Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review

What have we learned from a decade treating patients with diabetic macular oedema with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant?

Diabetic macular oedema [DMO] is a prevalent and sight-threatening condition among diabetic patients, which can cause irreversible blindness. Since angiogenesis and inflammation are two key elements in the etiopathogenesis of DMO, intravitreal injections of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors [anti-VEGF] and sustained released intravitreal corticosteroid implants are currently considered as treatments of choice. The introduction, 10 years ago, of the 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide [FAc] implant for treating eyes with vision impairment associated with recurrent and persistent DMO represented an important advance. Since then, two randomized-control trials and many real-world studies have shown its good efficacy/safety profile and the replicability of its treatment regimen. The FAc implant is, in general terms well tolerated, although it is associated with intraocular pressure-[IOP] and cataract-related adverse events [AEs]. Most IOP-related AEs are effectively controlled with ocular-hypotensive therapies. The objective of this paper is to review the role of FAc implant in the treatment of DMO over the 10 years since its launch, as well as its impact on clinical practice outcomes.

Stabilizing Macular Edema Fluctuations: Outcomes of Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide for Diabetic Macular Edema and Non-Infectious Uveitis

Background/Objectives: Chronic macular edema (CME) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy or non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment (NIU-PS). Alongside anti-VEGF therapy, glucocorticoids are frequently used to manage CME. Given the heterogeneous nature of patients' medical history, their social conditions, and disease manifestations, individualized treatment is essential for optimal outcomes. This study assesses the effectiveness of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FA) (Iluvien®) in treating persistent and recurrent macular edema in clinical practice at the University Hospital of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. Methods: A total of 46 eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) (21 eyes) and NIU-PS (25 eyes) were retrospectively analyzed over a follow-up period of up to 36 months. Since persistent retinal thickness fluctuations are linked to long-term retinal damage and functional decline, this study analyzed central retinal thickness (CRT)-including its fluctuations measured as CRT amplitude-alongside BCVA as the primary outcomes. Results: After an initial decrease in CRT in the first year after FA treatment, the maximum CRT amplitude significantly decreased in the following years. For patients with DME, CRT amplitude reduced from 271.4 µm to 91.57 µm in the first year (p = 0.0056) and 106.0 µm in the second year (p = 0.0109). For patients with NIU-PS, CRT amplitude decreased from 185.2 µm to 87.7 µm in the first year (p = 0.0131) and 97.3 µm in the second year (p = 0.0375). Mean BCVA remained stable in both cohorts. Conclusions: Intravitreal FA proved to be effective in reducing and stabilizing CRT in patients with chronic DME and NIU-PS without losing visual acuity, reducing treatment burden.

Fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci) one month after dexamethasone implant (DEXi) for chronic diabetic macular edema: 1-year results

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of FACi injected 1month after the last DEXi injection in pseudophakic patients without ocular hypertension who required frequent DEXi injections (<6months).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective study including pseudophakic patients with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) previously treated with DEXi without secondary ocular hypertension. All patients received DEXi followed by FAci one month later. Visits were scheduled at baseline, M1, then every 3months up to 12months.

RESULTS

Fourteen eyes of 11 patients were included and were followed until the 12-month time point. Visual gain was significant at M6 (+5.6 letters) and at M9 (+7.1 letters). A reduction in central macular thickness was obtained at 1 month (-86μm), remaining stable over subsequent visits. The rate of ocular hypertension requiring pressure lowering treatment was 14%. Three eyes needed additional treatment (21%); one eye was treated with aflibercept, and 2 eyes with DEXi at M5 and M11. No patient underwant additional FAc implantation during the 11 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Injection of FAci one month after DEXi in pseudophakic patients with chronic DME who responded previously to DEXi results in anatomical improvement and deferred visual gain. This prospective study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of both implants in DME patients who have been previously treated with other therapies.

Intravitreal therapy for the management of diabetic retinopathy: A concise review

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a serious microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus and may result in irreversible visual loss. Laser treatment has been the gold standard treatment for diabetic macular edema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy for many years. Of late, intravitreal therapy has emerged as a cornerstone in the management of DR. Among the diverse pharmacotherapeutic options, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents have demonstrated remarkable efficacy by attenuating neovascularization and reducing macular edema, thus preserving visual acuity in DR patients.

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

Role of EYP-1901 in neovascular age-related macular degeneration and diabetic eye diseases: review of Phase I/II trials

EYP-1901 (Duravyu) has demonstrated promising outcomes in Phases I and II clinical trials for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME)/diabetic retinopathy. This innovative treatment capitalizes on the potent anti-angiogenic properties of vorolanib, an inhibitor that targets all isoforms of VEGF, effectively mitigating the pathological neovascularization and vascular permeability that underpin these retinal conditions. EYP-1901 is integrated with the Durasert drug delivery system to administer a sustained release of vorolanib directly to the posterior segment of the eye. This delivery system ensures a consistent therapeutic effect over an extended period and significantly reduces the frequency of clinical interventions required, offering a more convenient treatment regimen while maintaining patient safety.

Efficacy and Safety of Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema: Practical Guidelines from Reference Center

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Treatment with intravitreal injections is effective in most cases but is associated with a high therapeutic burden for patients. This implies the need for long-term treatments, such as the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant. A review of basic science, pharmacology, and clinical data was conducted to provide a state-of-the-art view of the FAc implant in 2024. Although generally well tolerated, the FAc implant has been associated with ocular hypertension and cataract, and caution should be advised to the patients in this regard. By synthesizing information across these domains, a comprehensive evaluation can be attained, facilitating informed decision-making regarding the use of the FAc implant in the management of DME. The main objective of this review is to provide clinicians with guidelines on how to introduce and use the FAc implant in a patient with DME.

Real-Life Results after the Administration of a Single 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide (ILUVIEN®) Implant in Patients with Refractory Diabetic Macular Edema

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate real-life data on the functional and anatomical outcome of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) in patients with refractory diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Retrospective study on 44 eyes with chronic DME that received intravitreal FAc implant and were previously treated with intravitreal dexamethasone, triamcinolone, or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. We assessed best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central maximum thickness (CMT), and foveal thickness (FT) as measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (Spectralis OCT; Heidelberg Engineering). Secondary outcomes were intraocular pressure (IOP), adverse events, time to additional treatments.

RESULTS

The FAc implant significantly reduced the CMT (baseline 541.23 ± 155.29 µm, p < 0.001) and FT (baseline 460.34 ± 139.28 µm, p < 0.001) for up to 36 months. Despite postoperative visual improvement over time, BCVA did not significantly shift from baseline (0.55 ± 0.38 logMAR, p = 0.568). The FAc implant effect diminished after 21.34 ± 12.74 months. IOP increased in 9% of eyes (n = 4) but was well controlled under topical (n = 1) or surgical therapy (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

Even though patients' visual recovery does not benefit significantly, the FAc implant addresses the important pillars of chronic DME therapy regarding reduced injection frequency and reduced DME.

ILUVIEN® in diabetic macular edema that persists or recurs despite treatment: Results from the Retina.pt® RIVER audit

PURPOSE

Persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) remains a problem in clinical practice, with many patients having a suboptimal response to the standard of care (SOC). Evidence supports the long-term efficacy of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients that have responded sub-optimally, although there is still scarce data from real-world Portuguese practices. We aimed to monitor the current SOC in selected Portuguese practices prior to FAc implantation and then assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of the FAc implant.

SETTINGS

The study included patient data from five Portuguese public hospitals.

DESIGN

This was a non-interventional, multicenter audit of data collected from Retina.pt registry from patients with persistent or recurrent DME despite treatment.

METHODS

Outcome measures included changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). Results were compared at regular times over 36 months.

RESULTS

This study included 222 eyes from 152 patients. A significant decrease in BCVA (P < 0.001) and a significant increase in CMT (P = 0.013) were observed prior to FAc. A significant increase in BCVA was registered at 6 months after FAc implant administration (P < 0.001), which was maintained during follow-up. No relevant changes in IOP were observed. Treatment burden was reduced as a result of treatment with FAc (P < 0.001 for anti-VEGF, corticosteroids, or both treatments) in the full population.

CONCLUSIONS

In Portuguese practice, data showed that pre-FAc implantation, some patients did not respond to SOC treatment and/or they were undertreated. Following FAc implant administration, there were rapid, sustained, long-term visual and anatomical improvements, and a marked reduction in treatment burden.

The Treatment of Diabetic Retinal Edema with Intravitreal Steroids: How and When

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus and a leading cause of visual impairment worldwide. It is defined as the diabetes-related accumulation of fluid, proteins, and lipids, with retinal thickening, within the macular area. DME affects a significant proportion of individuals with diabetes, with the prevalence increasing with disease duration and severity. It is estimated that approximately 25-30% of diabetic patients will develop DME during their lifetime. Poor glycemic control, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes duration, and genetic predisposition are recognized as risk factors for the development and progression of DME. Although the exact pathophysiology is still not completely understood, it has been demonstrated that chronic hyperglycemia triggers a cascade of biochemical processes, including increased oxidative stress, inflammation, activation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), cellular dysfunction, and apoptosis, with breakdown of the blood-retinal barriers and fluid accumulation within the macular area. Early diagnosis and appropriate management of DME are crucial for improving visual outcomes. Although the control of systemic risk factors still remains the most important strategy in DME treatment, intravitreal pharmacotherapy with anti-VEGF molecules or steroids is currently considered the first-line approach in DME patients, whereas macular laser photocoagulation and pars plana vitrectomy may be useful in selected cases. Available intravitreal steroids, including triamcinolone acetonide injections and dexamethasone and fluocinolone acetonide implants, exert their therapeutic effect by reducing inflammation, inhibiting VEGF expression, stabilizing the blood-retinal barrier and thus reducing vascular permeability. They have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing macular edema and improving visual outcomes in DME patients but are associated with a high risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract development, so their use requires an accurate patient selection. This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the pathology, epidemiology, risk factors, physiopathology, clinical features, treatment mechanisms of actions, treatment options, prognosis, and ongoing clinical studies related to the treatment of DME, with particular consideration of intravitreal steroids therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in diabetic macular edema patients considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies (REACT): a prospective, non-randomized, and multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the intravitreal fluocinolone-acetonide implant (FAc-i) in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema who did not sufficiently respond to other available therapies.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, non-randomized, and phase-IV observational study conducted on patients with recurrent-DME who were insufficient responders to currently available therapies (REACT-Study). The primary end-point was the mean change in best-corrected-visual-acuity from baseline to month-24 values.

RESULTS

Thirty-one eyes from 31 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 68.0 ± 7.7 years, and 10 (32.3%) were women. Study patients had received 5.3 ± 7.3 previous DME treatments before starting the study. In the overall study sample, BCVA improved from 56.1 ± 12.3 letters at baseline to 62.4 ± 17.0 letters at month-24 (p = 0.0510). The eyes with a baseline BCVA < 70 ETDRS letters had a significant improvement in BCVA from 53.2 ± 10.2 letters at baseline to 61.5 ± 17.9 letters at month-24 (p = 0.0165). In the overall study population, central-subfoveal-thickness (CST) was significantly reduced from 474.0 ± 135.1 µm at baseline to 333.4 ± 135.6 at month-24 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, macular-volume (MV) was significantly reduced from 10.7 ± 2.7 mm3 at baseline to 9.6 ± 2.9 mm3 (p = 0.0027) at month-24. Among the 31 study eyes, 19 (61.3%) required an additional treatment for DME. Throughout the study, 9 (29.0%) eyes required ocular hypotensive medication for controlling their intraocular-pressure and 5 (16.1%) eyes underwent cataract surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In DME eyes who did not sufficiently respond to previous therapies, the FAc-i was associated with an improvement in visual and anatomic outcomes. There were no unexpected adverse-events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT identifier: 2016-001680-37.

Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Injected 1 Month after Dexamethasone Implant for Diabetic Macular Oedema: the ILUVI1MOIS Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci) injected 1 month after the last dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi) in chronic diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients.

METHODS

Retrospective multicentric study conducted in pseudophakic patients with chronic DME frequently treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi; time to DME recurrence ≤ 6 months), receiving FAci 1 month after the last DEXi, with at least a 6-month follow-up. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography, intraocular pressure (IOP) and additional treatments were assessed on the day of FAci injection (M0), 1 (M1) and 3 months (M3) later and then every 3 months.

RESULTS

A total of 41 eyes from 34 patients were included. At M0, patients' mean age was 68.7 ± 9.8 years, the mean DME duration was 63.9 ± 22.9 months, the mean interval between two DEXi was 14.2 ± 3.3 weeks. M12 data were available for 71% of patients. At baseline, the mean BCVA, CMT and IOP were 63.2 ± 16.6 letters, 299.4 ± 103.3 µm, and 16.2 ± 4.5 mmHg, respectively, and remained stable during the follow-up. At M12, 14% of patients required additional intravitreal treatments.

CONCLUSION

In pseudophakic patients with chronic DME showing good response to DEXi but requiring repeated injections every < 6 months, switching to FAci 1 month after the last DEXi was effective and safe. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings, and to determine the best interval between the last DEXi and the first FAci.

Safety and effectiveness of the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN): 3-year results from the European IRISS registry study

BACKGROUND

The ILUVIEN Registry Safety Study was a multicentre, open-label, non-randomised, observational, phase 4 study designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in all indications in real-world practices in Europe.

METHODS

The study included data collected prospectively and retrospectively. Patients receiving FAc implants between 2013 and 2017 were included and monitored until the last patient reached ≥3 years of follow-up. Mean intraocular pressure (IOP) data over the course of the study, along with IOP events, use of IOP-lowering therapy, mean change in visual acuity (VA) and information on supplemental therapy use were analysed post-FAc implantation.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ninety-five eyes from 556 patients, with a mean±SD follow-up of 1150.5±357.36 days, were treated with a FAc implant. 96.7% of eyes had chronic diabetic macular oedema (cDMO). IOP lowering was achieved in 34.5% of eyes using topical agents and 4.3% by surgery. Seventy-three eyes (64.6% of 113 phakic) required cataract surgery during follow-up. Mean VA increased from a baseline of 52.2 letters to 57.1 letters at month 36, with improvement observed up to month 48. Supplementary therapies were given in 43.7% of eyes. When classified by length of cDMO less than or greater than the median duration those with a shorter history experienced greater VA gains than those with a longer history.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the favourable, long-term benefit-to-risk profile of the FAc implant in eyes with cDMO, with an additional benefit in patients when this therapy is administered earlier.

Current Treatments and Innovations in Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide. Multiple treatment options have been used over time to attempt to modify the natural progression of the disease in both proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). These two retinal complications are the result of microvascular occlusions and vascular hyperpermeability and are considered one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness in patients of working age. It is now well demonstrated that PDR and DME are associated with increased levels of inflammatory and pro-angiogenic factors in the ocular compartment. To date, laser photocoagulation, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, and corticosteroids have demonstrated efficacy in their treatment in large randomized controlled trials and in real-life observational studies. This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive review of current treatments, including the main drugs used in diabetic pathologic manifestations, as well as new therapeutic alternatives, such as extended-release intraocular devices.

Do new drugs for diabetic macular edema offer a safer option?

INTRODUCTION

The last decade has witnessed important advances in retinal drug discovery, administered intravitreally, allowing high intraocular concentration and low systemic passage. However, local and systemic adverse events have been described and should be discussed before proposing treatment. In diabetes mellitus specifically, the choice of molecule and treatment regimen should limit the therapeutic burden, avoiding the need for frequent ophthalmological appointments, in patients receiving multi-disciplinary care.

AREAS COVERED

We aim to review and discuss the risk/benefit ratio of the main intravitreal therapies currently proposed for diabetic macular edema (DME), and how these treatments could be tailored to each individual patient.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-VEGF injections and steroid implants are currently the two therapeutic options proposed in cases of DME. New molecules in these two classes have recently been approved and are currently being studied under phase IV observations to establish their efficacy and tolerance. The preferred therapeutic option is determined based on the ocular condition and the patient profile. As new treatments are developed, new adverse events will also enter into consideration, and retinal physicians must therefore be able to call on a range of therapeutic options and question the risk/benefit ratio of each of them before proposing a treatment.

Management of Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema Switched from Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant to Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant

To assess anatomical and functional outcomes after switching from dexamethasone implant (DEXi) to fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci) in 113 diabetic macular edema eyes, a multicentric retrospective observational study was conducted. Seventy-five eyes (73.5%) were switched 1−8 weeks after their last DEXi. The mean best-corrected visual acuity improved to 59.8 letters at month 4 and remained stable during the follow-up. The mean central macular thickness (CMT) significantly decreased during the follow-up, with a minimum of 320.9 μm at month 3. The baseline CMT was higher in eyes that received the last DEXi >8 weeks versus <8 weeks before the first FAci (p < 0.021). After FAci injection, additional treatments were needed in 37 (32.7%) eyes. A longer diabetes duration (p = 0.009), a longer time between the last DEXi and the first FAci (p = 0.035), and a high baseline CMT (p = 0.003) were risk factors for additional treatments. The mean intraocular pressure was <19 mmHg at all timepoints, with no difference between eyes receiving the last DEXi ≤8 weeks or >8 weeks before the switch. Switching from DEXi to FAci in DME is effective and safe. A short time between the last DEXi and the first FAci reduced CMT fluctuations and the need for early additional treatments.

Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide for Diabetic Macular Edema: Long-Term Effect and Structure/Function Correlation

The long-term effect of intravitreal Fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) on retinal morphology and function in diabetic macular edema (DME) was investigated. Seventeen eyes of twelve consecutive DME patients, treated by intravitreal FAc, were retrospectively evaluated. Retinal morphology was assessed with central macular thickness (CMT). Retinal function was assessed by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and cone b-wave and photopic negative response (PhNR). The main outcome was a mean change in CMT at month 24. The secondary outcomes were changes in cone b-wave and PhNR at month 24. The incidence of adverse events was also recorded. Mean CMT decreased from 406.52 µm (±138.74) at baseline to 310 µm (±130.39) at 24 months (p = 0.008). No significant changes in the other parameters were found. At baseline, BCVA and PhNR amplitude were negatively correlated (r = −0.55) with CMT. At the end of follow-up, the change in CMT was negatively correlated with baseline CMT (r = −0.53, p = 0.03) and positively correlated with baseline PhNR amplitude (r = 0.58, p < 0.01). A significant, long-term reduction in CMT was observed in DME patients after FAc implant. The anti-edema effect tended to be stronger in patients with the poorest baseline retinal morphology (CMT) and function (PhNR). Structure/function correlations might help to characterize the patients who may benefit from this treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Chronic Diabetic Macular Edema Previously Treated in Real-Life Practice: The REALFAc Study

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the main cause of visual impairment in diabetic patients and a chronic disease requiring long-term treatments. The fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant has recently been approved to treat DME in patients considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies. This study evaluates the functional and anatomical efficacy of the FAc implant in real-life practice. A total of 62 eyes with chronic DME were included and followed for a mean of 13.9 (+7.5) months. Previous treatment included at least anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in 83.9% of eyes, dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) in 100% of eyes, vitrectomy in 29.0% of eyes, and laser photocoagulation (either panretinal or focal photocoagulation) in 75.8% of eyes. The mean baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 64.0 (+/−17.2) letters (median: 67.5 letters) with a mean DME duration of 60.3 (+/−30.6) months. The maximum BCVA gain occurred at 21 months with a mean gain of 5.0 (+/−12.7) letters. A total of 50.0% of eyes gained ≥5 letters during follow-up. Patients with lower BCVA at baseline had the lowest final BCVA (p < 0.001) but the highest BCVA gain (p = 0.02). The best overall improvement in mean central macular thickness (CMT) occurred at 18 months (p < 0.0001). The improvement in BCVA was inversely associated with the decrease in CMT and showed a decrease when CMT increased (DME recurrence). According to the history of vitrectomy, we did not find any significant difference in mean final BCVA (p = 0.1) and mean BCVA gain (p = 0.2) between eyes previously vitrectomized or not. A total of 23 eyes (37.1%) required additional treatment for DME, and 17.7% required an IOP-lowering procedure during follow-up. In conclusion, this real-life observational study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the FAc implant in patients with chronic DME already treated with other available therapies.

Fluocinolone acetonide implant in diabetic macular edema: International experts' panel consensus guidelines and treatment algorithm

Center-involving diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision impairment in working-age adults. While its management is particularly challenging in a poorly compliant population, continuous innovation and the advent of new molecules have improved its outcome. The control of glycemia and of systemic aggravating factors remain essential to slow down progression of disease complications including DME. The indications for macular laser photocoagulation has progressively been phased out as a standard of care and replaced by local intraocular anti-VEGFs biologics and glucocorticoids (GCs). Intravitreal GCs in controlled-release drug delivery systems have allowed to reduce injection frequency and treatment burden. The non biodegradable Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) implant allows a long-lasting stabilization of both functional and anatomic improvements. However, adequate patient selection and monitoring through regular follow-up are essential for optimal results. Based on their experience and the latest literature, the aim of the present review is to provide international expert panel consensus on the place of the FAc implant in the treatment algorithm of DME, as well as its safety profile and how to manage it.

Intravitreal Corticosteroid Implantation in Diabetic Macular Edema: Updated European Consensus Guidance on Monitoring and Managing Intraocular Pressure

Intravitreal therapy for diabetic macular edema can, in susceptible patients, increase intraocular pressure (IOP). As uncontrolled IOP can potentially be sight threatening, monitoring is an essential component of patient management. It can be challenging for retina specialists to ensure that monitoring is rigorous enough to detect and resolve any potential problems at the earliest opportunity without it also being overburdensome for patients who have the lowest risk of developing an IOP rise. We have developed dynamic algorithms that: (1) tailor the frequency and extent of monitoring according to individual susceptibility and current IOP and (2) assist retina specialists in deciding when they should consider a referral to a glaucoma specialist. One algorithm is for patients with a relatively low susceptibility to developing an IOP rise (those whose baseline IOP is < 22 mmHg and who do not have a history of IOP events). Depending on their first post-implantation IOP check, the algorithm classifies them as: low risk if IOP remains < 22 mmHg; medium risk if IOP is 22-25 mmHg and any rise from baseline is < 10 mmHg; or high risk if IOP is > 25 mmHg or any rise from baseline is ≥ 10 mmHg. Thereafter, the algorithm guides on the frequency and extent of monitoring required in each of these groups and, if IOP rises or falls during treatment, patients may move up or down the risk groups accordingly. A different algorithm is provided for patients who are more susceptible to developing an IOP rise (those with a baseline IOP of ≥ 22 mmHg or a prior history of an IOP event). These patients need monitoring more closely so this algorithm has only medium- or high-risk classifications. These algorithms update the previous monitoring guidance by Goñi et al. (Goñi et al. in Ophthalmol Ther 5:47-61, 2016).

Prognostic biomarkers of chronic diabetic macular edema treated with a fiuocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant

Background

This study aimed to investigate retinal imaging biomarkers, such as disorganization of the retinal inner layers (DRIL) and/or ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), and functional outcomes in eyes treated with 0.2 µg/day of a fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) after an insufficient response to previous treatments.

Methods

This was a retrospective comparative study of 18 eyes (15 patients) with persistent and/or recurrent diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with FAc. Eyes were divided according to the number of prior intravitreal treatments: group 1 (n = 8) with ≤ 6 injections (early switch) and group 2 (n = 10) with > 6 injections (late switch). Outcomes included percentage of eyes with DRIL and/or EZ disruption at baseline and analysis of the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using ETDRS letters, central macular thickness (CMT), DRIL, and EZ disruption at the last observation.

Results

Group 2 revealed a significantly higher percentage of DRIL and/or EZ disruption than group 1 (P < 0.05). At the last observation, group 1 revealed a higher percentage of eyes achieving vision stability/ improvement, gaining ≥ 15 letters, and achieving ≥70 letters (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). The mean BCVA gain was 8.8 and 0.7 letters for groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.397). Both groups revealed a significant mean CMT reduction (> 20% reduction from the baseline value), without a significant statistical difference between them (P = 0.749). After treatment, most eyes from both groups showed resolution of DRIL and EZ disruption.

Conclusions

Patients with DME presenting with a lower percentage of DRIL and/or EZ disruption at baseline had better functional outcomes, supporting the possible benefit of an early switch to FAc after insufficient response to previous treatments. Future randomized studies with a larger patient cohort are warranted to confirm our conclusions.