Three-Year, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

A new era in posterior segment ocular drug delivery: Translation of systemic, cell-targeted, dendrimer-based therapies

Vision impairment and loss due to posterior segment ocular disorders, including age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy, are a rapidly growing cause of disability globally. Current treatments consist primarily of intravitreal injections aimed at preventing disease progression and characterized by high cost and repeated clinic visits. Nanotechnology provides a promising platform for drug delivery to the eye, with potential to overcome anatomical and physiological barriers to provide safe, effective, and sustained treatment modalities. However, there are few nanomedicines approved for posterior segment disorders, and fewer that target specific cells or that are compatible with systemic administration. Targeting cell types that mediate these disorders via systemic administration may unlock transformative opportunities for nanomedicine and significantly improve patient access, acceptability, and outcomes. We highlight the development of hydroxyl polyamidoamine dendrimer-based therapeutics that demonstrate ligand-free cell targeting via systemic administration and are under clinical investigation for treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration.

Thermo-responsive Diels-Alder stabilized hydrogels for ocular drug delivery of a corticosteroid and an anti-VEGF fab fragment

In the present study, a novel in situ forming thermosensitive hydrogel system was investigated as a versatile drug delivery system for ocular therapy. For this purpose, two thermosensitive ABA triblock copolymers bearing either furan or maleimide moieties were synthesized, named respectively poly(NIPAM-co-HEA/Furan)-PEG6K-P(NIPAM-co-HEA/Furan) (PNF) and poly(NIPAM-co-HEA/Maleimide)-PEG6K-P(NIPAM-co-HEA/-Maleimide) (PNM). Hydrogels were obtained upon mixing aqueous PNF and PNM solutions followed by incubation at 37 °C. The hydrogel undergoes an immediate (<1 min) sol-gel transition at 37 °C. In situ hydrogel formation at 37 °C was also observed after intravitreal injection of the formulation into an ex vivo rabbit eye. The hydrogel network formation was due to physical self-assembly of the PNIPAM blocks and a catalyst-free furan-maleimide Diels-Alder (DA) chemical crosslinking in the hydrophobic domains of the polymer network. Rheological studies demonstrated sol-gel transition at 23 °C, and DA crosslinks were formed in time within 60 min by increasing the temperature from 4 to 37 °C. When incubated at 37 °C, these hydrogels were stable for at least one year in phosphate buffer of pH 7.4. However, the gels degraded at basic pH 10 and 11 after 13 and 3 days, respectively, due to hydrolysis of ester bonds in the crosslinks of the hydrogel network. The hydrogel was loaded with an anti-VEGF antibody fragment (FAB; 48.4 kDa) or with corticosteroid dexamethasone (dex) by dissolving (FAB) or dispersing (DEX) in the hydrogel precursor solution. The FAB fragment in unmodified form was quantitatively released over 13 days after an initial burst release of 46, 45 and 28 % of the loading for the 5, 10 and 20 wt% hydrogel, respectively, due to gel dehydration during formation. The low molecular weight drug dexamethasone was almost quantitively released in 35 days. The slower release of dexamethasone compared to the FAB fragment can likely be explained by the solubilization of this hydrophobic drug in the hydrophobic domains of the gel. The thermosensitive gels showed good cytocompatibility when brought in contact with macrophage-like mural cells (RAW 264.7) and human retinal pigment epithelium-derived (ARPE-19) cells. This study demonstrates that PNF-PNM thermogel may be a suitable formulation for sustained release of bioactive agents into the eye for treating posterior segment eye diseases.

Challenges and strategies for ocular posterior diseases therapy via non-invasive advanced drug delivery

Posterior segment diseases, such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) are vital factor that seriously threatens human vision health and quality of life, the treatment of which poses a great challenge to ophthalmologists and ophthalmic scientists. In particular, ocular posterior drug delivery in a non-invasive manner is highly desired but still faces many difficulties such as rapid drug clearance, limited permeability and low drug accumulation at the target site. At present, many novel non-invasive topical ocular drug delivery systems are under development aiming to improve drug delivery efficiency and biocompatibility for better therapy of posterior segment oculopathy. The purpose of this review is to present the challenges in the noninvasive treatment of posterior segment diseases, and to propose strategies to tackle these bottlenecks. First of all, barriers to ocular administration were introduced based on ocular physiological structure and behavior, including analysis and discussion on the influence of ocular structures on noninvasive posterior segment delivery. Thereafter, various routes of posterior drug delivery, both invasive and noninvasive, were illustrated, along with the respective anatomical obstacles that need to be overcome. The widespread and risky application of invasive drug delivery, and the need to develop non-invasive local drug delivery with alternative to injectable therapy were described. Absorption routes through topical administration and strategies to enhance ocular posterior drug delivery were then discussed. As a follow-up, an up-to-date research advances in non-invasive delivery systems for the therapy of ocular fundus lesions were presented, including different nanocarriers, contact lenses, and several other carriers. In conclusion, it seems feasible and promising to treat posterior oculopathy via non-invasive local preparations or in combination with appropriate devices.

[Intraocular pressure elevation and intravitreal steroid implant injection: State of the art in 2023. Recommendations of the French Glaucoma Society and French Ophthalmology Society [French version]]

These are the recommendations of French glaucoma and retina experts on the management of ocular hypertension (OHT) observed in 1/3 of cases after intravitreal steroid implant injections. They are an update to the recommendations first published in 2017. There are two implants on the French market: the dexamethasone (DEXi) and fluocinolone acetonide (FAci) implants. It is important to know the pressure status before injecting a patient with a steroid implant. Monitoring of the IOP adapted to the specific drug is necessary throughout follow-up and reinjections. Real-life studies have made it possible to optimize the management algorithm by significantly increasing the safety of use of these implants. A corticosteroid test with DEXi is necessary before switching to FAci to optimize the pressure tolerance of the latter. In addition to topical glaucoma medications, SLT laser can be considered in the therapeutic arsenal for the management of steroid-induced OHT and future injections.

Intravitreal dexamethasone to manage post endothelial keratoplasty cystoid macular oedema refractory to topical therapy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

To describe the visual and clinical outcomes of patients with post endothelial keratoplasty (EK) cystoid macular oedema (CMO) refractory to topical treatment with intravitreal sustained-release dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex).

SUBJECTS/METHODS

131 eyes from 111 patients undergoing solitary or combined EK (52 DSAEK (40.0%) and 79 DMEK (60.0%)) at Southend University Hospital between January 2020 and February 2022 with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were evaluated. Patients suspected of having CMO underwent spectral-domain macular optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) Patients with diabetes were not included in this series.

RESULTS

CMO was identified in 5.3% (n = 7) of cases, with 2 of these patients responding to topical corticosteroid treatment. The remaining 5 patients underwent intravitreal dexamethasone implant, with 1 patient requiring repeat implant due to CMO recurrence. All presented within 2 months postoperatively. 4 out of 5 eyes treated with intravitreal dexamethasone achieved a Snellen BCVA ≤6/9.5. 1 patient had an uncontrolled rise in intraocular pressure (IOP) despite maximal medical treatment requiring an urgent PreserFlo Ab-Externo MicroShunt.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of intravitreal sustained-release dexamethasone implant in the management of post EK CMO refractory to topical therapy is effective and safe in most cases, but patients should be monitored and treated promptly for any secondary IOP response.

Same-Day Bilateral Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and complications associated with the use of same-day bilateral intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implants for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of an open-label, multicenter, consecutive case series included 130 eyes of 65 patients with bilateral DME who were treated with intravitreal DEX implants. The patients were divided into two groups: a control group (comprising 40 eyes treated with an alternating unilateral regimen) and a study group (comprising 90 eyes treated with concomitant bilateral DEX implants). All patients were followed up monthly after implantation. The changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to sixth month after implantation, and ocular adverse effects such as intraocular pressure, cataract, and tolerability of bilateral implantation were reviewed. The primary endpoint was to assess the safety of the same-day bilateral treatment protocol. The secondary endpoints focused on evaluating the functional and anatomical changes associated with bilateral simultaneous or alternating implantations.

RESULTS

At 6 months after implantation, mean BCVA increased and CRT decreased in both groups. Moreover, no serious ocular adverse effects were observed. In addition, no differences were observed between the two groups in the number of patients who required extra follow-up visits or the number of extra visits made in addition to the treatment schedule.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day bilateral intravitreal DEX implants are associated with a low complication rate and are well tolerated by patients. This safe practice may optimize efficiency and reduce the burden on both the health-care system and patients, when used to treat bilateral DME.

Clinical efficacy and safety of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant for the treatment of chronic diabetic macular oedema: five-year real-world results

BACKGROUND/AIM

To report 5-year real-world efficacy and safety data following the treatment of chronic diabetic macular oedema (DMO) with the intravitreal 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant(ILUVIEN).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of 31 eyes treated with ILUVIEN for chronic DMO at a tertiary centre in Birmingham (UK). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were recorded at baseline, and then at 1-,2-,3-, and 5-years. Safety was assessed based on intraocular pressure (IOP) -lowering medication, surgery, and other complications.

RESULTS

BCVA significantly improved 1-year post-ILUVIEN (+4.2 letters, p < 0.05) and gradually reverted to baseline levels over the 5-year period of follow-up (+0.2 letters at year-5). A significant and sustained CRT reduction was observed throughout the 5-years. The proportion of eyes on IOP-lowering medication increased from 16% at baseline, to 70% at 5-years (p < 0.001) with eyes on a mean of 1.3 medications. Laser trabeculoplasty (n = 2), cyclodiode laser (n = 1), and trabeculoplasty and trabeculotomy (n = 1, in the same eye; 3.2%) were required for uncontrolled IOP. Other complications included endophthalmitis (n = 1) and vitreous haemorrhage (n = 1). 58% of eyes required additional intravitreal injections, with a mean 29.2 months to first injection. We observed a 69% reduction in treatment burden following treatment with ILUVIEN implant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our real-world results confirm the efficacy of the ILUVIEN implant over 5 years, with two-thirds of eyes having improved or stable visual acuity 5 years after ILUVIEN, and an overall sustained improvement in anatomical outcome. Although the rate of IOP-lowering medications use was higher than previously reported, the rate of incisional IOP-lowering surgery and other complications remained low and in keeping with rates reported in larger studies.

Macular Thickness Fluctuations in Eyes With Diabetic Macular Edema Treated With Intravitreal Steroid

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Macular thickness fluctuations (MTF) over time may be more predictive of visual outcomes than absolute macular thickness in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). It is unclear whether this association exists in DME patients treated with intravitreal steroids or whether steroids confer reduced MTF versus anti-VEGF treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

MTF was compared before and after initiation of steroids in DME patients treated with intravitreal steroids. A mixed-effects linear regression model was used to determine the association between MTF and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

RESULTS

Mean 12-month MTF significantly decreased after steroid initiation (61.1 μm versus 53.5 μm, P = 0.04, n = 105 eyes). Mean BCVA after 12 months was not significantly different from baseline. No significant association between post-steroid MTF and 12-month BCVA was found.

CONCLUSION

Steroid treatment decreases MTF while BCVA remains stable in DME patients previously treated with anti-VEGF. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:454-460.].

Advances in development of exosomes for ophthalmic therapeutics

Exosomes contain multiple bioactive molecules and maintain the connection between cells. Recent advances in exosome-based therapeutics have witnessed unprecedented opportunities in treating ophthalmic diseases, including traumatic diseases, autoimmune diseases, chorioretinal diseases and others. Utilization of exosomes as delivery vectors to encapsulate both drugs and therapeutic genes could yield higher efficacy and avoid the unnecessary immune responses. However, exosome-based therapies also come with some potential ocular risks. In this review, we first present a general introduction to exosomes. Then we provide an overview of available applications and discuss their potential risks. Moreover, we review recently reported exosomes as delivery vectors for ophthalmic diseases. Finally, we put forward future perspectives to grapple with its translation and underlying issues.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factors: the AUSSIEDEX study

AIM

To evaluate effectiveness of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) monotherapy in the AUSSIEDEX study non-responder subgroup, defined by diabetic macular oedema (DME) refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, observational, real-world study included pseudophakic and phakic (scheduled for cataract surgery) eyes that did not achieve a ≥5-letter best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain and/or clinically significant central subfield retinal thickness (CRT) improvement after 3-6 anti-VEGF injections for DME (N=143 eyes), regardless of baseline BCVA and CRT. After an initial DEX injection (baseline visit), reinjection was permitted at ≥16-week intervals.

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

changes in mean BCVA and CRT from baseline to week 52. Safety assessments included adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 143 eyes, 53 (37.1%) and 89 (62.2%) switched to DEX after 3-6 (early) and >6 (late) anti-VEGF injections, respectively; 1 (0.7%) had missing information. With 2.3 injections (mean) over 52 weeks, the change in mean BCVA from a baseline of 57.8 letters was not significant at week 52. Mean CRT improved significantly from a baseline of 417.8 μm at week 52 (mean change -60.9 μm; p<0.001). Outcomes were similar in eyes switched to DEX early and late. No unexpected adverse events were reported; no filtration surgeries were required.

CONCLUSION

To date, AUSSIEDEX is the largest prospective, real-world study of DEX monotherapy for treatment-naïve or anti-VEGF-refractory DME. Following early or late switch from anti-VEGF agents, DEX significantly improved anatomic outcomes at 52 weeks without new safety concerns, supporting use in anti-VEGF-refractory DME.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02731911.

Combined Therapy of Experimental Autoimmune Uveitis by a Dual-Drug Nanocomposite Formulation with Berberine and Dexamethasone

Purpose

Autoimmune uveitis is a kind of sight-threatening ocular and systemic disorders. Recent treatments on autoimmune uveitis still remain many limitations due to extreme complexity and undetermined pathogenesis. In this study, a novel dual-drug nanocomposite formulation is developed to treat experimental autoimmune uveitis by a combined and sustained therapy method.

Methods

The dual-drug nanocomposite formulation is constructed by integrating berberine (BBR)-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) into dexamethasone (DEX)-loaded thermogel (BBR@MSN-DEX@Gel). The BBR@MSN-DEX@Gel is characterized by transmission electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering, Fourier transform infrared spectrometer and rheometer. The in vitro drug release profile, cytotoxicity and anti-inflammation effectiveness of BBR@MSN-DEX@Gel on lipopolysaccharide-stimulated human conjunctival epithelial cells are investigated. After the in vivo drug release profile and biosafety of the dual-drug nanocomposite formulation are confirmed, its treatment effectiveness is fully assessed based on the induced experimental autoimmune uveitis (EAU) Lewis rat's model.

Results

The dual-drug nanocomposite formulation has good injectability and thermosensitivity, suitable for administration by an intravitreal injection. The BBR@MSN-DEX@Gel has been found to sustainably release both drugs for up to 4 weeks. The carrier materials have minimal in vitro cytotoxicity and high in vivo biosafety. BBR@MSN-DEX@Gel presents obviously anti-inflammatory effectiveness in vitro. After administration of BBR@MSN-DEX@Gel into Lewis rat's eye with EAU by an intravitreal injection, the nanocomposite formulation significantly suppresses inflammatory reaction of autoimmune uveitis via a dual-drug combined and sustained therapy method, compared with the equivalent dose of single-component formulations.

Conclusion

BBR@MSN-DEX@Gel serves as a promising dual-drug nanocomposite formulation for future treatment of autoimmune uveitis.

Nanotechnology-based ocular drug delivery systems: recent advances and future prospects

Ocular drug delivery has constantly challenged ophthalmologists and drug delivery scientists due to various anatomical and physiological barriers. Static and dynamic ocular barriers prevent the entry of exogenous substances and impede therapeutic agents' active absorption. This review elaborates on the anatomy of the eye and the associated constraints. Followed by an illustration of some common ocular diseases, including glaucoma and their current clinical therapies, emphasizing the significance of drug therapy in treating ocular diseases. Subsequently, advances in ocular drug delivery modalities, especially nanotechnology-based ocular drug delivery systems, are recommended, and some typical research is highlighted. Based on the related research, systematic and comprehensive characterizations of the nanocarriers are summarized, hoping to assist with future research. Besides, we summarize the nanotechnology-based ophthalmic drugs currently on the market or still in clinical trials and the recent patents of nanocarriers. Finally, inspired by current trends and therapeutic concepts, we provide an insight into the challenges faced by novel ocular drug delivery systems and further put forward directions for future research. We hope this review can provide inspiration and motivation for better design and development of novel ophthalmic formulations.

Biomaterial Drug Delivery Systems for Prominent Ocular Diseases

Ocular diseases, such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and glaucoma, have had a profound impact on millions of patients. In the past couple of decades, these diseases have been treated using conventional techniques but have also presented certain challenges and limitations that affect patient experience and outcomes. To address this, biomaterials have been used for ocular drug delivery, and a wide range of systems have been developed. This review will discuss some of the major classes and examples of biomaterials used for the treatment of prominent ocular diseases, including ocular implants (biodegradable and non-biodegradable), nanocarriers (hydrogels, liposomes, nanomicelles, DNA-inspired nanoparticles, and dendrimers), microneedles, and drug-loaded contact lenses. We will also discuss the advantages of these biomaterials over conventional approaches with support from the results of clinical trials that demonstrate their efficacy.

REAL WORLD STUDY COMPARING PHAKIC VERSUS PSEUDOPHAKIC EYES IN DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA TREATED WITH DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT: The PHAKIDEX Study

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone implant (DEX-implant) is one treatment choice in diabetic macular edema. However, steroid-induced cataract is a common complication when treating a chronic disease and could lead to vision loss. Because of the lack of studies specifically focused on the functional outcomes according to the lens status, the authors therefore aim to analyze the effectiveness and safety of DEX-implant treatment for diabetic macular edema in phakic versus pseudophakic eyes.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study conducted in France included eyes of consecutive patients who had received a DEX-implant for diabetic macular edema.

RESULTS

A total of 328 eyes were included: 158 eyes (48.2%) were phakic, 167 eyes (50.9%) were pseudophakic and three were unknown. According to the lens status, mean change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline was never significantly different between phakic and pseudophakic eyes (likelihood ratio test, P = 0.09) nor in the change in central macular thickness (likelihood ratio test, P = 0.79) in multivariate analysis. Cataract surgery was performed in 63 phakic eyes (39.9%) during the study period with a mean delay of 8.1 months (CI95% [6.59-9.69]). The mean change in best-corrected visual acuity between phakic eyes who underwent cataract surgery and those who did not, was not significantly different during the follow-up at each visit. The risk of ocular hypertension was not statistically different between phakic and pseudophakic subsets ( P = 0.9).

CONCLUSION

The authors showed here that phakic eyes treated with DEX-implant for diabetic macular edema did not have a significant difference in visual gain in comparison to pseudophakic eyes, with a comparable safety profile.

The evolving therapeutic landscape of diabetic retinopathy

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Recent decades have seen rapid progress in the management of diabetic eye disease, evolving from pituitary ablation to photocoagulation and intravitreal pharmacotherapy. The advent of effective intravitreal drugs inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) marked a new era in DR therapy. Sustained innovation has since produced several promising biologics targeting angiogenesis, inflammation, oxidative stress, and neurodegeneration.

AREAS COVERED

This review surveys traditional, contemporary, and emerging therapeutics for DR, with an emphasis on anti-VEGF therapies, receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiopoietin-Tie2 pathway inhibitors, integrin pathway inhibitors, gene therapy 'biofactory' approaches, and novel systemic therapies. Some of these investigational therapies are being delivered intravitreally via sustained release technologies for extended durability. Other investigational agents are being delivered non-invasively via topical and systemic routes. These strategies hold promise for early and long-lasting treatment of DR.

EXPERT OPINION

The evolving therapeutic landscape of DR is rapidly expanding our toolkit for the effective and durable treatment of blinding eye disease. However, further research is required to validate the efficacy of novel therapeutics and characterize real world outcomes.

OCT biomarkers as predictors of visual improvement in diabetic macular edema eyes receiving dexamethasone implants

BACKGROUND

Several optical coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers have been proposed as predictors for functional and anatomical outcomes in Diabetic Macular Edema (DME). This study aims to examine the impact of these OCT features on the visual acuity improvement of patients with DME after long-acting Dexamethasone intravitreal implants (DEX-I) injection. Furthermore, the safety and impact of DEX-I on clinical parameters, including intraocular pressure (IOP) were assessed.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed the medical records of naïve and non-naïve eyes with DME who received at least one DEX-I. The primary endpoint was visual acuity improvement of ≥ 5 ETDRS letters at 1 month and 4 months after treatment. Secondary outcomes were the changes in OCT biomarkers and the impact of DEX-I on IOP at 1 and 4 months of follow-up. Linear panel regression analysis was used to test for differences in central subfield thickness (CST) over time and it was stratified according to biomarkers at baseline. Finally, a logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors predicting visual improvement at 1 and 4 months.

RESULTS

We included 33 eyes of which 63.6% were at an advanced stage of DME. Overall, CST, cube average thickness (CAT), cube volume (CV), and intraretinal cystoid spaces > 200 μm (ICS) decreased following DEX-I injection (p < 0.001). Additionally, a thicker CST at baseline was observed in eyes with better visual improvement at one month (p = 0.048). After logistic regression analysis, CST was retained as the only predictor for visual improvement at one month (p = 0.044). Furthermore, panel regression analysis identified a relation between subfoveal neuroretinal detachment (SND) at baseline and CST increase at four months. Lastly, only 15.2% of the eyes necessitated topical medication for IOP reduction, with no differences observed when stratifying between naïve and non-naïve eyes.

CONCLUSION

Our analyses suggest that a ticker baseline CST may serve as a positive predictor of early visual improvement and SND presence at baseline may be a negative prognostic factor for CST increase 4 months after DEX-I injection. Other well-known biomarkers, such as disorganization of the inner retinal layers (DRIL) and hyperreflective foci (HF), did not demonstrate prognostic value on visual outcomes, at least within the first four months following the injection.

Fenofibrate for diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains a major cause of sight loss worldwide, despite new therapies and improvements in the metabolic control of people living with diabetes. Therefore, DR creates a physical and psychological burden for people, and an economic burden for society. Preventing the development and progression of DR, or avoiding the occurrence of its sight-threatening complications is essential, and must be pursued to save sight. Fenofibrate may be a useful strategy to achieve this goal, by reversing diabetes' effects and reducing inflammation in the retina, as well as improving dyslipidaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia.  OBJECTIVES: To investigate the benefits and harms of fenofibrate for preventing the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy in people with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with placebo or observation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three trials registers (February 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included people with T1D or T2D, when these compared fenofibrate with placebo or with observation, and assessed the effect of fenofibrate on the development or progression of DR (or both).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and analysis. Our primary outcome was progression of DR, a composite outcome of 1) incidence of overt retinopathy for participants who did not have DR at baseline, or 2) advancing two or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) severity scale for participants who had any DR at baseline (or both), based on the evaluation of stereoscopic or non-stereoscopic fundus photographs, during the follow-up period. Overt retinopathy was defined as the presence of any DR observed on stereoscopic or non-stereoscopic colour fundus photographs. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of overt retinopathy, reduction in visual acuity of participants with a reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular oedema; mean vision-related quality of life, and serious adverse events of fenofibrate. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies and their eye sub-studies (15,313 participants) in people with T2D. The studies were conducted in the US, Canada, Australia, Finland, and New Zealand; follow-up period was four to five years. One was funded by the government, the other by industry. Compared to placebo or observation, fenofibrate likely results in little to no difference in progression of DR (risk ratio (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.25; 1 study, 1012 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in a population with and without overt retinopathy at baseline. Those without overt retinopathy at baseline showed little or no progression (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 1 study, 804 participants); those with overt retinopathy at baseline found that their DR progressed slowly (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.71; 1 study, 208 people; test for interaction P = 0.02). Compared to placebo or observation, fenofibrate likely resulted in little to no difference in either the incidence of overt retinopathy (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09; 2 studies, 1631 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or the incidence of diabetic macular oedema (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.24; 1 study, 1012 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of fenofibrate increased severe adverse effects (RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.27; 2 studies, 15,313 participants; high-certainty evidence). The studies did not report on incidence of a reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, incidence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, or mean vision-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current, moderate-certainty evidence suggests that in a mixed group of people with and without overt retinopathy, who live with T2D, fenofibrate likely results in little to no difference in progression of diabetic retinopathy. However, in people with overt retinopathy who live with T2D, fenofibrate likely reduces the progression. Serious adverse events were rare, but the risk of their occurrence was increased by the use of fenofibrate. There is no evidence on the effect of fenofibrate in people with T1D. More studies, with larger sample sizes, and participants with T1D are needed. They should measure outcomes that are important to people with diabetes, e.g. change in vision, reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy; and evaluating the requirement of other treatments, e.g. injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, steroids.

Visual and Anatomical Outcomes of a Single Intravitreal Dexamethasone in Diabetic Macular Edema: An 8 Year Real-World Study

IMPORTANCE

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a major cause of vision loss in patients with diabetes mellitus. Intravitreal dexamethasone is a treatment option for patients unsuitable for or non-responsive to anti-angiogenic agents.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify visual and anatomical outcomes from an initial intravitreal dexamethasone injection over the expected 6-month period of dexamethasone release by the implant. Design and enrolment: This is a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records of patients reviewed between 1 January 2012 and 1 April 2022.

SETTING

A tertiary eye-care center in London, United Kingdom; Moorfields Eye Hospital National Healthcare System Foundation Trust.

PARTICIPANTS

The cohort comprised 418 adult patients with DME who received an initial treatment of 700 µg intravitreal dexamethasone in the study period. Of these, 240 patients met the inclusion criteria of ≥2 hospital visits following initial injection (≥1 beyond 6 months) and no previous ocular corticosteroid treatment or missing assessment at baseline.

EXPOSURE(S)

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant (700 µg).

MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S)

Probability of a positive visual outcome, defined as ≥5 or ≥10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS)-letter gain after treatment when compared to baseline (Kaplan-Meier models).

RESULTS

From the initial intravitreal dexamethasone injection alone, we observed a >75% chance of gaining ≥5 ETDRS letters and >50% chance of gaining ≥10 ETDRS letters within 6 months. There was less than a 50% chance of sustaining either positive visual outcome beyond 4 months.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most patients can be expected to have a positive visual outcome following an initial injection of dexamethasone implants that subsides within 4 months. Real-world re-treatment was observed to be delayed until after visual benefits were lost in half of the cohort. Further research will be needed to study the effects of delays in re-treatment.

CD40 Upregulation in the Retina of Patients With Diabetic Retinopathy: Association With TRAF2/TRAF6 Upregulation and Inflammatory Molecule Expression

Purpose

CD40 is upregulated in the retinas of diabetic mice, drives pro-inflammatory molecule expression, and promotes diabetic retinopathy. The role of CD40 in diabetic retinopathy in humans is unknown. Upregulation of CD40 and its downstream signaling molecules TNF receptor associated factors (TRAFs) is a key feature of CD40-driven inflammatory disorders. We examined the expression of CD40, TRAF2, and TRAF6 as well as pro-inflammatory molecules in retinas from patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Methods

Posterior poles from patients with diabetic retinopathy and non-diabetic controls were stained with antibodies against von Willebrand factor (labels endothelial cells), cellular retinaldehyde-binding protein (CRALBP), or vimentin (both label Müller cells) plus antibodies against CD40, TRAF2, TRAF6, ICAM-1, CCL2, TNF-α, and/or phospho-Tyr783 phospholipase Cγ1 (PLCγ1). Sections were analyzed by confocal microscopy.

Results

CD40 expression was increased in endothelial and Müller cells from patients with diabetic retinopathy. CD40 was co-expressed with ICAM-1 in endothelial cells and with CCL2 in Müller cells. TNF-α was detected in retinal cells from these patients, but these cells lacked endothelial/Müller cell markers. CD40 in Müller cells from patients with diabetic retinopathy co-expressed activated phospholipase Cγ1, a molecule that induces TNF-α expression in myeloid cells in mice. CD40 upregulation in endothelial cells and Müller cells from patients with diabetic retinopathy was accompanied by TRAF2 and TRAF6 upregulation.

Conclusions

CD40, TRAF2, and TRAF6 are upregulated in patients with diabetic retinopathy. CD40 associates with expression of pro-inflammatory molecules. These findings suggest that CD40-TRAF signaling may promote pro-inflammatory responses in the retinas of patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Current Treatments for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic retinopathy is a major retinal disorder and a leading cause of blindness. Diabetic macular edema (DME) is an ocular complication in patients with diabetes, and it can impair vision significantly. DME is a disorder of the neurovascular system, and it causes obstructions of the retinal capillaries, damage of the blood vessels, and hyperpermeability due to the expression and action of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). These changes result in hemorrhages and leakages of the serous components of blood that result in failures of the neurovascular units (NVUs). Persistent edema of the retina around the macula causes damage to the neural cells that constitute the NVUs resulting in diabetic neuropathy of the retina and a reduction in vision quality. The macular edema and NVU disorders can be monitored by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Neuronal cell death and axonal degeneration are irreversible, and their development can result in permanent visual loss. Treating the edema before these changes are detected in the OCT images is necessary for neuroprotection and maintenance of good vision. This review describes the effective treatments for the macular edema that are therefore neuroprotective.

Suppressing Inflammation for the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Dazdotuftide as a Potential New Multitarget Therapeutic Candidate

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are major causes of blindness globally. The primary treatment option for DME and neovascular AMD (nAMD) is anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) compounds, but this treatment modality often yields insufficient results, and monthly injections can place a burden on the health system and patients. Although various inflammatory pathways and mediators have been recognized as key players in the development of DR and AMD, there are limited treatment options targeting these pathways. Molecular pathways that are interlinked, or triggers of multiple inflammatory pathways, could be promising targets for drug development. This review focuses on the role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME and AMD and presents current anti-inflammatory compounds, as well as a potential multitarget anti-inflammatory compound (dazdotuftide) that could be a candidate treatment option for the management of DME and AMD.

Diabetic Neuropathy of the Retina and Inflammation: Perspectives

A clear connection exists between diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Consequently, therapeutic approaches that target both diseases are needed. Clinical trials are currently underway to explore the roles of obesity, adipose tissue, gut microbiota, and pancreatic beta cell function in diabetes. Inflammation plays a key role in diabetes pathophysiology and associated metabolic disorders; thus, interest has increased in targeting inflammation to prevent and control diabetes. Diabetic retinopathy is known as a neurodegenerative and vascular disease that occurs after some years of poorly controlled diabetes. However, increasing evidence points to inflammation as a key figure in diabetes-associated retinal complications. Interconnected molecular pathways, such as oxidative stress, and the formation of advanced glycation end-products, are known to contribute to the inflammatory response. This review describes the possible mechanisms of the metabolic changes in diabetes that involve inflammatory pathways.

The multifunctional human ocular melanocortin system

Immune privilege in the eye involves physical barriers, immune regulation and secreted proteins that together limit the damaging effects of intraocular immune responses and inflammation. The neuropeptide alpha-melanocyte stimulating hormone (α-MSH) normally circulates in the aqueous humour of the anterior chamber and the vitreous fluid, secreted by iris and ciliary epithelium, and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). α-MSH plays an important role in maintaining ocular immune privilege by helping the development of suppressor immune cells and by activating regulatory T-cells. α-MSH functions by binding to and activating melanocortin receptors (MC1R to MC5R) and receptor accessory proteins (MRAPs) that work in concert with antagonists, otherwise known as the melanocortin system. As well as controlling immune responses and inflammation, a broad range of biological functions is increasingly recognised to be orchestrated by the melanocortin system within ocular tissues. This includes maintaining corneal transparency and immune privilege by limiting corneal (lymph)angiogenesis, sustaining corneal epithelial integrity, protecting corneal endothelium and potentially enhancing corneal graft survival, regulating aqueous tear secretion with implications for dry eye disease, facilitating retinal homeostasis via maintaining blood-retinal barriers, providing neuroprotection in the retina, and controlling abnormal new vessel growth in the choroid and retina. The role of melanocortin signalling in uveal melanocyte melanogenesis however remains unclear compared to its established role in skin melanogenesis. The early application of a melanocortin agonist to downregulate systemic inflammation used adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-based repository cortisone injection (RCI), but adverse side effects including hypertension, edema, and weight gain, related to increased adrenal gland corticosteroid production, impacted clinical uptake. Compared to ACTH, melanocortin peptides that target MC1R, MC3R, MC4R and/or MC5R, but not adrenal gland MC2R, induce minimal corticosteroid production with fewer amdverse systemic effects. Pharmacological advances in synthesising MCR-specific targeted peptides provide further opportunities for treating ocular (and systemic) inflammatory diseases. Following from these observations and a renewed clinical and pharmacological interest in the diverse biological roles of the melanocortin system, this review highlights the physiological and disease-related involvement of this system within human eye tissues. We also review the emerging benefits and versatility of melanocortin receptor targeted peptides as non-steroidal alternatives for inflammatory eye diseases such as non-infectious uveitis and dry eye disease, and translational applications in promoting ocular homeostasis, for example, in corneal transplantation and diabetic retinopathy.

Three Major Causes of Metabolic Retinal Degenerations and Three Ways to Avoid Them

An imbalance of homeostasis in the retina leads to neuron loss and this eventually results in a deterioration of vision. If the stress threshold is exceeded, different protective/survival mechanisms are activated. Numerous key molecular actors contribute to prevalent metabolically induced retinal diseases-the three major challenges are age-related alterations, diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. These diseases have complex dysregulation of glucose-, lipid-, amino acid or purine metabolism. In this review, we summarize current knowledge on possible ways of preventing or circumventing retinal degeneration by available methods. We intend to provide a unified background, common prevention and treatment rationale for these disorders and identify the mechanisms through which these actions protect the retina. We suggest a role for herbal medicines, internal neuroprotective substances and synthetic drugs targeting four processes: parainflammation and/or glial cell activation, ischemia and related reactive oxygen species and vascular endothelial growth factor accumulation, apoptosis and/or autophagy of nerve cells and an elevation of ocular perfusion pressure and/or intraocular pressure. We conclude that in order to achieve substantial preventive or therapeutic effects, at least two of the mentioned pathways should be targeted synergistically. A repositioning of some drugs is considered to use them for the cure of the other related conditions.

Evolving Treatment Patterns in Diabetic Macular Edema Between 2015 and 2020

Purpose: To explore the recent evolution of diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment practice patterns over 5 years among retina specialists in the United States. Methods: This retrospective analysis assessed 306 700 eyes with newly diagnosed DME from the Vestrum Health database between January 2015 and October 2020. The year-over-year and cumulative 5-year distributions of eyes treated with antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, steroids, focal laser, or any combination and those of untreated eyes were calculated. Changes from baseline visual acuity were assessed. Results: Yearly treatment patterns changed significantly from 2015 (n = 18056) to 2020 (n = 11042). The proportion of untreated patients declined over time (32.7% vs 27.7%; P < .001), the use of anti-VEGF monotherapy increased (43.5% vs 61.8%; P < .001), the use of focal laser monotherapy declined (9.7% vs 3.0%; P < .001), and the use of steroid monotherapy remained stable (0.9% vs 0.7%; P = 1.000). Of eyes that maintained follow-up for 5 years (from 2015 to 2020), 16.3% were untreated while 77.5% were treated with anti-VEGF agents (as monotherapy or combination therapy). Vision gains in treated patients remained approximately stable from 2015 (3.6 letters) to 2020 (3.5 letters). Conclusions: From 2015 to 2020, treatment patterns for DME evolved toward greater anti-VEGF monotherapy, stable steroid monotherapy, less laser monotherapy, and fewer untreated eyes.

Glaucoma and Systemic Disease

Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. Due to its potential to cause permanent vision loss, it is important to understand how systemic conditions and their respective treatments can be associated with or increase the risk for developing glaucoma. In this review, we examined the literature for up-to-date discussions and provided commentary on glaucoma, its pathophysiology, and associated risk factors. We discuss systemic diseases and the impact, risk, and mechanism for developing glaucoma, including pharmacologically induced glaucoma; inflammatory and auto-immune conditions; infectious, dermatologic, cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, urologic, neurologic, psychiatric and systemic malignancies: intraocular tumors; as well as pediatric, and genetic conditions. The goal of our discussion of systemic conditions including their commonality, mechanisms, treatments, and associations with developing glaucoma is to emphasize the importance of ocular examinations and follow-up with the multidisciplinary teams involved in the care of each patient to prevent unnecessary vision-loss.

Systemic Outcomes of Intravitreal Injections of Dexamethasone and Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor

INTRODUCTION

Intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications have revolutionized ocular disease management and favorable ocular safety profiles, but few studies have compared their systemic adverse events (SAEs). This study investigated the SAEs of intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-VEGFs by using real-world data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study sourced medical records from the largest multi-institutional database in Taiwan. Patients who received intravitreal dexamethasone (n = 137) or anti-VEGFs (n = 10,345) between 2014 and 2019 were enrolled. Propensity score matching was performed to achieve homogeneity between the two groups. Subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Fine-Gray model. Systemic as well as ocular clinical events and systemic biomarkers after 1-year follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups demonstrated comparable risks of major cardiac adverse events (SHR 1.57, 95% CI 0.29-8.55), heart failure (SHR 0.62, 95% CI 0.07-5.33), major bleeding (SHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03-1.77), all-cause admission (SHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.41-1.30), and all-cause death (SHR 2.11, 95% CI 0.35-12.71). There were no significant differences in longitudinal changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or alanine aminotransferase between the groups. Both groups had a similar incidence of cataract surgery. Although the dexamethasone group exhibited a relatively high prevalence of antiglaucomatous medication use, there was not a significantly higher incidence of glaucoma surgery.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-VEGF medications had comparable systemic safety profiles in our study. Both drugs represent efficacious and safe therapies for ocular diseases.

Visual function and retinal morphological changes after single suprachoroidal delivery of fluocinolone acetonide (Iluvien®) implant in eyes with chronic diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficacy and safety of supra-choroidal (SC) Iluvien in the management of chronic diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

A retrospective interventional non-comparative consecutive case series including patients with chronic DME who received an SC Iluvien implant. All patients had persistent central macular thickness (CMT) ≥ 300µ after previous treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents or laser photocoagulation. The main outcome measures were improvement of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), reduction of CMT, and detection of ocular hypertension/glaucoma or cataract formation. Friedman's two-way ANOVA was used to analyze BCVA, intraocular pressure (IOP), and DME across different time points. P-value = 0.05.

RESULTS

The study included 12 eyes of 12 patients. Six patients (50%) were males. The median age was 58 years (range 52-76 years). The median duration of DM was 13 years (range 8-20 years). Ten patients (83.3%) were phakic and 2 patients (17%) were pseudophakic. The median pre-operative BCVA was 0.07 (range 0.05-0.8). The median pre-operative CMT was 544µ (range 354-745µ). The median pre-operative IOP was 17 mmHg (range 14-21mmHg). The median follow-up period was 12 months, range (12-42). Post-operatively, the median final BCVA was 0.15 (range 0.03-1), p 0.02, the median CMT was 404µ (range 213-747), p 0.4 and the median IOP was 19.5 mmHg (range 15-22), p 1. Two out of 10 phakic patients (20%) developed nuclear sclerosis grade I by 12 months. Six patients (50%) developed a transient rise in IOP < 10 mmHg from the baseline that resolved within 3 weeks with antiglaucoma drops.

CONCLUSION

SC Iluvien is potentially effective in improving visual function, reducing macular edema, and reducing the incidence of steroid-induced cataracts and glaucoma.

Prospective, Observational, Multicenter, Real-World Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Pattern of Use of the Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema in France: Short-Term Outcomes of LOUVRE 3

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate real-world efficacy, safety, and treatment patterns with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in diabetic macular edema (DME) in France.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, observational, noncomparative, post-reimbursement study, consecutively enrolled patients with DME had a baseline evaluation on day 0. Those treated with DEX on day 0 were to be reevaluated at week 6 and months 6, 12, 18, and 24. DEX retreatment and/or alternative therapies were allowed during follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the maximum best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain from baseline during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included time to maximum BCVA gain, patients (%) with prespecified BCVA gains from baseline at each visit, maximum central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction from baseline, patients (%) with CRT reduction ≥ 20% from baseline at each visit, patients (%) with DME resolution (per investigator judgement), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Of 112 patients/eyes with DME for 3.5 years (mean) at baseline, 80 (including 86.1% previously treated) received DEX on day 0 and were analyzed for efficacy. Early study termination precluded collection of ≥ 12-month efficacy data. Patients received 1.4 DEX injections over 8.3 months (averages). The maximum BCVA gain from baseline was 3.6 letters, reached after 77.2 days (averages); 24.6% (week 6) and 15.0% (month 6) of patients experienced ≥ 10-letter BCVA gains from baseline. The mean maximum CRT reduction from baseline was -146.4 µm; 61.4% (week 6) and 36.0% (month 6) of patients had CRT reductions ≥ 20% from baseline, and 68.1% reported DME resolution at least once during follow-up. Ocular hypertension (n = 8, 12.1%) was the most frequent treatment-related AE.

CONCLUSIONS

LOUVRE 3 confirmed that DEX improves BCVA and CRT, even in a patient population that had predominantly received DEX before enrollment in the study, and showed that DME resolution was observed during follow-up. DEX tolerability was consistent with published data, supporting treatment benefits in DME.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03003416.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and vitreous haemorrhage. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR and summarise any relevant economic evaluations of their use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments. We excluded studies that used anti-VEGFs in people undergoing vitrectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 new studies in this update, bringing the total to 23 RCTs with 1755 participants (2334 eyes). Forty-five per cent of participants were women and 55% were men, with a mean age of 56 years (range 48 to 77 years). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb1Ac) was 8.45% for the PRP group and 8.25% for people receiving anti-VEGFs alone or in combination. Twelve studies included people with PDR, and participants in 11 studies had high-risk PDR (HRPDR). Twelve studies were of bevacizumab, seven of ranibizumab, one of conbercept, two of pegaptanib, and one of aflibercept. The mean number of participants per RCT was 76 (ranging from 15 to 305). Most studies had an unclear or high RoB, mainly in the blinding of interventions and outcome assessors. A few studies had selective reporting and attrition bias. No study reported loss or gain of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (VA) at 12 months. Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably increase VA compared with PRP alone (mean difference (MD) -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; I2 = 28%; 10 RCTS, 1172 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may increase regression of new vessels (MD -4.14 mm2, 95% CI -6.84 to -1.43; I2 = 75%; 4 RCTS, 189 eyes; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase a complete regression of new vessels (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.24; I2 = 46%; 5 RCTS, 405 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably reduce vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTS, 1008 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; I2 = 43%; 8 RCTs, 1248 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared with PRP alone (MD 0.62, 95% CI -3.99 to 5.23; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone had an impact on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We did not find differences in visual acuity in subgroup analyses comparing the type of anti-VEGFs, the severity of the disease (PDR versus HRPDR), time to follow-up (< 12 months versus 12 or more months), and treatment with anti-VEGFs + PRP versus anti-VEGFs alone. The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence included a high RoB, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone probably increase visual acuity, but the degree of improvement is not clinically meaningful. Regarding secondary outcomes, anti-VEGFs ± PRP produce a regression of new vessels, reduce vitreous haemorrhage, and may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone. We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP have an impact on the incidence of adverse events and they may have little or no effect on patients' quality of life. Carefully designed and conducted clinical trials are required, assessing the optimal schedule of anti-VEGFs alone compared with PRP, and with a longer follow-up.

Archway Phase 3 Trial of the Port Delivery System with Ranibizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration 2-Year Results

PURPOSE

To report 2-year results from the Archway clinical trial of the Port Delivery System with ranibizumab (PDS) for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN

Phase 3, randomized, multicenter, open-label, active-comparator trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with previously treated nAMD diagnosed within 9 months of screening and responsive to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 3:2 to PDS with ranibizumab 100 mg/ml with fixed refill-exchanges every 24 weeks (PDS Q24W) or intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg injections every 4 weeks (monthly ranibizumab). Patients were followed through 4 complete refill-exchange intervals (∼2 years).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter score from baseline averaged over weeks 60 and 64, and weeks 88 and 92 (noninferiority margin, -3.9 ETDRS letters).

RESULTS

PDS Q24W was noninferior to monthly ranibizumab, with differences in adjusted mean change in BCVA score from baseline averaged over weeks 60/64 and 88/92 of +0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to +2.1) and -0.6 ETDRS letters (95% CI, -2.5 to +1.3). Anatomic outcomes were generally comparable between arms through week 96. Through each of 4 PDS refill-exchange intervals, 98.4%, 94.6%, 94.8%, and 94.7% of PDS Q24W patients assessed did not receive supplemental ranibizumab treatment. PDS ocular safety profile was generally unchanged from primary analysis. Prespecified ocular adverse events (AEs) of special interest were reported in 59 (23.8%) PDS and 17 (10.2%) monthly ranibizumab patients. Most common AE of special interest reported in both arms was cataract (PDS Q24W, 22 [8.9%]; monthly ranibizumab, 10 [6.0%]). Events in the PDS Q24W arm included (patient incidence) 10 (4.0%) conjunctival erosions, 6 (2.4%) conjunctival retractions, 4 (1.6%) endophthalmitis cases, and 4 (1.6%) implant dislocations. Serum ranibizumab sampling showed that the PDS continuously released ranibizumab over the 24-week refill-exchange interval and ranibizumab serum concentrations were within the range experienced with monthly ranibizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

PDS Q24W showed noninferior efficacy to monthly ranibizumab through approximately 2 years, with approximately 95% of PDS Q24W patients not receiving supplemental ranibizumab treatment in each refill-exchange interval. AEs were generally manageable, with learnings continually implemented to minimize PDS-related AEs.

OFFICE MANAGEMENT OF OZURDEX IMPLANT DISLOCATION INTO THE ANTERIOR CHAMBER

PURPOSE

To describe a novel office procedure that permits the repositioning of an Ozurdex implant from the anterior chamber back into the vitreous cavity.

METHODS

Description of an office technique for Ozurdex repositioning using a 30-gauge needle.

RESULTS

In both cases, the Ozurdex implant was successfully returned to the vitreous cavity. In Case 1, the patient's visual acuities 1 and 2 weeks after this were 20/70 and 20/40, respectively, and had no further complications. In Case 2, the patient returned 1 week later, with the implant remaining posterior and a visual acuity of 20/40.

CONCLUSION

The success of this novel technique in these cases demonstrates the potential to avoid a surgical procedure in the event of Ozurdex implant migration to the anterior chamber, while at the same time allowing the Ozurdex implant to remain effective in the eye.

Identifying and addressing common contributors to nonadherence with ophthalmic medical therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss common reasons for nonadherence and review existing and emerging options to reduce nonadherence with ocular medical therapy and optimize therapeutic outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonadherence can arise from patient-related issues (e.g. physical, cognitive) and healthcare-related issues (e.g. cost, access to care). Multiple strategies have been developed and evaluated to overcome these barriers to adherence. Identifying nonadherence and its cause(s) facilitates the development of strategies to overcome it.

SUMMARY

Many common causes of nonadherence can be mitigated through a variety of strategies presented.

The 0.19-mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: An Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To better understand the level of agreement among retina specialists on the role of inflammation in diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME), and the use of 0.19-mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in DME treatment, a consensus survey was drafted and disseminated to retina specialists across the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the modified Delphi method, a list of 12 consensus statements were generated by the coauthors based on short-answer responses to an initial survey. In total, 56 retina specialists completed the entire consensus survey. Except for two multiple-choice questions, there were 10 consensus statements that used a modified Likert scale to indicate their level of agreement to the statement: Agree = 3, Mostly Agree = 2, Mostly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 0. Percentage agreement and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and a consensus threshold was set at > 80% agreement for each statement.

RESULTS

Seven of 10 consensus statements using the modified Likert scale reached consensus, including those on the role of inflammation in pathophysiology of DR/DME, injection burden and patient adherence, and efficacy and safety of the FAc implant. The remaining three statements displayed high agreement with average scores > 80%, but the 95% CIs were below threshold. These included the impact of the FAc implant on DR progression, FAc as baseline therapy for DME, and the effectiveness of the steroid challenge to mitigate intraocular pressure risk after FAc use. Two multiple-choice questions focused on clinical situations in which corticosteroids would be used as baseline therapy for DME (pseudophakic eye [73%], recent stroke/myocardial infarction [66%], and pregnancy/breastfeeding [66%]) and which delivery route satisfies the steroid challenge for the FAc implant (intravitreal [100%], sub-tenon/periocular [73%], and topical [57%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians highly agreed on the role of inflammation in pathophysiology of DR/DME, injection burden and patient adherence, and efficacy and safety of the FAc implant. However, full consensus was not found on the impact of the FAc implant on DR progression, FAc as baseline therapy for DME, and the effectiveness of the steroid challenge to mitigate intraocular pressure risk after FAc use. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2023;54(3):166-173.].

Can the Future be Bright with Advances in Diabetic Eye Care?

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is steadily increasing as the population of patients with diabetes grows. In the past decade, the development of anti-VEGF agents has dramatically changed the treatment landscape for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema (DME). Newer agents in development aim to reduce the treatment burden of diabetic retinopathy.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant at the Time of Silicon Oil Removal to Treat Persistent Macular Edema after Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair

BACKGROUND

An intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) was found to be effective and safe for the treatment of cystoid macular edema (CME) after vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and in silicone oil (SO)-filled eyes. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of DEX-I at the time of SO removal for the treatment of recalcitrant CME after successful RRD repair.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the medical records was performed on 24 consecutive patients (24 eyes) with recalcitrant CME after RRD repair who were treated with a single 0.7-mg DEX-I at the time of SO removal. The main outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). A regression model was performed to assess the relationship between BCVA and CMT at 6 months and independent variables.

RESULTS

In all 24 patients, CME occurred after RRD repair and remained despite topical therapy. The mean time of CME onset was 27.4 ± 7.7 days after vitrectomy. The mean time between vitrectomy and DEX-I was 106.8 ± 10.1 days. The mean CMT was significantly decreased from 429.6 ± 59.1 µm at baseline to 294 ± 46.4 µm at month 6 (p < 0.0001). The mean BCVA significantly improved from 0.99 ± 0.3 at baseline to 0.60 ± 0.3 at month 6 (p < 0.0001). An elevation of intraocular pressure was observed in one (4.1%) eye, which was medically managed. A univariate regression model revealed a relationship between month-6 BCVA after DEX-I and gender (β = -0.27; p = 0.03) and macular status (β = -0.45; p = 0.001) when RRD occurred. No relationship between month-6 CMT and independent variables was found.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX-I at the time of SO removal had an acceptable safety profile and achieved favorable outcomes in eyes affected by recalcitrant CME that occurred after RRD repair. RRD-related macular status is significantly associated with visual acuity after DEX-I.

Treatment of Non-Infectious Posterior Uveitis with Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants in a Real-World Setting

Purpose

The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety associated to the treatment of patients with non-infectious posterior uveitis with intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implants in a real-world clinical setting.

Patients and Methods

This is a retrospective, single center analysis of the data from 29 patients with non-infectious posterior uveitis in whom 38 eyes were treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implants in routine clinical practice between January 2012 and October 2017. The parameters of visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were recorded 6 weeks after the first implant was administered, in accordance with the clinical guidelines for the use of these implants, and after a 6-month follow-up period. In addition, the formation of cataracts was evaluated at 12 months.

Results

Treatment with the DEX implant caused a significant improvement in the VA from baseline at 6 weeks in eyes treated with 2-6 implants and for eyes without cataracts. A significant decrease in CRT was observed relative to the baseline at 6 weeks for eyes treated with 1 and 2-6 implants, which was maintained at 6 months for those eyes treated with 2-6 implants. This significant improvement in CRT at 6 weeks and 6 months was evident in eyes with and without cataracts. During the study period, the IOP was found to increase significantly from baseline at 6 weeks in some eyes but this was managed topically, and no surgical intervention was necessary.

Conclusion

Intravitreal DEX implants represent an effective and safe therapy for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis in routine clinical practice, producing favorable visual and anatomical outcomes after the administration of just 2-6 DEX implants.

Diabetic Macular Oedema Guidelines: An Australian Perspective

The number of people living with diabetes is expected to rise to 578 million by 2030 and to 700 million by 2045, exacting a severe socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems around the globe. This is also reflected in the increasing numbers of people with ocular complications of diabetes (namely, diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and diabetic retinopathy (DR)). In one study examining the global prevalence of DR, 35% of people with diabetes had some form of DR, 7% had PDR, 7% had DMO, and 10% were affected by these vision-threatening stages. In many regions of the world (Australia included), DR is one of the top three leading causes of vision loss amongst working age adults (20-74 years). In the management of DMO, the landmark ETDRS study demonstrated that moderate visual loss, defined as doubling of the visual angle, can be reduced by 50% or more by focal/grid laser photocoagulation. However, over the last 20 years, antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and corticosteroid therapies have emerged as alternative options for the management of DMO and provided patients with choices that have higher chances of improving vision than laser alone. In Australia, since the 2008 NHMRC guidelines, there have been significant developments in both the treatment options and treatment schedules for DMO. This working group was therefore assembled to review and address the current management options available in Australia.

Exploring various novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in treating diabetic retinopathy

Diabetic retinopathy is regarded as a common manifestation of diabetes mellitus, being a prominent cause of visual impairment and blindness. This microvascular complication is marked by the appearance of microaneurysms, elevated vascular permeability, capillary blockage, and proliferation of neovasculature. The etiology behind retinopathy is ambiguous and the efficacy of current treatment strategies is minimal. Early diagnosis of this complication using a biomarker with high sensitivity and specificity is very essential for providing better therapeutic strategies. The current available therapeutic options are limited with various adverse effects. Laser treatment is not beneficial in all the situations, economic constraints being the major challenge. Surgical interventions are employed when pharmacotherapy and laser treatment fail. New pharmacological treatments are becoming a necessity for treating the condition. This review highlights the use of various diagnostic tools, emerging biomarkers for early detection of diabetic retinopathy, pathological mechanisms associated with the disease, current therapeutic approaches used and future strategies for more enhanced treatment options and more potent pharmacological actions.

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema are two factors that increase macrophage-like cell density characterized by en face optical coherence tomography

BACKGROUND

Macrophage-like cells (MLCs) located at the ILM were observed in live human retinas using adaptive optics optical coherence tomography (OCT) as well as clinically-used OCT. The study aimed to quantitatively analyzing MLCs at the vitreoretinal interface (VRI) in diabetic retinopathy (DR) using en face OCT and swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA).

METHODS

190 DR eyes were included in the study, with 70 proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) eyes and 120 non- proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) eyes. Sixty-three eyes from normal subjects were included as controls. MLCs were visualized in a 5 μm en face OCT slab above the VRI centered on the fovea. Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test were used to compare the OCTA parameters and the MLC parameters among groups. We evaluated the MLC density among groups on binarized images after image processing. We also investigated the relationship between MLC density and other OCT parameters including retina thickness and vessel density (VD).

RESULTS

The MLC density significantly increased in PDR eyes (PDR vs. NPDR, 8.97 (8.40) cells/mm² vs.6.14 (8.78) cells/mm², P = 0.013; PDR vs. normal, 8.97 (8.40) cells/mm²vs. 6.48 (6.71) cells/mm², P = 0.027) and diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes (DME vs. without DME, 8.94 (8.26) vs.6.09 (9.00), P = 0.005). After adjusting for age and gender, MLC density in NPDR eyes negatively correlated to VD of deep capillary plexus (DCP) (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

SS-OCTA is a non-invasive and simple method for the characterization of MLCs at the VRI. PDR and DME are two factors that increase MLC density. MLC density also correlated with VD.

Topical treatment of diabetic macular edema using dexamethasone ophthalmic suspension: A randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled study

PURPOSE

To evaluate topical dexamethasone ophthalmic suspension OCS-01 (Oculis SA, Lausanne, Switzerland) in diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized, Phase 2 study. Patients aged 18-85 years with DME of <3 years duration, ETDRS central subfield thickness ≥ 310 μm by SD-OCT, and ETDRS letter score ≤ 73 and ≥ 24 in the study eye were randomized 2:1 to OCS-01 or matching vehicle, 1 drop 3 times/day for 12 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated as change from baseline to Week 12 of ETDRS letter score and central macular thickness (CMT). The primary analysis used a linear model with baseline ETDRS letters as a covariate, and missing data imputed using multiple imputation pattern mixture model techniques. Active treatment was considered superior to vehicle if the one-sided p-value was <0.15 and the difference in mean change from baseline in ETDRS letters was >0.

RESULTS

Mean CMT showed a greater decrease from baseline with OCS-01 (N = 99) than vehicle (N = 45) at Week 12 (-53.6 vs -16.8 μm, p = 0.0115), with significant differences favouring OCS-01 from Weeks 2 to 12. OCS-01 was well-tolerated, and increased intraocular pressure was the most common adverse event. Mean change in ETDRS letter score from baseline to Week 12 met the p was +2.6 letters with topical OCS-01 and 1 letter with vehicle (p = 0.125). In a post-hoc analysis, there was a greater difference in patients with baseline BCVA ≤65 letters, the OCS-01 group improved 3.8 letters compared with 0.9 letters with vehicle.

CONCLUSION

Topical OCS-01 was significantly more effective than vehicle in improving central macular thickness in patients with DME. Visual improvement was better in eyes with lower baseline vision.

Vitrectomized vs non-vitrectomized eyes in DEX implant treatment for DMO-Is there any difference? the VITDEX study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare visual and anatomical outcome in vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes treated with dexamethasone (DEX) implant due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

DESIGN

Multicenter, retrospective, interventional study.

PARTICIPANTS

236 eyes from 234 patients with DMO with or without previous vitrectomy performed with follow-up of 12 months.

METHODS

Records were reviewed for cases of DMO treated with DEX implant in vitrectomized and not vitrectomized eyes. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfoveal thickness (CST), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded at baseline and 12 months after treatment with DEX implants. Correlations between vitreous status and visual and anatomical outcome, as well as safety profile were analysed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

BCVA and CST over follow-up period.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

cataract rate formation, intraocular pressure increase, number of implants needed.

RESULTS

The non-vitrectomized group included 130 eyes (55.1%), the vitrectomized group included 106 eyes (44.9%). The groups were well balanced for age and gender (p = 0.540, and p = 0.053, respectively). Both groups showed statistically significant improvement in BCVA and CST (for all groups: p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of change in vision (p = 0.89) and anatomy (p = 0.65). The mean number of DEX implants given during follow-up was 3.5 in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated similar anatomical and functional efficacy of DEX implant in non-vitrectomized and vitrectomized eyes. Its efficacy was not influenced by full vitrectomy for diabetic retinopathy complications. Safety profile was well balanced between groups.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab and Dexamethasone Implant Injections as Primary Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: The Month 24 Results from Simultaneously Double Protocol

PURPOSE

To compare efficacy of simultaneously administered intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX implant) and ranibizumab (simultaneous double protocol) injections with ranibizumab monotherapy for diabetic macular edema (DME) at month 24.

METHODS

This is a prospective, consecutive, clinical interventional study. Naïve eyes with DME were randomized into two groups: 34 eyes received simultaneous double-protocol therapy and 34 eyes received ranibizumab monotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in visual acuity in month 24. The secondary efficacy endpoints were to evaluate gain of ≥15 letters, morphological changes and central foveal thickness. Decreased vision from DME (study eye BCVA, 20/40 or worse Snellen equivalent using ETDRS testing), the presence of DME with ≥300 μm foveal intraretinal cystoid spaces (within 1000 μm of the centre of the fovea), subfoveal neuroretinal detachment (SND), intraretinal hyperreflective foci (HRF, within 500 μm of the centre of the fovea) or foveal lipid exudates and external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption (within 500 μm of the centre of the fovea) on SD-OCT were eligible to enrol.

RESULTS

The mean baseline BCVA was 48 ± 23 letters in double protocol group and 52 ± 14 letters ranibizumab monotherapy group (p = 0.416). The mean number of ETDRS letters changed from baseline at 12 months versus change from baseline at month 24 in double protocol group and ranibizumab monotherapy group were +21.6 versus +20.2 and +9.6 versus +9.1, respectively. At the month 24 time point, 65.4% of patients in double protocol group and 26.2% of patients in ranibizumab monotherapy group had gained ≥15 ETDRS letters in BCVA from baseline (p < 0.001). The external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity were better in the double protocol group in comparison to ranibizumab monotherapy group at month 24. In addition, there was no statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients with epiretinal membrane in double protocol group at month 24, by the contrast with ranibizumab monotherapy group (p = 0.06 and p = 0.04 in the double protocol and ranibizumab monotherapy groups, respectively). From baseline to month 24, the mean central foveal thickness (CFT) was 672 ± 293 μm reduced to 278 ± 84 μm in double protocol group and was 631 ± 279 μm reduced to 356 ± 108 μm in ranibizumab monotherapy group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). From baseline to month 24, 38% (13/34) of eyes in double protocol group and 18% (6/34) of eyes in ranibizumab monotherapy group had at least 5 mmHg of IOP elevation (p = 0.012). Two grades or more increased cataract density were detected 27% (6/22) of eyes in the double protocol group and in 12.5% (3/24) of eyes in the ranibizumab monotherapy group from baseline to month 24 (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

According to the improvements in visual acuity and morphological changes achieved at month 24, the simultaneous double protocol therapy can be an effective treatment option for DME with inflammatory biomarkers on OCT or/and decreased visual acuity.

Five-year outcomes of eyes initially enrolled in the 2-year BEVORDEX trial of bevacizumab or dexamethasone implants for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

The BEVORDEX trial compared outcomes of eyes with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) randomised to receive either intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX-) implant or bevacizumab over 2 years. We assessed long-term efficacy and safety outcomes 5 years from enrolment.

METHODS

Patients received standard clinical care after they finished the study. Their files were reviewed for visual and anatomical outcomes, post-trial treatments and complications.

RESULTS

Three-year and five-year data were available for 82% and 59% of eyes enrolled in the BEVORDEX study, respectively. Visual acuity gains at end of trial were generally lost by both treatment groups at 5 years but the macular thickness did not change from end of trial to 5 years. A similar proportion of eyes from each treatment group gained ≥10 letters at 5 years from enrolment in the BEVORDEX trial.Eyes that were initially randomised to the DEX-implant group had significantly fewer treatments but were more likely to develop proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) over the 5-year period compared with eyes initially randomised to bevacizumab. The proportion of eyes that had cataract surgery by 5 years was similar between initial treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Eyes in the BEVORDEX trial had similar 5-year rates of cataract surgery, however, more eyes converted to PDR in the group initially treated with DEX-implant. Eyes that were initially treated for 2 years with either intravitreal DEX-implant of bevacizumab followed by standard of care had similar visual and anatomical outcomes at 5 years.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in treatment-naïve diabetic macular oedema: findings from the prospective, multicentre, AUSSIEDEX study

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX; Ozurdex) monotherapy in the patient subgroup of the AUSSIEDEX study with treatment-naïve diabetic macular oedema (DME).

METHODS

The open-label, prospective, phase 4, real-world study included pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes scheduled for cataract surgery that were treatment-naïve or non-responsive to antivascular endothelial growth factors. No eyes were excluded based on baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) or central subfield retinal thickness (CRT). After the initial DEX injection at the baseline visit, reinjection was permitted at ≥16-week intervals. Week-16 and week-52 visits were mandatory. Primary endpoints were changes in mean BCVA and CRT from baseline to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 200 eyes enrolled in the AUSSIEDEX study, 57 were treatment-naïve. Baseline mean BCVA was 58.8 letters and baseline mean CRT was 418.6 µm; changes in mean BCVA and CRT from baseline to 52 weeks in this subgroup were 3.4 letters (p=0.042) and -89.6 µm (p<0.001), respectively, with a mean 2.5 injections. The change in mean CRT from baseline was -55.8 µm at week 16 (p<0.001). The most common adverse event was increased intraocular pressure (IOP), with 20.0% of eyes requiring IOP-lowering medication. One patient was discontinued due to increased IOP. No eyes required filtration surgery. No serious, treatment-related ocular adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

In this largest prospective, real-world study of DEX monotherapy for DME to date, DEX significantly improved CRT and BCVA at 52 weeks in treatment-naïve eyes, without new safety concerns, supporting DEX use in treatment-naïve DME.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02731911.

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.

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.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant along with femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery in patients with diabetic macular edema and cataract

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of intraoperative dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) undergoing femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS).

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, the charts of patients who underwent combined FLACS and DEX implant in the previous three months were reviewed. Primary outcome measures were ocular complications; secondary outcome measures were the change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT).

RESULTS

20 eyes of 20 patients were included. None developed intraoperative or postoperative complications. Mean BCVA was 20/120 (logMAR, 0.78 ± 0.31) at baseline and improved significantly to 20/63 (logMAR, 0.52 ± 0.24; p = 0.01), 20/58 (LogMAR, 0.48 ± 0.28; p < 0.001) and to 20/58 (LogMAR, 0.48 ± 0.31; p < 0.001) at month 1,2 and 3, respectively. A mean improvement of 0.30 LogMAR was recorded at month 1 and 3. Mean CRT decreased significantly from 416.6 ± 76.1 μm at baseline to 322.4 ± 46.4 μm (p < 0.001), to 300.7 ± 29.7 μm (p < 0.001), and to 319.8 ± 54.7 μm (p < 0.001) at month 1,2 and 3, respectively. Comparing to the 1-month follow-up, the largest mean reduction in CRT (112.4 ± 68.9 µm) was observed at month 2 (p = 0.001). Fourteen patients (70%) had an improvement of CRT over the first 2 months followed by a recurrence of edema at month 3.

CONCLUSION

DEX implant following FLACS seems to be a safe and effective approach for patients with coexisting cataract and DME.

Safety and Effectiveness of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant (Ozurdex®) for the Treatment of Refractory Cystoid Macular Oedema (CMO) in Galway University Hospital

Aim:

The aim of this study is to assess the real-life effectiveness and safety of intravitreal Ozurdex in an Irish setting.

Background:

Ozurdex is an intravitreal dexamethasone implant that is used for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular oedema.

Methods:

This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients in University Hospital Galway who received an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) for the treatment of cystoid macular oedema secondary to diabetic eye disease or retinal vein occlusion. The main outcome was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity 3-6 months after the treatment.

Results and Discussion:

36 patients were included in the study. Overall, there was a 1.66 mean letter gain (SD 11.8) 3-6 months post-treatment. The proportion of patients who gained >10 letters was 15.6%. The mean reduction in CST was 110.6um (SD 255.7), and in the linear regression analysis, no variables were found to be significantly associated with a change in visual acuity. In terms of adverse events, 14.3% of patients had significant cataract progression and 20.6% of patients had a significant rise in IOP following intravitreal Ozurdex implant.

Conclusion:

Intravitreal Ozurdex was found to be safe and effective, supporting it as an appropriate second-line treatment in patients with refractory macular oedema secondary to diabetic eye disease and retinal vein occlusion. Further studies should be carried out to evaluate the possible predictors of visual acuity outcome.