1
|
Abu Arif J, Knecht VA, Rübsam A, Lussac V, Jami Z, Pohlmann D, Müller B, Pleyer U. Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Uveitis: Dissecting Responder and Non-Responder Outcomes at a Tertiary Center. Biomedicines 2024; 12:1106. [PMID: 38791073 PMCID: PMC11117563 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12051106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2024] [Revised: 05/08/2024] [Accepted: 05/10/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Macular edema (ME) remains a primary cause of visual deterioration in uveitis. Visual acuity (VA) can often be maintained using corticosteroid depot systems. This study evaluated the efficacy of a fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN®) in treating non-infectious uveitis using real-world data. This retrospective analysis included 135 eyes subdivided into responders and non-responders. Central retinal thickness (CRT), VA, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were followed over time. A significant decrease in CRT and an increase in VA were observed in all eyes throughout the follow-up period (p < 0.01). An IOP increase (p = 0.028) necessitated treatment in 43% of eyes by Month 6. Non-responders were older (p = 0.004) and had been treated with more dexamethasone (DEX) implants (p = 0.04); 89.3% had a defect in the external limiting membrane (ELM) and inner/outer segment (IS/OS) zone (p < 0.001). Immunomodulatory therapy had no impact on treatment response. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) patients had a mean CRT reduction of 47.55 µm and a reduced effect by Month 24 (p = 0.046) versus non-PPV patients. We conclude that the FAc implant achieves long-term control of CRT and improves VA. Increases in IOP were manageable. Eyes with a previous PPV showed milder results. Data showed a correlation between older age, a damaged ELM and IS/OS zone, frequent DEX inserts, and poorer outcome measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasmin Abu Arif
- Department of Ophthalmology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (J.A.A.); (V.A.K.); (A.R.); (Z.J.); (D.P.); (B.M.)
| | - Vitus André Knecht
- Department of Ophthalmology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (J.A.A.); (V.A.K.); (A.R.); (Z.J.); (D.P.); (B.M.)
| | - Anne Rübsam
- Department of Ophthalmology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (J.A.A.); (V.A.K.); (A.R.); (Z.J.); (D.P.); (B.M.)
- Berlin Institute of Health at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Platz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
| | - Vanessa Lussac
- Department of Ophthalmology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (J.A.A.); (V.A.K.); (A.R.); (Z.J.); (D.P.); (B.M.)
| | - Zohreh Jami
- Department of Ophthalmology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (J.A.A.); (V.A.K.); (A.R.); (Z.J.); (D.P.); (B.M.)
| | - Dominika Pohlmann
- Department of Ophthalmology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (J.A.A.); (V.A.K.); (A.R.); (Z.J.); (D.P.); (B.M.)
- Berlin Institute of Health at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Platz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
| | - Bert Müller
- Department of Ophthalmology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (J.A.A.); (V.A.K.); (A.R.); (Z.J.); (D.P.); (B.M.)
| | - Uwe Pleyer
- Department of Ophthalmology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (J.A.A.); (V.A.K.); (A.R.); (Z.J.); (D.P.); (B.M.)
- Berlin Institute of Health at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Platz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Fayzullin A, Bakulina A, Mikaelyan K, Shekhter A, Guller A. Implantable Drug Delivery Systems and Foreign Body Reaction: Traversing the Current Clinical Landscape. Bioengineering (Basel) 2021; 8:bioengineering8120205. [PMID: 34940358 PMCID: PMC8698517 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering8120205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2021] [Revised: 12/03/2021] [Accepted: 12/06/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Precise delivery of therapeutics to the target structures is essential for treatment efficiency and safety. Drug administration via conventional routes requires overcoming multiple transport barriers to achieve and maintain the local drug concentration and commonly results in unwanted off-target effects. Patients’ compliance with the treatment schedule remains another challenge. Implantable drug delivery systems (IDDSs) provide a way to solve these problems. IDDSs are bioengineering devices surgically placed inside the patient’s tissues to avoid first-pass metabolism and reduce the systemic toxicity of the drug by eluting the therapeutic payload in the vicinity of the target tissues. IDDSs present an impressive example of successful translation of the research and engineering findings to the patient’s bedside. It is envisaged that the IDDS technologies will grow exponentially in the coming years. However, to pave the way for this progress, it is essential to learn lessons from the past and present of IDDSs clinical applications. The efficiency and safety of the drug-eluting implants depend on the interactions between the device and the hosting tissues. In this review, we address this need and analyze the clinical landscape of the FDA-approved IDDSs applications in the context of the foreign body reaction, a key aspect of implant–tissue integration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexey Fayzullin
- Department of Experimental Morphology and Biobanking, Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia; (A.F.); (A.B.); (K.M.); (A.S.)
- World-Class Research Center “Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare”, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia
- Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
| | - Alesia Bakulina
- Department of Experimental Morphology and Biobanking, Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia; (A.F.); (A.B.); (K.M.); (A.S.)
| | - Karen Mikaelyan
- Department of Experimental Morphology and Biobanking, Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia; (A.F.); (A.B.); (K.M.); (A.S.)
- World-Class Research Center “Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare”, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia
| | - Anatoly Shekhter
- Department of Experimental Morphology and Biobanking, Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia; (A.F.); (A.B.); (K.M.); (A.S.)
| | - Anna Guller
- Department of Experimental Morphology and Biobanking, Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia; (A.F.); (A.B.); (K.M.); (A.S.)
- World-Class Research Center “Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare”, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia
- Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
- Biomolecular Discovery Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sharif NA. Therapeutic Drugs and Devices for Tackling Ocular Hypertension and Glaucoma, and Need for Neuroprotection and Cytoprotective Therapies. Front Pharmacol 2021; 12:729249. [PMID: 34603044 PMCID: PMC8484316 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.729249] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2021] [Accepted: 08/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Damage to the optic nerve and the death of associated retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) by elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), also known as glaucoma, is responsible for visual impairment and blindness in millions of people worldwide. The ocular hypertension (OHT) and the deleterious mechanical forces it exerts at the back of the eye, at the level of the optic nerve head/optic disc and lamina cribosa, is the only modifiable risk factor associated with glaucoma that can be treated. The elevated IOP occurs due to the inability of accumulated aqueous humor (AQH) to egress from the anterior chamber of the eye due to occlusion of the major outflow pathway, the trabecular meshwork (TM) and Schlemm’s canal (SC). Several different classes of pharmaceutical agents, surgical techniques and implantable devices have been developed to lower and control IOP. First-line drugs to promote AQH outflow via the uveoscleral outflow pathway include FP-receptor prostaglandin (PG) agonists (e.g., latanoprost, travoprost and tafluprost) and a novel non-PG EP2-receptor agonist (omidenepag isopropyl, Eybelis®). TM/SC outflow enhancing drugs are also effective ocular hypotensive agents (e.g., rho kinase inhibitors like ripasudil and netarsudil; and latanoprostene bunod, a conjugate of a nitric oxide donor and latanoprost). One of the most effective anterior chamber AQH microshunt devices is the Preserflo® microshunt which can lower IOP down to 10–13 mmHg. Other IOP-lowering drugs and devices on the horizon will be also discussed. Additionally, since elevated IOP is only one of many risk factors for development of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, a treatise of the role of inflammatory neurodegeneration of the optic nerve and retinal ganglion cells and appropriate neuroprotective strategies to mitigate this disease will also be reviewed and discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Najam A Sharif
- Global Alliances and External Research, Ophthalmology Innovation Center, Santen Inc., Emeryville, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pons-Faudoa FP, Ballerini A, Sakamoto J, Grattoni A. Advanced implantable drug delivery technologies: transforming the clinical landscape of therapeutics for chronic diseases. Biomed Microdevices 2019; 21:47. [PMID: 31104136 PMCID: PMC7161312 DOI: 10.1007/s10544-019-0389-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Chronic diseases account for the majority of all deaths worldwide, and their prevalence is expected to escalate in the next 10 years. Because chronic disorders require long-term therapy, the healthcare system must address the needs of an increasing number of patients. The use of new drug administration routes, specifically implantable drug delivery devices, has the potential to reduce treatment-monitoring clinical visits and follow-ups with healthcare providers. Also, implantable drug delivery devices can be designed to maintain drug concentrations in the therapeutic window to achieve controlled, continuous release of therapeutics over extended periods, eliminating the risk of patient non-compliance to oral treatment. A higher local drug concentration can be achieved if the device is implanted in the affected tissue, reducing systemic adverse side effects and decreasing the challenges and discomfort of parenteral treatment. Although implantable drug delivery devices have existed for some time, interest in their therapeutic potential is growing, with a global market expected to reach over $12 billion USD by 2018. This review discusses implantable drug delivery technologies in an advanced stage of development or in clinical use and focuses on the state-of-the-art of reservoir-based implants including pumps, electromechanical systems, and polymers, sites of implantation and side effects, and deployment in developing countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fernanda P Pons-Faudoa
- Department of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, 6670 Bertner Avenue, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
- School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Avenida Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, 64849, Monterrey, NL, Mexico
| | - Andrea Ballerini
- Department of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, 6670 Bertner Avenue, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
- Department of Oncology and Onco-Hematology, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Jason Sakamoto
- Department of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, 6670 Bertner Avenue, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Alessandro Grattoni
- Department of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, 6670 Bertner Avenue, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
- Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, 6550 Fannin Street, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, 6550 Fannin Street, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|