Long-term results of combination therapy using anti-VEGF agents and dexamethasone intravitreal implant for retinal vein occlusion: an investigational case series

Combination Therapy with Anti-VEGF and Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and efficacy of intravitreal injection of ranibizumab alone or ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone intravitreal implant in the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.

STUDY DESIGN

A single center, case-controlled, prospective cohort study (Clinical Trail Registration Number: ChiCTR2400080048).

METHODS

A total of 44 patients were enrolled and randomized into the ranibizumab group (n = 23) and the combination group (ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone intravitreal implant) (n = 21). All patients received ranibizumab intravitreal injections in the first three months as the initial treatment. For the ranibizumab group, patients might receive repeat injections in case of the recurrence of macular edema; For the combination group, patients received an intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant after the first injection of ranibizumab at the day 15. The main outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and reduction of central macular thickness. The secondary outcome were the numbers of recurrence, the average injection interval, and the numbers of injection. Adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

The BCVAs in both groups were significantly improved compared with the baselines (all p < 0.001), but more increment in BCVA was noticed at the 3-month in the combination group (p = 0.022). Both groups showed a reduction of central macular thickness at all time points (p < 0.05). However, the combination group did not exhibit higher central macular thickness-reducing effects than the ranibizumab group (p > 0.05). Compared with the combination group, the ranibizumab group suffered a higher number of recurrences of macular edema (p < 0.001), a lower interval of injection (p = 0.050), and a higher number of injection (p < 0.011). The incidence of adverse events was not significant between the two groups (p = 0.944).

CONCLUSIONS

Ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone injection sustainably improved the BCVA of retinal vein occlusion patients with a good safety profile.

Intravitreal Injection of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors Combined with Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and corticosteroid combination therapy for the management of treatment-naïve or recurrent/refractory macular edema caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in comparison with anti-VEGF monotherapy.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, the data from publications in the electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI and Scopus from January 1, 2007, through November 20, 2020, were compiled. Heterogeneity was statistically quantified by the I2 statistic, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four related studies were identified, including a total of 1280 eyes, which consisted of 685 and 507 patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), respectively. This study demonstrated a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the combination group compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy for both CRVO and BRVO cases at 6 months after initiating therapy. The improvement in vision was more notable in BRVO cases than in CRVO cases. However, the changes in central macular thickness (CMT) did not differ significantly between the different treatment approaches, and the results were inconclusive. Including all cases with RVO, there was no inferiority in terms of BCVA improvement and CMT reduction in the triamcinolone subgroup compared with the slow-release dexamethasone implant subgroup. A greater improvement was noticed in terms of BCVA in the sequentially treated subgroup compared to the simultaneous treatment subgroup, while there was a greater reduction in CMT in the simultaneous subgroup with the highest reduction recorded at 1 month after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that combination therapy with intravitreal anti-VEGF and corticosteroid (such as intravitreal or subtenon triamcinolone or dexamethasone implant) has a slightly better effect on improving BCVA in cases with BRVO or CRVO at 6 months compared to monotherapy.

[Retinal vein occlusion : Intravitreal pharmacotherapies and treatment strategies for the management of macular edema]

Intravitreal injection treatment for the management of macular edema as an expression of increased capillary permeability and leakage constitute the mainstay of treatment in retinal vein occlusion. In contrast to diabetic retinopathy or neovascular age-related macular degeneration, permanent and complete functional and morphological restoration can be achieved, as retinal vein occlusions are usually associated with risk factors, but do not represent the manifestation form of an underlying systemic or degenerative chronic disorder; however, successful long-term management of retinal vein occlusion -associated macular edema usually requires intensive and also long-term continued treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors or with a less favorable side effect profile, dexamethasone. A functional treatment success can be maintained over the long term by both pro re nata (PRN) or treat and extend (T&E) regimens. In contrast, according to the currently available data, the combination of anti-VEGF administration and grid laser treatment has no additional benefit compared to monotherapy. In patients with recalcitrant macular edema, switching to another intravitreal agent may be considered during the course of treatment, although a true therapeutic benefit with respect to the development of visual acuity has not yet been proven. The current review summarizes the relevant aspects in the management of RVO-associated macular edema and provides the foundations for the application of successful treatment strategies.

Comparison of intravitreal ranibizumab monotherapy vs. ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone implant for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and the injection number of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) monotherapy vs. intravitreal ranibizumab plus dexamethasone (IVR + DEX) implants for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

Methods

This prospective, control trial comprised 96 eyes of 96 patients with ME due to non-ischemic RVO divided into two groups. The IVR monotherapy group consisted of 61 patients (29 with CRVO and 32 with BRVO) treated with ranibizumab with three consecutive loading doses at a monthly + pro re nata (three + PRN) regimen. The IVR + DEX implant group consisted of 35 patients (19 with CRVO and 16 with BRVO) treated with intravitreal ranibizumab plus DEX implant. All eyes underwent best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, log MAR), central foveal thickness (CFT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). In case of recurrence, each group received initial medication.

Results

At the 12-month visit, the mean log MAR BCVA that was improved from baseline was 0.23 with the IVR group and 0.30 with the IVR + DEX group. CFT decreased on average by 420 ± 292 μm with the IVR group and 393 ± 259 μm with the IVR + DEX implant group. No significant differences were detected in BCVA improvement and CFT reduction between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of injections was 5.4 in the IVR group and 3.9 in the IVR + DEX implant group (p < 0.001). The mean reinjection interval for patients with the IVR + DEX implant was 131.2 ± 8.9 days (range: 98–150). The incidence of high IOP and cataract progression were significantly higher in the IVR + DEX implant group than in the IVR group (both p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In RVO-ME, the IVR + DEX implant did not have synergistic efficacy, providing further improvement in BCVA and a reduction in CFT. However, the IVR + DEX implant still had an advantage in reducing the number of injections and prolonging the time between injections.

Outcomes of Combination Therapy using Aflibercept and Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant versus Dexamethasone Monotherapy for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the combination therapy of intravitreal aflibercept 2 mg (Eylea^®) and a sustained-release dexamethasone 0.7 mg intravitreal implant (Ozurdex^®) versus dexamethasone alone in providing better visual acuity in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

Seventy-four eyes of 74 patients with treatment-naïve ME secondary to RVO were included in this prospective nonrandomized case series and were studied over a 12-month follow-up period. Patients in the dexamethasone monotherapy group were treated with an initial Ozurdex^® injection while patients in the combination therapy group were treated with an Eylea^® injection followed 2 weeks later by an Ozurdex^® injection. The treatment was repeated as needed. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure were evaluated periodically. The primary outcome measure was the BCVA. The secondary outcome measures included CMT, number of retreatments, and safety parameters.

RESULTS

At 1 year, the primary endpoint was met. Patients receiving combined therapy had better mean visual acuity changes from baseline compared to those receiving monotherapy (0.369 ± 0.221 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] vs. 0.218 ± 0.171 logMAR; P = 0.002). The secondary endpoints were not met since there were no significant differences in mean reductions in CMT (272.67 ± 82.35 vs. 248.11 ± 159.73; P = 0.412) and the mean number of retreatments was similar in the two groups (1.75 ± 1.13 vs. 1.42 ± 0.64; P = 0.126).

CONCLUSION

Aflibercept with dexamethasone implants achieved better visual outcomes compared to dexamethasone monotherapy with no significant differences in intravitreal retreatment rates at the 1^st year in eyes with ME secondary to RVO.

Use of Anti-VEGF Drugs in Retinal Vein Occlusions

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is one of the most prevalent causes of visual loss in the Western World. Its pathogenesis is still not completely known. Chronic macular edema and ischemia compromise the functional and anatomical status of the retina. Antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections have demonstrated better results than other previous options, including observation or laser therapy. This narrative review aims to analyze the current aspects related to these drugs.

Simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone and aflibercept for refractory macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess the functional and anatomical outcomes of concurrent administration of aflibercept injection and dexamethasone (DEX) implant in patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), refractory to each of the two drugs previously administered as monotherapy. Secondary outcomes included the number of retreatments required in a 12-month follow-up and safety.

METHODS

This is a prospective, interventional case series of consecutive patients with refractory ME secondary to RVO, followed over a year. One injection of aflibercept was followed by a DEX implant on the same day; retreatment was driven by the persistence of ME on SD-OCT at least 4 months after the previous combined therapy. Central retinal thickness (CRT), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were collected at 1 month and then every 2 months until the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty eyes of 30 Caucasian patients were enrolled; mean duration of RVO before the first combined treatment was 25 ± 5 months (range 11 ± 30). Baseline BCVA was 0.73 ± 0.5 LogMAR, with no significant changes at 12 months (0.77 ± 0.51 μm, p = 0.2). Baseline CRT was 578.3 ± 161 μm, reducing to 352.5 ± 81 μm at 12 months (p = 0.003). Thirteen eyes (43.3%) required a second treatment. Twenty eyes (66.6%) showed no ME at the end of follow-up. One patient (3.3%) required topical IOP-lowering therapy during the study.

CONCLUSION

In eyes with ME secondary to RVO unresponsive to either aflibercept or DEX administered singularly, a combination therapy with simultaneous administration of aflibercept and DEX was effective in resolving ME, despite the absence of visual improvement. Earlier combined treatment in the course of the disease might lead to better functional outcomes.

Guidelines for the Management of Retinal Vein Occlusion by the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA)

The high prevalence of cardiovascular disease particularly in the elderly population is associated with retinal vascular disease. Retinal vein occlusions represent severe disturbances of the hypoxia-sensitive neurosensory retina. Acute and excessive leakage leads to the diagnostic hallmarks of retinal hemorrhage and edema with substantial retinal thickening. Advanced diagnostic tools such as OCT angiography allow to evaluate retinal ischemia and identify the risk for late complications and will soon reach clinical routine besides fluorescein angiography. Accordingly, the duration of non-perfusion is a crucial prognostic factor requiring timely therapeutic intervention. With immediate inhibition of vascular leakage, anti-VEGF substances excel as treatment of choice. Multiple clinical trials with optimal potential for functional benefit or a lesser regenerative spectrum have evaluated aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab. As retinal vein occlusion is a chronic disease, long-term monitoring should be individualized to combine maintenance with practicability. While steroids may be considered in patients with systemic cardiovascular risk, surgery remains advisable only for very few patients. Destructive laser treatment is an option if reliable monitoring is not feasible. Ophthalmologists are also advised to perform a basic systemic workup to recognize systemic concomitants. The current edition of the EURETINA guidelines highlights the state-of-the-art recommendations based on the literature and expert opinions in retinal vein occlusion.

Pharmacological Adjuncts to Vitrectomy Surgery

Pharmacological adjuncts to vitrectomy surgery are useful tools to better deal with surgery. Their introduction has enriched the therapeutic choice before, during and after operations. Although several classifications could be made to frame adjuncts to vitrectomy, we preferred to divide the pharmacological adjuncts to vitrectomy surgery for therapeutic use in the pre-operatory procedure (neo-adjuvant), for intraoperative use and for post-operatory practice (adjuvant). This type of classification allowed us to explore all the adjuncts based on the timing of their use. The actual interest in vitrectomy surgery is giving rise to considerable interest in new molecules with and without the pharmacological effect that will soon be available for the aid of vitreoretinal surgery.

Recent advances in understanding and managing retinal vein occlusions

Retinal vein occlusions are the second most common form of retinal vascular disease. Previously, laser treatment for branch retinal vein occlusion and intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for central retinal vein occlusion were the standard of care. Recent studies have demonstrated that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have a superior safety and efficacy profile for the treatment of both branch and central retinal vein occlusions. The use of wide-field fluorescein angiography has also allowed better visualization of the retinal periphery. Despite the better documentation of retinal non-perfusion, laser photocoagulation to the areas of non-perfusion does not seem to result in a reduction of macular edema or reduction in treatment burden and has been relegated to patients who develop rubeosis or neovascularization of the retina. More recently, several studies have demonstrated the use of a long-acting dexamethasone implant administered intravitreally or triamcinolone administered in the suprachoroidal space as a viable approach to treat retinal vein occlusion.

Efficacy and timing of adjunctive therapy in the anti-VEGF treatment regimen for macular oedema in retinal vein occlusion: 12-month real-world result

Purpose

Various combination treatment regimens have been tried to improve the short-term efficacy of intravitreal monotherapy for the treatment of macular oedema (MO) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Our study introduces the RandOL protocol (Ranibizumab and Ozurdex with Laser photocoagulation) of initial anti-VEGF therapy, controlling recurrent non-ischaemic MO with an intravitreal steroid and applying laser therapy to non-perfused retina. We describe our 12-month follow-up experience on timing for adjunctive therapy and real-world effectiveness and safety data.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out on 66 consecutive treatment-naive RVO patients with MO who received our RandOL treatment regimen. Baseline visual acuity (VA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were compared with 12-month result.

Results

At 12 months, 77% had significant VA improvement, 52% had ≥3-line improvement, and 15% were worse. Significant improvements in CRT were observed in 97% (baseline median CRT=531 μm (IQR 435–622) reduced to 245 μm (IQR 221–351, P<0.001) at 12 months); 76% achieved a dry fovea at 1 year. Mean number of total injections required was 5.5 (range 2–11) and 6% required ≥9 injections in 1 year. Although 70% received additional Ozurdex, 82% received ≥1 sessions of laser therapy. The BRVO subgroup achieved better VA and CRT improvement at 1 year, but small numbers limit definitive statistical conclusions.

Conclusions

Our real-world results using a combination treatment protocol for RVO-related MO achieved similar desirable anatomical and visual outcomes as with a single-agent therapy with less intravitreal re-treatment rates at first year. Randomised controlled studies are needed to evaluate the role of laser and the ideal timing of combination therapy.