Recommendations for the management of diabetic macular oedema with intravitreal dexamethasone implant: A national Delphi consensus study

The screening and management of sleep disturbances in people living with HIV: Delphi consensus

Sleep disturbances in people living with HIV (PLHIV) are frequent but their management remains insufficient. In the absence of specific recommendations, a DELPHI consensus research project was conducted in France to establish best practice. A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (STC) undertook a literature review and used it with clinical expertise to create statements that were voted on. Two profiles of healthcare professionals with significant experience in monitoring PLHIV were selected for the voting: physicians and nurses/psychologists. Votes were collected electronically, independently, and anonymously. The STC created 27 statements covering six areas: Screening of sleep disturbances, Investigation, First-line management, Referral to a specialist, Antiretroviral treatment (ARV), and Prevention. Two rounds of votes included 42 physicians and 32 nurses/psychologists. Consensus was reached for 24 out of 27 statements (89%) including: to assess quantity and quality of sleep among PLHIV at least annually, ideally using a common methodology within the medical department; to consider the temporary addition of a hypnotic treatment in cases of acute insomnia not improved by the rules of sleep hygiene, with full awareness of potential drug-drug interactions and risk of dependence; to correct ferritinaemia if <100 ng/mL before referral to a specialist when restless legs syndrome is suspected; to consider changing the time of ARV administration or an ARV switch within the same class when sleep disturbances are caused by an ARV. This DELPHI Consensus provides best practice for screening and managing sleep disturbances in PLHIV and optimising their quality of life.

Dexamethasone Implant under a Proactive Treatment Regimen in Clinical Setting: The ProDEX Study

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of switching intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX-implant) from pro re nata (PRN) treatment regimen to a proactive regimen in patients with macular edema of diverse etiologies.

DESIGN

An observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, multicenter, national case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-one eyes from 68 patients treated between October 2015 and June 2023 were included.

METHODS

This study included consecutive eyes treated with DEX-implant who were switched from a PRN regimen to a proactive regimen for diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), noninfectious uveitis macular edema (UME; including postsurgical macular edema), and radiation maculopathy (RM).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) at each visit.

RESULTS

According to the etiology, DME represented 49.4% of eyes, UME 24.3%, RVO 21.0%, and RM 6.2%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of follow-up under the PRN and proactive regimens was 20.6 (13.3) and 14.2 (10.3) months, respectively. Switching from a PRN to a proactive regimen significantly improved mean (SD) BCVA by 3.7 (12.9) ETDRS letters (P = 0.01) with a mean (SD) decrease in CMT of 108.0 (151.4) μm (P < 0.001). The proportion of visits with significant anatomic recurrence (> 50 μm) also decreased from 40.1% to 6.0% after switching to a proactive regimen (P < 0.001). The number of DEX-implant injections significantly increased during the proactive treatment period (P < 0.001), but the change in the number of visits was not significantly different (P = 0.2). The proactive treatment period was not associated with a significant increase in IOP (P = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to a proactive regimen in patients already treated with DEX-implant seems to significantly improve BCVA and CMT while maintaining stable IOP.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Use of genotypic HIV DNA testing: a DELPHI-type consensus

OBJECTIVES

As many disparities in the clinical use of HIV DNA sequencing are observed, a DELPHI-type consensus was initiated in France to homogenize use, techniques and interpretation of results.

METHODS

Based on a literature review and clinical experience, a steering committee (SC) of eight virologists and one infectious disease specialist formulated statements. Statements were submitted to an independent and anonymous electronic vote of virologists and HIV clinicians in France, between October 2022 and December 2022.

RESULTS

The SC developed 20 statements grouped into six categories: clinical situations for the use of HIV DNA genotyping; techniques for performing HIV DNA genotyping; consideration of apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme (APOBEC) mutations; genotyping results reporting; recycling of antiretrovirals; and availability of HIV DNA genotyping tests and delays. Twenty-one virologists and 47 clinicians participated in two voting rounds and 18/20 (90%) assertions reached a 'strong' consensus. For example, that prior genotyping on HIV DNA is useful for clinical decision-making when considering switching to some long-acting regimens or to reduce the number of antiretroviral agents in virologically suppressed patients for whom RNA data are unavailable/not exploitable/not sufficiently informative. Two statements achieved no consensus: reporting any detected viral minority population for discussion in multidisciplinary meetings (virologists), and possible risk of virological failure when using a second-generation InSTI plus lamivudine or emtricitabine regimen in patients with undetectable viral load within ≥1 year and in the presence of a documented M184V mutation within the last 5 years (clinicians).

CONCLUSIONS

This DELPHI-type consensus will facilitate the strengthening and harmonization of good practice when performing HIV DNA sequencing.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Given Either First-Line or Second-Line in Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the leading cause of severe visual impairment among the working-age population. Several therapeutic options are available for the management of DME, including intravitreal corticosteroids. They have been traditionally used as second-line treatment, due to the risk of intraocular pressure increase and cataract-related adverse events. However, attention has recently been focused on the primary or early use of intravitreal corticosteroids, due to growing evidence of the crucial role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME. Furthermore, intravitreal steroid implants offer the additional advantage of a longer duration of action compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGF). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, with a specific focus on clinical scenarios in which it might be considered or even preferred as first-line treatment option by adequate selection of patients, considering both advantages and possible adverse events. Patients with contraindications to anti-VEGF, DME with high inflammatory OCT biomarkers, pseudophakic patients and phakic patients' candidates to cataract surgery as well as vitrectomized eyes may all benefit from first-line DEX implant. Additionally, DME not responders to anti-VEGF should be considered for a switch to DEX implant and a combination therapy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF could be a valid option in severe and persistent DME.

Intravitreal DEX Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review of National Consensus

Diabetic macular edema (DME)'s therapeutic approach can frequently be challenging. The purpose of the review is to propose evidence-based recommendations on the employment of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) when approaching patients suffering from DME. Seven national consensuses redacted by different groups of retina specialists from Europe and Asia were examined and confronted. Each consensus was redacted utilizing a Delphi approach, in person meetings, or by reviewing the literature. DEX can be studied as a first-line strategy in individuals suffering from DME with inflammatory OCT biomarkers, in vitrectomized eyes, in patients with recent cardiovascular events, in pregnant women, in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery or with poor compliance. The other parameters considered were the indications to the DME treatment, when to switch to DEX, the definition of non-responder to anti-VEGFs agents and to the DEX implant, whether to combine DEX with laser photocoagulation, the association between glaucoma and DEX, and the management of DEX and the cataract. Although several years have passed since the introduction of DEX implants in the DME treatment, there is still not a unified agreement among retina specialists. This paper compares the approach in the DME treatment between countries from different continents and provides a broader and worldwide perspective of the topic.

Expert recommendations for the management of diabetic macular edema with intravitreal dexamethasone implant: A Turkish Delphi study

PURPOSE

To provide consensus on the clinical use of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in Turkey.

METHODS

A panel of 22 retina experts prepared 77 statements of recommendation, and 80 retinal specialists practicing in Turkey were chosen to vote either in support or against each one. A Delphi-based method was used through which the ophthalmologists were able to view all of the results anonymously after two rounds and modify their subsequent answers. The survey was conducted via a mini website, and statements without consensus were resent to the specialists with the latest vote results a week later.

RESULTS

A total of 72 ophthalmologists answered the first and second round questions. After the first stage, consensus was achieved on 55 of the statements, leaving 22 without agreement. After the second stage, consensus was reached on 11 of the remaining statements. Strong consensus was achieved on statements regarding the etiopathogenesis of DME and the first-line indications and safety of the DEX implant procedure. The panel recommended the use of DEX implant for patients with an arterial thromboembolic event in the last three months and also agreed that pro re nata DEX implant treatment not only provides better outcomes for DME patients but also reduces the treatment burden for those who could not receive an adequate number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections.

CONCLUSION

This study provides clinical consensus and recommendations about the use of DEX implant in the clinical practice of DME management in Turkey.