Rapid Structural and Functional Improvements with the 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Patients with DME and Low Visual Acuity: 6-Month Data from the UAE

Bibliometric and visualized analysis of diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

Our aim was to identify recent research trends on diabetic macular edema (DME) and focus on publications from different countries, institutions, and authors.

METHODS

We retrieved and analyzed data from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2022 on the DME research field from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer were applied to perform visualization analysis and evaluate the trends.

RESULTS

A total of 4482 publications were identified, and the annual global publications increased steadily, from 36 to 390, during this period. The United States (1339 publications, 71,754 citations), Johns Hopkins University (176 publications, 17,015 citations), and Bressler NM (76 publications, 9621 citations) were the most influential and productive countries, institutions, and authors, respectively. The top 100 keywords were classified into five clusters: (1) therapy and adverse effects of DME; (2) clinical biomarkers of DME; (3) mechanistic research on DME; (4) improving bioavailability and efficacy; and (5) early diagnosis of diabetic complications. "Diabetic macular edema," "retinopathy," "ranibizumab," and "optical coherence tomography angiography" were the most frequent keywords. Regarding the average appearing years (AAYs) of the keywords, "deep learning" (AAY:2020.83), "optical coherence tomography angiography" (AAY:2019.59), "intravitreal Aflibercept" (AAY:2019.29), and "dexamethasone implant" (AAY:2019.20) were recognized as the hotspots of the DME research area in the short run.

CONCLUSION

In the past two decades, the United States was in master status in DME research. Although intravitreal drug injection has been the mainstream therapy for a long time, the effectiveness of different drugs, such as dexamethasone, new solutions for drug delivery, such as intravitreal implantation, and more accurate tools for the classification and follow-up of DME patients, such as deep learning systems, are still research hotspots.

Effectiveness and tolerability of the fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema in the UAE: 24 and 36-month outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness and safety of the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant was evaluated at Month 24 and, in some sustained for up to 36 months, in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and a pseudophakic lens treated in the UAE following prior anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and dexamethasone (DEX) implant.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational audit study conducted between September 2017-September 2020 in which 22 patients were treated with the FAc implant and outcomes monitored for up to 36 months. Effectiveness outcomes were: best-corrected visual acuity (BVCA) and central macular thickness (CMT). Safety was assessed by monitoring intraocular pressure (IOP). All outcomes were measured at Months 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in mean BCVA were observed versus baseline from Month 1, which were maintained up to Month 24 (P < 0.0001 versus baseline). In all five patients completing 36 months follow-up, the improvements in BVCA were maintained through to Month 36 P < 0.005 versus baseline. Similarly, mean CMT improved versus baseline at Month 1 through to Month 24 (P < 0.0001 versus baseline), with significant improvements also noted in the 5 patients completing 36 months follow-up (P < 0.005 versus baseline). An IOP rise to 32 mmHg was observed in one eye, but returned to normal values at next measure. Five eyes required IOP lowering drops and one required IOP-lowering surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

The FAc intravitreal implant is effective for 24 months, and sustained for 36 months, in a UAE population previously treated with a DEX implant, with tolerability profile in-line with previous reports.

Effectiveness of 190 µg Fluocinolone Acetonide and 700 µg Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants in Diabetic Macular Edema Using the Area-Under-the-Curve Method: The CONSTANT Analysis

Purpose

Calculations of area-under-the-curve (AUC) provide the average letters gained across the entire treatment period, which may be a better estimate of long-term effectiveness than single time-point outcomes, particularly when it comes to sustained-release therapies.

Materials and Methods

The AUC method was used to compare the efficacy of the 0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (total dose of 0.19 mg; FAc) and dexamethasone (DEX) 700 µg implants based on published data from their respective Phase 3 FAME (Fluocinolone Acetonide for Macular Edema) and MEAD pivotal clinical trials in diabetic macular edema (DME). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) letter scores were collated from the FAME trial and compared with those reported in MEAD. The trapezoidal rule was then used to calculate AUC, based on BCVA letter score, from baseline to Month 36 (FAME)/Month 39 (MEAD) and presented as an overall mean visual acuity change per day.

Results

Treatment with either the FAc or DEX implant resulted in an improved BCVA over the treatment period compared with sham. This effect was statistically greater (p=0.029) for the FAc implant than the DEX implant (5.2 vs 3.5 letters/day, respectively) and even greater in the recurrent DME subgroup (p<0.001; 6.9 vs 3.5 letters/day, respectively).

Conclusion

Although direct comparisons between trial cohorts cannot be performed, this analysis indicated that, in their respective pivotal clinical trial cohorts, treatment with the FAc implant provides better long-term visual acuity outcomes and a lower treatment burden than achieved with the DEX implant.