Comparison of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab in Vitrectomized Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

[Implantable intravitreal corticosteroids in chronic noninfectious uveitis]

BACKGROUND

Uveitis leads to blindness in 10-15% of all cases in industrialized nations. The prevalence varies depending on the literature, ranging from 9 to 730 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. Local and systemic steroid applications, along with treatment involving immunomodulators, are the primary treatment options. In cases of chronic and refractory uveitis, especially with the manifestation of uveitic macular edema, intravitreal corticosteroids can contribute to reduce or completely replace systemic immunomodulatory therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics or corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE

This review article presents the currently available intravitreal corticosteroid implants used in the treatment of noninfectious uveitis. The indications, effectiveness, and side effect profiles are discussed within the context of the current literature. A total of 6 randomized controlled studies about FAc and DEX implants with more than 100 patients were included in this review. One subgroup analysis from a multicentric randomized study with 315 patients has been included as well. The outcome is discussed in this article.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety profile of intravitreal corticosteroids in uveitic macular edema have been evaluated in several studies in recent years. In some studies, they have been compared to systemic treatment options. With long-acting corticosteroid implants the number of relapses can be reduced and the time interval between relapses can be prolonged. Short-acting corticosteroid implants represent a treatment option during acute uveitic activity. The adverse effects of corticosteroids can be well-controlled in most cases. In phakic and/or young patients, however, adverse effects (such as cataract development) should be discussed in depth before treatment initiation as most corticosteroids are applied as long-term treatment.

Diabetic Retinopathy – Diagnostics and Treatment Guidelines

Diabetic retinopathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes mellitus and represents a serious health, social and economic problem. With the expected increase in the number of patients with diabetes, it is becoming the leading cause of severe vision loss in the working-age population.  The presented guidelines summarize the current knowledge about this disease in order to standardize and update the procedures for the diagnosis, classification and treatment of diabetic retinopathy.

Efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of the intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes.

Methods: We performed a literature search in four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) from inception to 22 May 2022. Studies comparing the efficacy of the DEX implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with DME with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. The main outcomes included comparison of the mean change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to different follow-up endpoints between the vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized groups. The secondary outcomes were the mean duration of action for the first DEX implantation and the number of required injections throughout the follow-up period. Safety data were collected and compared.

Results: The final analysis included 7 studies involving 582 eyes, 208 vitrectomized eyes and 374 nonvitrectomized eyes. The mean between-group differences in BCVA improvement were not significant at any endpoint, with averages difference of −0.07 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (p = 0.088) at 1 month, −0.03 logMAR (p = 0.472) 3 months, −0.07 logMAR (p = 0.066) 6 months, and −0.04 logMAR (p = 0.486) 12 months. The mean between-group differences in CMT reduction were not statistically significant, with mean differences of 7.17 μm (p = 0.685) at 1 month, 20.03 μm (p = 0.632) 3 months, −1.80 μm (p = 0.935) 6 months, and −25.65 μm (p = 0.542) 12 months. However, the vitrectomized group had a significantly shorter duration of action during the first DEX implantation than the nonvitrectomized group, with a mean difference of 0.8 months (p = 0.005). No significant between-group differences were detected for the number of required injections or safety profile.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed similar efficacy and safety of the sustained-release DEX intravitreal implant for vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with DME. The intravitreal DEX implant could be considered an effective choice for DME treatment in eyes with prior vitrectomy.