Effect of Alternate Treatment with Intravitreal Corticosteroid and Anti-VEGF for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion

Purpose

To evaluate whether treatment with intravitreal corticosteroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections alternately can improve treatment outcomes of macular edema (ME) caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

Methods

This dual-center retrospective study included 112 eyes with treatment-naïve ME secondary to RVO that were alternately treated with intravitreal corticosteroid and anti-VEGF injections (33 eyes, alternate group) or treated only with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (79 eyes, anti-VEGF group) on a pro re nata basis.

Results

During the 12-month follow-up period, the alternate group achieved a visual acuity gain of 0.39 logMAR, while the anti-VEGF group achieved a gain of 0.21 logMAR (P=0.042). The alternate group demonstrated a reduction in the central macular thickness of 229.9-μm, while the anti-VEGF group achieved a reduction of 220.1 μm (P=0.887). The alternate group required an average of 5.2 injections, while the anti-VEGF received 4.2 injections (P < 0.001). In a propensity score-matched cohort to compensate for the differences in the injection numbers between the two groups, the alternate group achieved a better visual acuity gain than the anti-VEGF group at month 12 (0.39 logMAR vs. 0.17 logMAR, P=0.048).

Conclusions

In ME secondary to RVO, treatment with intravitreal corticosteroid and anti-VEGF injections alternately resulted in a more favorable visual outcome compared with intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy.

Relationship between Recurrence of Macular Edema Due to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion and Changes in Choroidal Thickness

INTRODUCTION

The role of vascular endothelial growth factor in macular edema (ME) due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) by enhancing vascular permeability has been well studied. ME due to BRVO often recurs; however, there has been no report on the relationship between this recurrence and choroidal thickness (CT), considering the high vascularity of the choroid. This study was designed to investigate this relationship.

METHODS

In this retrospective consecutive case series, patients with recurrence of ME within 6 months of receiving intravitreal aflibercept injection treatment for naive ME due to BRVO at Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital were included. Retinal thickness (RT) and CT were measured in the fovea and on the occlusion, non-occlusion, nasal, and temporal sides at baseline, after the first intravitreal aflibercept administration, and before and after recurrence. We also examined the change for each side before and after reinjection.

RESULTS

This study included 11 patients and 11 eyes. The subfoveal CT and RT at baseline were 261.9 ± 93.4 μm and 691.5 ± 254.4 μm, respectively, which significantly decreased to 208.5 ± 70.3 μm and 188.6 ± 33.8 μm, respectively, at 1 month after the first injection (p = 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). These values also significantly decreased at all the other sites after treatment. There were 14 recurrences within the 6 months following intravitreal aflibercept injection; RT significantly changed at all sites before and after recurrence and reinjection. CT significantly changed at the subfovea and on the occlusion and non-occlusion sides; however, there was no significant change on the nasal and temporal sides.

CONCLUSION

In patients with BRVO, the CT around the macula after initial treatment was significantly reduced; however, at the time of ME recurrence and reinjection, there were site-dependent differences in the changes observed in the CT. These findings suggest that the pathologies of ME at initial occurrence and at the time of recurrence are different.

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.

The short-term efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone implant in the treatment of macular edema due to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the efficacy over 6 months of intravitreal ranibizumab (IR), aflibercept (IA) and dexamethasone implant (IDI) in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients who received pro re nata treatment of IR 0.5 mg, IA 2 mg or IDI 0.7 mg (as Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively) for the treatment of ME due to non-ischemic CRVO were included in the study. Efficacy outcomes were considered as the changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline over 6 months.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (Group 1) received IR, 16 patients received (Group 2) IA, and 24 patients (Group 3) received IDI. The mean numbers of injections were 2.56 ± 1.0, 2.68 ± 0.9, and 1.62 ± 0.5 in Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.000). In Groups 1 and 2, the mean BCVA values increased significantly after the treatment (p < 0.001). However, in Group 3, no increase in mean BCVA was statistically significant in any month (p = 0.061). The proportion of eyes gaining at least three lines in BCVA was 33.3% in Group 1, 43.8% in Group 2, and 33.3% in Group 3 (p = 0.762). In all groups, significant improvements were observed in CMT after treatment (p < 0.001). At month 6, the mean changes in CMT were - 162.7 ± 186.5 µm in Group 1, - 310.1 ± 345.9 µm in Group 2, and - 193.8 ± 228.3 µm in Group 3, with no significant difference among groups (p = 0.474). Cataract formation and IOP increase were higher in the IDI group, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.054 and p = 0.392, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IR and IA may be preferred treatment for ME due to non-ischemic CRVO as visual improvement remains the primary ophthalmological objective. The most important advantages of IDI are its effect on CMT and the need for fewer injections. The increase in IOP and the formation of cataract may be observed more in IDI-treated eyes.

Short-term outcomes in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion who received intravitreal aflibercept with or without intravitreal ranibizumab

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the short-term outcomes for patients who received intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) with or without intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for macular edema (ME) due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Patients and methods

Patients received IVA for ME due to BRVO. Patients who initially received IVA were defined as the treatment-naïve group and those who were switched from IVR to IVA after ME recurrence were defined as the switching group. Patient outcomes were examined at 1 week and 1 month postinjection.

Results

Both groups comprised 27 eyes from 27 patients. There was a significant decrease in central macular thickness (CMT) at 1 week and 1 month postinjection in both groups. There was also a significant improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1 week and 1 month postinjection in the treatment-naïve group and 1 month in the switching group. Younger age was associated with a good BCVA at 1 month postinjection in the switching group, and the absence of epiretinal membrane was associated with a reduction in CMT at 1 month postinjection in the switching group.

Conclusion

IVA is temporarily effective for treating ME due to BRVO regardless of a history of IVR use.

Comparison between "early" or "late" intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant in branch (BRVO) or central (CRVO) retinal vein occlusion: six-months follow-up

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare early and late injections of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients affected by central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) with a six-months follow-up. We assessed whether an earlier treatment start (within seven days from diagnosis) could be more beneficial than a delayed (or late) treatment start (after seven days).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 81 patients (81 eyes) affected by retinal vein occlusion. Best corrected visual acuity was assessed through Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) while central macular thickness (CMT) was measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

Both types of patients had a positive therapeutic response to dexamethasone, with an increase in visual acuity (ETDRS) and CMT reduction. CRVO patients were characterized by lower ETDRS values at baseline and at the end of the follow-up as compared to BRVO. CRVO patients showed higher CMT values at baseline, after three and six months from injection. No significant differences in therapeutic response to dexamethasone were observed between patients treated early or late, regardless of RVO type.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the therapeutic properties of dexamethasone implant are not significantly influenced by an early or late treatment start in patients affected by BRVO and CRVO, although its therapeutic efficacy seems greater in the former type.

Retrospective, controlled observational case study of patients with central retinal vein occlusion and initially low visual acuity treated with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant

Background

Patients with initially low visual acuity were excluded from the therapy approval studies for retinal vein occlusion. But up to 28 % of patients presenting with central retinal vein occlusion have a baseline BCVA of less than 34 ETDRS letters (0.1). The purpose of our study was to assess visual acuity and central retinal thickness in patients suffering from central retinal vein occlusion and low visual acuity (<0.1) in comparison to patients with visual acuity (≥0.1) treated with Dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg for macular edema.

Methods

Retrospective, controlled observational case study of 30 eyes with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion, which were treated with a dexamethasone implantation. Visual acuity, central retinal thickness and intraocular pressure were measured monthly. Analyses were performed separately for eyes with visual acuity <0.1 and ≥0.1.

Results

Two months post intervention, visual acuity improved only marginally from 0.05 to 0.07 (1 month; p = 0,065) and to 0.08 (2 months; p = 0,2) in patients with low visual acuity as compared to patients with visual acuity ≥0.1 with an improvement from 0.33 to 0.47 (1 month; p = 0,005) and to 0.49 (2 months; p = 0,003). The central retinal thickness, however, was reduced in both groups, falling from 694 to 344 μm (1 month; p = 0.003,) to 361 μm (2 months; p = 0,002) and to 415 μm (3 months; p = 0,004) in the low visual acuity group and from 634 to 315 μm (1 month; p < 0,001) and to 343 μm (2 months; p = 0,001) in the visual acuity group ≥0.1. Absence of visual acuity improvement was related to macular ischemia.

Conclusions

In patients with central retinal vein occlusion and initially low visual acuity, a dexamethasone implantation can lead to an important reduction of central retinal thickness but may be of limited use to increase visual acuity.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12886-016-0363-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Twelve-month outcomes in patients with retinal vein occlusion treated with low-frequency intravitreal ranibizumab

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical efficacy of low-frequency intravitreal ranibizumab to treat macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective examination of cases that received intravitreal ranibizumab for untreated RVO over a period of 12 months. Instead of the conventional three monthly injections, injections were given once during the introductory period. If the recurrence of macular edema was diagnosed during the monthly visit, additional injections were given as needed. There were 21 eyes of 21 patients with branch RVO (BRVO) and ten eyes of ten patients with central RVO (CRVO). The parameters examined included the number of injections over the 12-month period, improvements in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and the central macular thickness (CMT). For BRVO, preinjection parameters that had an effect on the prognosis of BCVA after the 12-month period were also examined.

RESULTS

The total mean number of injections over the 12-month period was 3.4 for CRVO and 2.1 for BRVO. For CRVO, the BCVA in log minimum angular resolution changed from a preinjection value of 0.80 to 0.55 at 12 months. For BRVO, the change was from 0.51 to 0.30. For all diseases, BCVA improved after 12 months compared with the preinjection values (P<0.05). There was improvement in the CMT, and the CRVO changed from 765.0 μm at preinjection to 253.5 μm 12 months later. BRVO changed from 524.1 to 250.1 μm, and pre-injection BCVA was associated with a prognosis of visual acuity after 12 months of the initial injection (P=0.0485).

CONCLUSION

Even with a low number of injections during the introductory period, there were still improvements in both visual acuity and CMT in RVO patients after 12 months, indicating that it was an effective treatment.

Retinal vein occlusion and the use of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®) in its treatment

Purpose

To review published data pertaining to the clinical experience with a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®) with a view to establishing a clinically based therapeutic regime.

Methods

A PubMed search using the MeSH terms “retinal vein occlusion” and either “pathophysiology” or “dexamethasone intravitreal implant” was undertaken for manuscripts published until August 2015. The analysis included studies involving minimally 15 patients under a prospective design or 30 under a retrospective design, a minimal follow up of 6 months, and at least 2 intravitreal Ozurdex® injections per eye.

Results

In the vast majority of eyes, satisfactory outcomes were achieved with retreatment intervals of between 3 and 5 months. Initial evidence indicates a similar efficacy compared to anti-VEGF therapies as a first-line treatment. Safety concerns associated with the long-term and repeated use of Ozurdex® are not borne out by clinical findings: its implantation is not associated with a sustained increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) over time or with the number of applications.

Conclusion

Compared with anti-VEGF therapies, the burden of retreatment is reduced. In patients with chronic macular edema not responsive to repetitive anti-VEGF therapies, the outcome after dexamethasone implant treatment is encouraging. However, these results are achieved at the expense of side effects typically associated with steroids: in up to 20 % of the Ozurdex®-treated patients, an elevation in IOP, which could be medically controlled in the majority of cases, and cataract formation or progression was observed.