with non-infectious intermediate and posterior uveitis, panuveitis and macular edema: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Non-infectious non-anterior uveitis (NINA) is a sight-threatening condition that often requires immunomodulatory drugs (IMDs) for its management.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the published evidence regarding the use of IMDs in adult patients with NINA uveitis including intermediate (IU) and posterior uveitis (PU), panuveitis (PanU) and macular edema (ME).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review. Search strategies were designed for Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries for articles up to 2019 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the IMDs. A quality assessment was performed using the Jadad Scale.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized clinical trials were selected from the 1,103 articles retrieved. Characteristics of patients, treatment dosages and outcome measures were heterogeneous. The outcomes most frequently analyzed were visual acuity (VA), macular thickness and vitreous haze (VH). Different IMDs were used at their usual dosages. Methotrexate (MTX), micophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine A (CsA), tacrolimus, adalimumab and sarilumab were effective in NINA uveitis. Rituximab combined with MTX was effective in PU. Interferon-β was superior to MTX, albeit with more adverse events in IU with ME. CsA was similar to cyclophosphamide (Cyc) in Behçet uveitis. Tacrolimus was safer and similar to CsA. Cyc was effective in serpiginoid choroiditis, but when combined with azathioprine in PU, but did not improve VA. Secukinumab did not prevent NINA uveitis recurrences, although intravenously it showed a higher response rate than when used subcutaneously. Daclizumab did not show any benefits in Behçet NINA uveitis.

CONCLUSION

Several IMDs and their combinations can be useful in treating NINA uveitis. The available studies were heterogeneous regarding patient characteristics and outcomes.

Anti-interleukin-6 receptor therapy with tocilizumab for refractory pseudophakic cystoid macular edema

Purpose

To describe the clinical course of a patient with refractory pseudophakic cystoid macular edema treated with interleukin-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab.

Observations

An 80-year-old Caucasian man with past ocular history significant for glaucoma (right eye) and iritis presented with cystoid macular edema (CME) in the right eye (OD). His ocular surgery history was significant for cataract extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lenses in 1999 and YAG laser capsulotomy in 2014 in both eyes (OU). His medications at time of presentation included latanoprost and dorzolamide-timolol in OD for glaucoma, as well as prednisolone in OD for iritis. Upon examination, his visual acuity was 20/250 in OD and 20/20 in the left eye (OS). Intraocular pressure was 20 mmHg in OD and 10 mmHg in OS. Slit-lamp examination revealed no cells or flare in OU. Dilated fundus exam showed CME and a cup-to-disk ratio of 0.9 in OD and normal findings in OS. Initial spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) demonstrated intraretinal fluid in both outer and inner layers as well as mild subretinal fluid with an intact ellipsoid zone in OD. Fluorescein angiography revealed perifoveal leakage in OD. Laboratory evaluations, including infectious work-up, were unremarkable. While the patient's CME initially improved after initiation of therapy with topical prednisolone and oral acetazolamide, the CME later recurred after systemic acetazolamide was stopped due to intolerable side effects. Despite multiple therapeutic approaches, including topical and systemic corticosteroids (both oral and intravenous) and topical interferon α2b over the course of more than one year, the patient's visual acuity continued to worsen with increasing intra- and subretinal fluid in the macula. Due to the refractory CME, the patient was started on monthly infusions of anti-interleukin (IL)-6 receptor tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) with three days of methylprednisolone infusions (500 mg/day). After nine cycles of treatment, SD-OCT demonstrated restoration of normal foveal contour with complete resolution of CME.

Conclusions and Importance

IL-6 inhibition with tocilizumab may be a safe and effective treatment for refractory CME. Further studies are needed to elucidate the nature and extent of therapeutic IL-6 inhibition in CME.

Medical Therapy of Uveitic Macular Edema: Biologic Agents

Introduction: Uveitic macular edema (UME) is a significant cause of visual impairment in all uveitis types. Methods: Reports that were cited in the MEDLINE database, that analyzed the effectiveness of biologics for UME in at least five patients, with a minimum follow-up of 3 months, published prior to April 1, 2019 were included. Reports that did not compare UME findings before and after the therapy, using either OCT or fluorescein angiography, were excluded. Results: Case series that analyzed the efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents showed modest, short-term benefit. Studies that investigated systemic anti-TNF agents in patients with noninfectious uveitis reported a therapeutic effect on UME. Anti-IL-6 antibodies have shown promising results for most severe cases of noninfectious UME. Interferon represents an option for patients with persistent UME in infectious and noninfectious uveitis. Conclusion: Multicenter, randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of each group of biologic agents in sufficient number of patients.

The Effectiveness of Pharmacological Agents for the Treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema (UMO): A Systematic Review

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of effectiveness of pharmacological therapies for treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema (UMO). Method/Design: Comparative studies of pharmacological therapies in patients with UMO were identified in Cochrane CENTRAL/MEDLINE/EMBASE/CINAHL/trials registers (February 2017). PROSPERO registration: CRD42015019170. Results: Thirty-one studies were included. Corticosteroids were the most frequently studied (n = 20). Corticosteroids (all forms) were consistently of greater/equal efficacy to active comparators; for anti-VEGF (n = 4) improvement, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were mostly less than local corticosteroid injection; for interferon (n = 1) improvement BCVA and CMT were greater than the comparator of methotrexate; for topical indomethacin (n = 1) improvement, BCVA and CMT were greater than placebo. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, and vitamin E (n = 5) were not effective for these outcomes. Conclusion: The review highlights areas where the evidence base is still lacking, and appropriately focused trials are needed to inform best treatment to tackle this sight-threatening condition.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira^®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex^®; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; p = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; p = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness.

LIMITATIONS

The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF A SUSTAINED-RELEASE DEXAMETHASONE INTRAVITREAL IMPLANT FOR CYSTOID MACULAR EDEMA IN QUIESCENT UVEITIS

PURPOSE

To investigate dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant; OZURDEX, Allergan, Inc) in the treatment of uveitic cystoid macular edema that had persisted in the absence of intraocular inflammation.

METHODS

In this prospective interventional case series, 10 patients with uveitic cystoid macular edema and quiescent uveitis were treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant at baseline and evaluated monthly for one year. Patients were retreated whenever cystoid macular edema recurred. The primary outcome measure was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at day 90.

RESULTS

At day 90, mean improvement from baseline BCVA was 14.4 letters (P = 0.0003), 70% of patients had a ≥10 letter BCVA improvement, 50% of patients had a ≥15 letter BCVA improvement, and the mean decrease from baseline central subfield retinal thickness was 140 μm (P = 0.008). Improvements were maintained through day 360 with retreatment as needed. At day 360, mean improvement in BCVA was 16.5 letters (P = 0.006) and the mean decrease in central subfield retinal thickness was 158 μm (P = 0.002). One patient experienced intraocular pressure >25 mmHg (managed with topical medication). Two phakic patients (2/8; 25%) had worsening of lens opacity requiring cataract extraction.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant may be an effective treatment for patients with persistent cystoid macular edema in quiescent uveitis.

Twenty-Four Months Follow-Up of Intravitreal Bevacizumab Injection Versus Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide Injection for the Management of Persistent Non-Infectious Uveitic Cystoid Macular Edema

PURPOSE

To report the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injection versus intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVT) for persistent non-infectious uveitic cystoid macular edema (CME).

METHODS

Interventional retrospective comparative case series evaluated 37 consecutive patients (44 eyes) with completely controlled uveitis and recalcitrant CME. Patients received repeated injections of 1.25 mg of IVB or 4 mg of IVT.

RESULTS

Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline and 24 months was logMAR 1 and 0.8 respectively, in the IVB group (p = 0.002) and; logMAR of 1.1 and 0.6, in the IVT group (p = 0.001). Central macular thickness at baseline and 24 months was 399.2 µm and 333.7 µm (p < 0.0009), respectively, for the IVB group and; 464.4 µm and 316.5 µm in the IVT group (p = 0.044). Postoperatively, IOP increased in the IVT group.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated injections with IVT improve BCVA as effectively as repeated injections with IVB in the long-term management of persistent uveitic CME.

RESOLUTION OF NONINFECTIOUS UVEITIC CYSTOID MACULAR EDEMA WITH TOPICAL DIFLUPREDNATE

PURPOSE

To evaluate the short-term safety and efficacy of topical difluprednate (0.05%) for the treatment of noninfectious uveitic cystoid macular edema.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients (35 eyes) undergoing treatment with difluprednate 4 times daily for 3 weeks for noninfectious uveitic cystoid macular edema were reviewed for visual acuity, intraocular pressure, optical coherence tomography, and fluorescein angiography results. A mixed model analysis was fit with each measure as the outcome, visit as the primary predictor, and patient and eye as random effects.

RESULTS

Mean central foveal thickness decreased by 117 μm (P < 0.001) at 30 ± 15 days, 124 μm (P < 0.001) at 60 ± 15 days, and 152 μm (P < 0.001) at 180 ± 30 days. Complete resolution of intraretinal fluid was observed in 15 of 34 (44%) eyes at 30 ± 15 days, 11 of 21 (52%) eyes at 60 ± 15 days, and 9 of 12 (75%) eyes at 180 ± 30 days. Improvement in fluorescein leakage was noted in 7 of 8 eyes (88%). Visual acuity improved by a mean of 5 letters (P = 0.001) at 30 ± 15 days, 5.5 letters (P = 0.007) at 60 ± 15 days, and 7 letters (P = 0.032) at 180 ± 30 days. Mean increase in intraocular pressure was 1.48 mmHg at 30 ± 15 days (P = 0.080), 1.92 mmHg at 60 ± 15 days (P = 0.110), and 6.18 mmHg (P = 0.001) at 180 ± 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Topical difluprednate is a well-tolerated and effective treatment for noninfectious uveitic cystoid macular edema with decreased central foveal thickness, mild improvement in visual acuity, and elevation of intraocular pressure observed in a few patients.

Characteristics of Macular Edema in Behcet Disease after Intravitreal Bevacizumab Injection

Purpose:

To investigate the effect of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injection on macular edema (ME) secondary to Behcet's disease.

Methods:

This prospective case series included 15 patients with bilateral ME due to Behcet's disease. Intravitreal bevacizumab was injected into the more severely involved eye; the contralateral eye was evaluated as the control. Patients were followed up with comprehensive ocular examination, optical coherence tomography, and fluorescein angiography (FA) for a minimum of 6 months by a single ophthalmologist.

Results:

Patients with a mean age of 30.6 ± 7.4 years received a mean number of 3.3 IVB injections during the 6 months. The mean preinjection vision was 0.6 ± 0.3 and 0.4 ± 0.4 LogMAR in the case and control groups, respectively, with no significant improvement at 6 months. Mean central foveal thickness was 375.3 ± 132.1 and 307.2 ± 84.5 μm in the case and control groups, respectively, and these changed to 401 ± 199.9 (P = 0.65) and 307.7 ± 82.8 μm (P = 0.73) at month 6, respectively. A statistically nonsignificant improvement in ME was observed during the first 3 months in the case group. However, it did not persist up to month 6 on an as-needed basis. IVB injections caused a disproportionate decrease in the thickness of macular subfields. A reduction in disc leakage was observed on FA (P = 0.058). Logistic regression analysis revealed no statistically significant predictive factor for an improvement in visual acuity (VA) and a reduction in foveal thickness.

Conclusion:

During a 6-month period, IVB injections based on an as-needed protocol provided no statistically significant improvement in VA and ME.

Uveitic macular edema

Macular edema (ME) may complicate anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveitis, which may be because of various infectious, neoplastic or autoimmune etiologies. BRB breakdown is involved in the pathogenesis of Uveitic ME (UME). Optical coherence tomography has become a standard tool to confirm the diagnosis of macular thickening, due to its non-invasive, reproducible, and sensitive features. Retinal fluorescein and indocyanine green angiography is helpful to study the macula and screen for associated vasculitis, detect ischemic areas and preretinal, prepapillary or choroidal neovascular complications, and it may provide information about the etiology and be needed to assess the therapeutic response. UME due to an infection or neoplastic infiltration may require a specific treatment. If it remains persistent or occurs in other etiologies, immunomodulatory treatments may be needed. Intravitreal, subconjunctival, or subtenon corticosteroids are widely used. Their local use is contraindicated in glaucoma patients and limited by their short-lasting action. In case of bilateral sight-threatening chronic posterior uveitis, systemic treatments are usually needed, and corticosteroids are used as the standard first-line therapy. In order to reduce the daily steroid dose, immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory agents may be added, some of them being now available intravitreally. Ongoing prospective studies are assessing biotherapies and immunomodulators to determine their safety and efficacy in this indication.

Pharmacotherapy for uveitis: current management and emerging therapy

Uveitis, a group of conditions characterized by intraocular inflammation, is a major cause of sight loss in the working population. Most uveitis seen in Western countries is noninfectious and appears to be autoimmune or autoinflammatory in nature, requiring treatment with immunosuppressive and/or anti-inflammatory drugs. In this educational review, we outline the ideal characteristics of drugs for uveitis and review the data to support the use of current and emerging therapies in this context. It is crucial that we continue to develop new therapies for use in uveitis that aim to suppress disease activity, prevent accumulation of damage, and preserve visual function for patients with the minimum possible side effects.

Cataract surgery in patients with history of uveitis

Cataract surgery in patients with uveitis is not as simple as any senile cataract surgery. Recent evidence suggests that useful visual outcome can be achieved in most of the cases if they are handled meticulously. Key factors leading to improved visual outcome are absolute control of preoperative inflammation with diligent use of immunomodulatory drugs, meticulous surgery along with early detection and care of postoperative complications. Modern technologies in the intraocular lens designs and materials have contributed to the success. In this article, we review the literature on this subject with emphasis on the importance of the use of immunomodulatory drugs to control preoperative and postoperative intraocular inflammation and avoid complications.

Local therapies for inflammatory eye disease in translation: past, present and future

Despite their side-effects and the advent of systemic immunosuppressives and biologics, the use of corticosteroids remains in the management of patients with uveitis, particularly when inflammation is associated with systemic disease or when bilateral ocular disease is present. The use of topical corticosteroids as local therapy for anterior uveitis is well-established, but periocular injections of corticosteroid can also be used to control mild or moderate intraocular inflammation. More recently, intraocular corticosteroids such as triamcinolone and steroid-loaded vitreal inserts and implants have been found to be effective, including in refractory cases. Additional benefits are noted when ocular inflammation is unilateral or asymmetric, when local therapy may preclude the need to increase the systemic medication.

Implants in particular have gained prominence with evidence of efficacy including both dexamethasone and fluocinolone loaded devices. However, an appealing avenue of research lies in the development of non-corticosteroid drugs in order to avoid the side-effects that limit the appeal of injected corticosteroids. Several existing drugs are being assessed, including anti-VEGF compounds such as ranibizumab and bevacizumab, anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha antibodies such as infliximab, as well as older cytotoxic medications such as methotrexate and cyclosporine, with varying degrees of success. Intravitreal sirolimus is currently undergoing phase 3 trials in uveitis and other inflammatory pathways have also been proposed as suitable therapeutic targets. Furthermore, the advent of biotechnology is seeing advances in generation of new therapeutic molecules such as high affinity binding peptides or modified high affinity or bivalent single chain Fab fragments, offering higher specificity and possibility of topical delivery.

Interventions for the treatment of uveitic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Uveitic macular edema is the major cause of reduced vision in eyes with uveitis.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of uveitic macular edema.

Search strategy

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase. There were no language or data restrictions in the search for trials. The databases were last searched on December 1, 2011. Reference lists of included trials were searched. Archives of Ophthalmology, Ophthalmology, Retina, the British Journal of Ophthalmology, and the New England Journal of Medicine were searched for clinical trials and reviews.

Selection criteria

Participants of any age and sex with any type of uveitic macular edema were included. Early, chronic, refractory, or secondary uveitic macular edema were included. We included trials that compared any interventions of any dose and duration, including comparison with another treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment.

Data collection and analysis

Best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome data including adverse effects were collected.

Conclusion

More results from randomized controlled trials with long follow-up periods are needed for interventions for uveitic macular edema to assist in determining the overall long-term benefit of different treatments. The only intervention with sufficiently robust randomized controlled trials for a meta-analysis was acetazolamide, which was shown to be ineffective in improving vision in eyes with uveitic macular edema, and is clinically now rarely used. Interventions showing promise in this disease include dexamethasone implants, immunomodulatory drugs and anti-vascular endothelial growth-factor agents. When macular edema has become refractory after multiple interventions, pars plana vitrectomy could be considered. The disease pathophysiology is uncertain and the course of disease unpredictable. As there are no clear guidelines from the literature, interventions should be tailored to the individual patient.

Postcataract surgical inflammation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and recent developments in the diagnosis and management of postcataract surgery inflammation.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients with pre-existing uveitis, control of inflammation with topical and/or systemic therapy for 3 months preoperatively continues to be important in lessening the risk of postoperative inflammation and complications. During cataract surgery, intraocular lens selection in these patients is important. Recent literature suggests that modern intraocular lenses (IOLs), particularly hydrophilic or hydrophobic acrylic lenses, generally have good uveal biocompatibility in uveitic patients. The postoperative course can be complicated by inflammation and cystoid macular edema (CME), and in uveitic patients, intensive perioperative steroid treatment can lessen these complications. Recent studies show that in uveitic patients, the improvement in CME and inflammation after intravitreal triamcinolone is better than after orbital floor triamcinolone injection, but that a single intraoperative orbital floor injection of triamcinolone is as effective as a 4-week course of postoperative oral prednisolone. Although postoperative inflammation in uveitic patients may be due to recurrence of uveitis, one must recognize other important potential causes of postoperative inflammation and treat accordingly.

SUMMARY

Most patients with postcataract inflammation have good visual outcomes provided that the cause is recognized and that there is adequate perioperative planning in patients predisposed to inflammation.

Review and update of intraocular therapy in noninfectious uveitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review new clinically relevant data regarding the intraocular treatment of noninfectious uveitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Triamcinolone acetonide, the most commonly used intravitreal corticosteroid for treatment of uveitis and uveitic macular oedema has a limited duration of action and is associated with a high risk of corticosteroid-induced intraocular pressure (IOP) rise and cataract. Recent advances have led to the development of sustained-release corticosteroid devices using different corticosteroids such as dexamethasone and fluocinolone acetonide. Treatment options for patients who have previously exhibited corticosteroid hypertensive response have also expanded through the use of new noncorticosteroid intravitreal therapeutics such as methotrexate and antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.

SUMMARY

Ozurdex dexamethasone implant appears to have a better safety profile, and a slightly long-lasting effect than triamcinolone acetonide. The Retisert implant allows the release of corticosteroids at a constant rate for 2.5 years, but it requires surgical placement and its use is associated with a very high risk of cataract and requirement for IOP-lowering surgery. For patients who are steroid responders, methotrexate may offer a better alternative to corticosteroid treatment than anti-VEGF agents, but controlled trials are required to confirm this.