Low frequency ranibizumab versus dexamethasone implant for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

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.

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus dexamethasone implant in macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Intravitreal ranibizumab (RNB) and dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DII) were developed in the recent past and has been widely used for macular edema secondary to BRVO. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab (RNB) compared to dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DII) in patients with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search on topics that assess RNB and DII in patients with macular edema secondary to BRVO from several electronic databases.

RESULTS

There were 678 subjects from five studies. Ranibizumab was associated with a greater increase in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference 9.13, I²: 0%) compared to DII. Ranibizumab also demonstrated a greater ⩾10 (OR 2.76, I²: 0%) and ⩾15 letters (OR 2.78, I²: 0%) gain. RNB has better BCVA (logMAR scale) improvement at 6 months' follow up (mean difference -0.15, I²: 64%) in favor of RNB. Higher IOP was found in DII group on follow-up (mean difference -2.92, I²: 89%) and RNB has lesser IOP ⩾10 mmHg increase compared to DII (OR 0.08, I²: 0%). Cataract formation and/or progression was less in RNB (OR 0.53, I²: 75%). The need for rescue laser was similar the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal RNB was more effective with less pronounced effect on IOP and cataract formation and/or progression compared to DII for patients with macular edema secondary to BRVO.

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.

Comparison of dexamethasone intravitreal implant with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in the treatment of macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched for published studies comparing DEX with anti-VEGF for the treatment of ME caused by BRVO. Outcomes of the selected studies included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and adverse events. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Six trials comparing the efficacy and safety of DEX with anti-VEGF were included in this meta-analysis. At 1 month, DEX achieved a mean BCVA superior to that achieved by anti-VEGF (MD = -0.11, P < .0001), in addition to a superior mean BCVA change (MD = -0.35, P < .00001). At 3 months, the mean BCVA showed a significant difference (MD = -0.06, P = .03) between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment, while the mean BCVA change was similar to that with anti-VEGF treatment (MD = -0.06, P = .11). However, neither mean BCVA nor mean BCVA change showed a significant difference between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment at 6 months (MD = 0.08, P = .06; MD = 0.06, P = .43, respectively). Mean CMT and mean CMT change were significantly lower in the DEX group than in the anti-VEGF group at 1 month (MD = -53.63 μm, P < .00001; MD = -60.1 μm, P = .005, respectively). However, at 3 months, mean CMT and mean CMT change were similar between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment (MD = 17.4 μ, P = .74; MD = 18.01 μm, P = .72, respectively). Although mean CMT in the anti-VEGF group was not significantly lower than that in the DEX group at 6 months (MD = 55.53, P = .07), the mean CMT change from baseline achieved by the anti-VEGF treatment was significantly superior to that obtained with DEX (MD = 75.53, P = .0002). Concerning adverse events, no statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of cataract (OR = 4.25, P = .07), but the use of DEX led to a higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation compared with anti-VEGF treatment (OR = 12.04, P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that visual acuity recovery and CMT were better in the DEX group than in the anti-VEGF group after 1 and 3 months, although the difference in CMT at 3 months was not significant. However, there were no significant differences in terms of visual acuity and CMT between the two groups after 6 months of follow-up. Therefore, DEX may be recommended as the first treatment option in ME associated with BRVO.