Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of 0.5% indomethacin eye drops in uveitic macular edema

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.

Bromfenac 0.09% for the Treatment of Macular Edema Secondary to Noninfectious Uveitis

PURPOSE

The topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug bromfenac 0.09% has a potential benefit in uveitic macular edema (UME) with a safe side effect profile. The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy of bromfenac sodium solution in the treatment of UME.

METHODS

The charts of 10 patients with macular edema due to noninfectious uveitis treated with bromfenac 0.09% were reviewed retrospectively. The main outcomes studied were the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the central retinal thickness (CRT) compared 4 months before bromfenac initiation, at the time of its initiation, and 4 months later.

RESULTS

Twelve eyes of 10 patients were included. BCVA and CRT were unchanged 4 months befoew bromfenac compared to the time of bromfenac initiation (P = 1.0 and P = 0.2, respectively). There were a significant improvement in BCVA after 4 months of bromfenac treatment (P = 0.043) and a significant decrease in CRT (P = 0.002). Subretinal fluid resolved completely in 8/9 eyes, and 4/9 eyes had a complete resolution of cystoid macular edema at 4 months.

CONCLUSION

Bromfenac may be a useful addition to the treatment of UME.

[Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of anterior uveitis associated with spondyloarthritis]

Anterior uveitis (AU) is one of the common extraskeletal manifestations of spondyloarthritis (SpA). The course of AU in patients with SpA is characterized by frequent relapses. The article considers the question of local and systemic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment and prevention of SpA-associated uveitis exacerbations.

Drug-induced maculopathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of drug-induced maculopathies including their clinical presentations, diagnostic findings, and treatment options. With the increasing pace of development and arrival of drugs to the market, this review aims to inform retina specialists of relevant side effects that may be encountered in a clinical practice setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

The major themes visited in this article focus on relevant findings of drugs that cause pigmentary and crystalline maculopathy, photoreceptor dysfunction, cystoid macular edema, central serous choroidopathy, uveitis, and vascular damage.

SUMMARY

The current review reports updated findings and discusses the pathophysiologic mechanisms, presentations, and treatments of drug-induced maculopathies.

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.

Update in treatment of uveitic macular edema

Macular edema (ME) represents the most common cause for visual loss among uveitis patients. The management of uveitic macular edema (UME) may be challenging, due to its often recalcitrant nature. Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment, through their capability of effectively controlling inflammation and the associated ME. Topical steroids may be effective in milder cases of UME, particularly in edema associated with anterior uveitis. Posterior sub-Tenon and orbital floor steroids, as well as intravitreal steroids often induce rapid regression of UME, although this may be followed by recurrence of the pathology. Intra-vitreal corticosteroid implants provide sustained release of steroids facilitating regression of ME with less frequent injections. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may provide a safe alternative or adjuvant therapy to topical steroids in mild UME, predominantly in cases with underlying anterior uveitis. Immunomodulators including methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, azathioprine, and cyclosporine, as well as biologic agents, notably the anti-tumor necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibodies adalimumab and infliximab, may accomplish the control of inflammation and associated ME in refractory cases, or enable the tapering of steroids. Newer biotherapies have demonstrated promising outcomes and may be considered in persisting cases of UME.

Energy-dependent endocytosis is responsible for drug transcorneal penetration following the instillation of ophthalmic formulations containing indomethacin nanoparticles

Purpose

We previously found that ophthalmic formulations containing nanoparticles prepared by a bead mill method lead to an increase in bioavailability in comparison with traditional formulations (solution type). However, the transcorneal penetration pathway for ophthalmic formulations has not been explained yet. In this study, we investigated the mechanism of transcorneal penetration in the application of ophthalmic formulations containing indomethacin nanoparticles (IMC-NPs).

Materials and methods

IMC-NPs was prepared by the bead mill method. For the analysis of energy-dependent endocytosis, corneal epithelial (HCE-T) cell monolayers and removed rabbit cornea were thermoregulated at 4°C, where energy-dependent endocytosis is inhibited. In addition, for the analysis of different endocytosis pathways using pharmacological inhibitors, inhibitors of caveolae-mediated endocytosis (54 µM nystatin), clathrin-mediated endocytosis (40 µM dynasore), macropinocytosis (2 µM rottlerin) or phagocytosis (10 µM cytochalasin D) were used.

Results

The ophthalmic formulations containing 35–200 nm sized indomethacin nanoparticles were prepared by treatment with a bead mill, and no aggregation or degradation of indomethacin was observed in IMC-NPs. The transcorneal penetration of indomethacin was significantly decreased by the combination of nystatin, dynasore and rottlerin, and the decreased penetration levels were similar to those at 4°C in HCE-T cell monolayers and rabbit cornea. In the in vivo experiments using rabbits, dynasore and rottlerin tended to decrease the transcorneal penetration of indomethacin (area under the drug concentration – time curve in the aqueous humor [AUC_AH]), and the AUC_AH in the nystatin-treated rabbit was significantly lower than that in non-treatment group. In addition, the AUC_AH in rabbit corneas undergoing multi-treatment was obviously lower than that in rabbit corneas treated with each individual endocytosis inhibitor.

Conclusion

We found that three energy-dependent endocytosis pathways (clathrin-dependent endocytosis, caveolae-dependent endocytosis and macropinocytosis) are related to the trans-corneal penetration of indomethacin nanoparticles. In particular, the caveolae-dependent endocytosis is strongly involved.

A thermo-sensitive, injectable and biodegradable in situ hydrogel as a potential formulation for uveitis treatment

The thermo-sensitive hydrogels with high drug loading rate achieved sustained drug release over 2 weeks. Histopathological examination of retina confirmed the excellent biocompatibility and effective anti-inflammatory property of the hydrogel.

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.

Topical ophthalmic lipid nanoparticle formulations (SLN, NLC) of indomethacin for delivery to the posterior segment ocular tissues

PURPOSE

The objective of the present study was to formulate indomethacin (IN)-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) and to investigate their potential use in topical ocular delivery.

METHODS

IN SLNs (0.1% w/v) and NLCs (0.8% w/v) were prepared, characterized and evaluated. Their in vitro release and flux profiles across the cornea and sclera-choroid-RPE (trans-SCR) tissues and in vivo ocular tissue distribution were assessed. Furthermore, chitosan chloride (CS) (mol. wt.<200kDa), a cationic and water-soluble penetration enhancer, was used to modify the surface of the SLNs, and its effect was investigated through in vitro transmembrane penetration and in vivo distribution tissue studies.

RESULTS

For the IN-SLNs, IN-CS-SLNs and IN-NLCs, the particle size was 226±5, 265±8, and 227±11nm, respectively; the zeta potential was -22±0.8, 27±1.2, and -12.2±2.3mV, respectively; the polydispersity index (PDI) was 0.17, 0.30, and 0.23, respectively; and the entrapment efficiency (EE) was 81±0.9, 91.5±3.2 and 99.8±0.2%, respectively. The surface modification of the SLNs with CS increased the ocular penetration of IN. The NLCs maintained significantly higher IN concentrations in all ocular tissues tested compared to the other formulations evaluated in vivo.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that lipid-based particulate systems can serve as viable vehicles for ocular delivery. The NLC formulations demonstrated increased drug loading capability, entrapment and delivery to anterior and posterior segment ocular tissues.

Topical dexamethasone-cyclodextrin nanoparticle eye drops for non-infectious Uveitic macular oedema and vitritis - a pilot study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1.5% dexamethasone nanoparticle (DexNP) drops in eyes with non-infectious uveitic macular oedema and vitritis.

METHODS

In a prospective pilot study, DexNP drops were administered four times a day for 4 weeks followed by drops tapering over a period of another 4 weeks. Follow-up time was 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Five eyes with macular oedema and three eyes with vitritis were included in the study. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved from a median of 0.2 logMAR to a median of 0.15 logMAR at 4 weeks' time (p < 0.05). Median BCVA was 0.175 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR, at week 8 and 12, respectively (p > 0.05). Macular oedema significantly improved at all time-points as compared to baseline (p < 0.05) and resolved in all eyes during follow-up. One eye had macular oedema relapse at week 12. Vitritis improved in all eyes and resolved completely in two eyes. One eye had intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation which was well controlled with topical antihypertensive treatment, and one eye had cataract progression.

CONCLUSION

This short pilot study demonstrates favourable effect of 1.5% DexNP eye drops on eyes with non-infectious uveitic macular oedema and vitritis. Further comparative long-term studies are warranted to assess this effect.

Updates in uveitic macular edema

Macular edema is one of the most common vision-threatening complications of uveitis noted in one third of patients with uveitis. The release of a number of inflammatory mediators induces retinal vascular hyperpermeability leading to uveitic macular edema (UME) which most commonly is of cystoid shape. Fluorescein angiography and non-invasive spectral-domain optical coherence tomography are standard procedures for diagnosis and follow-up of UME with some innovations such as scanning laser ophthalmoscope retro-mode imaging. Effective management of UME requires thorough understanding of the individual case. Proper control of intraocular inflammation is mandatory before targeting macular edema itself. Mainstay of treatment is immunosuppressive therapy with various drug delivery routes including topical, local subconjunctival, peribulbar and sub-Tenon’s, intravitreal and systemic. Clinical trials with biologics are under way to study the efficacy of these agents in suppressing intraocular inflammation and resolution of UME. Visual prognosis in UME depends on numerous factors. Younger age and better visual acuity at baseline are associated with more favorable visual outcome in most studies