Real-world experience with 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN) in the United Kingdom

Discontinuous to continuous therapy for persistent diabetic macular edema leads to reduction in treatment frequency

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, in the setting of persistent diabetic macular edema, the impact that continuous fluocinolone acetonide delivery has on treatment burden, visual acuity, central retinal thickness, and intraocular pressure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective, cohort study of patients with persistent diabetic macular edema, previously treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections, dexamethasone implants, or focal laser, who were subsequently treated with fluocinolone acetonide was conducted. All retinal visits were analyzed prior to fluocinolone acetonide, until the most recent follow-up visit. Primary outcomes were pre- and post-fluocinolone acetonide changes in the best-corrected visual acuity and number of treatments required for diabetic macular edema. Secondary outcomes included changes in the central retinal thickness and intraocular pressure.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema were included and followed for a mean (SD) of 399.3 (222.9) days. Post-fluocinolone acetonide, the mean best-corrected visual acuity improved by 0.4 ETDRS letters for all eyes (p = 0.895) and the central retinal thickness decreased by 34.2 µm (p = 0.077). After fluocinolone acetonide, the number of treatments decreased from an average of one treatment every 2.7 months to one every 6 months (p = 0.009). Furthermore, post-fluocinolone acetonide, 10/19 eyes (52.6%) did not require additional treatment due to a dry macula, and those who did experienced a non-statistically significant reduction of treatments, from one every 2.6 months pre-fluocinolone acetonide, to one every 2.8 months post-fluocinolone acetonide (p = 0.622).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of persistent diabetic macular edema, fluocinolone acetonide significantly reduces the therapeutic burden, while maintaining best-corrected visual acuity and improving the central retinal thickness. In patient-centered discussions, judiciously employing fluocinolone acetonide should be performed to mitigate this therapeutic burden for patients.

Effect of fluocinolone acetonide 0.2 μg/day implant on the decision to drive in patients with diabetic macular oedema: a report from the FAME study

Objective

This study aimed to determine whether treatment with the 0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetone implant (FAc; ILUVIEN, Alimera Sciences) and the associated improvements in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) demonstrated in the Fluocinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) study have an impact on the patient's decision to drive as measured by the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ-25).

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of up to 3 years of NEI-VFQ-25 data collected during the phase III FAME trial. Patients were divided into four quartiles according to baseline NEI-VFQ-25 driving subscale (DSS) score. Patients who had never driven were excluded. Patients received either the 0.2 µg/day FAc implant or sham (dummy injection). Change in the DSS score of the NEI-VFQ-25 questionnaire over 3 years in FAc-treated versus sham-treated patients was analysed by BCVA, CST and baseline DSS score.

Results

The proportion of patients achieving BCVA≥20/40 was similar between the FAc and sham groups throughout the study, while improvements in CST were significantly greater in the quartile of FAc-treated patients with the lowest baseline DSS score (quartile 1; p=0.04). Significant improvements in DSS score were also observed in quartile 1 (p=0.024), while numerical-but not significant-improvements in DSS score were observed in the full cohort.

Conclusion

This post hoc analysis demonstrates a significant association between clinical outcomes in diabetic macular oedema and improvement in quality of life measures following a single FAc implant.

The long-term efficacy and safety of fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 190 μg (ILUVIEN®) in diabetic macular oedema in a multi-ethnic inner-city population

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to report the long-term efficacy and safety of 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN^®) in pseudophakic eyes with diabetic macular oedema in a multi-ethnic patient cohort.

METHODS

This is a single-centre retrospective analysis of patients with persistent diabetic macular oedema, despite previous anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and/or steroid treatment, treated with the ILUVIEN implant according to national guidelines. Patients with follow-up of less than 24 months were excluded. Best corrected visual acuity, central retinal thickness and intraocular pressure were evaluated at baseline and month 3, 12, 24 and 36 post-treatment. A sub-group analysis was performed on eyes with 36-month follow-up data.

RESULTS

In total, 24 eyes (24 patients) completed at least 24 months of follow-up, of which 9 completed 36 months of follow-up. Three-fourths of the patients were black or South Asian (blacks, Asians and minority ethnic). Improvement in mean best corrected visual acuity was seen at year 1 and year 3 improving from 0.62 LogMAR at baseline to 0.55 LogMAR at year 1 and 0.47 LogMAR at year 3 (all p > 0.05). Mean central retinal thickness also showed a progressive reduction from 471 μm at baseline to 397 μm at year 1 and 339 μm at year 3 (all p < 0.05). Four eyes required intraocular pressure-lowering drops post-implant. Supplementary treatment for persistent or recurrent diabetic macular oedema was necessary in 13 eyes over the total study period of 3 years. Blacks, Asians and minority ethnic patients had a worse response compared with white patients.

CONCLUSION

The ILUVIEN implant was effective and safe in the treatment of multi-ethnic patients with diabetic macular oedema refractory to conventional therapies, improving the vision and macular anatomy, without significant adverse events up to 36 months post-treatment.

Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a chronic condition with a multifactorial pathogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and several inflammatory mediators are upregulated in eyes with DME. VEGF inhibitors and corticosteroids have all been used successfully in the management of DME. Currently available corticosteroids include triamcinolone acetonide (TA), the dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, and the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant. The response to treatment can vary substantially with each treatment modality. Some cases of DME are VEGF driven, and in others, inflammation plays a key role. Chronicity appears to favor corticosteroid treatment. There are no clear guidelines to guide switching from an anti-VEGF to a corticosteroid. Combination therapy of an anti-VEGF drug and a corticosteroid does not appear to provide additional benefit over monotherapy with either drug. The main advantage of corticosteroids over VEGF inhibitors is their longer duration of action. Vitrectomy does not affect the pharmacokinetics of the corticosteroid implants. Common adverse events of corticosteroids include cataract formation, cataract progression, and ocular hypertension. TA may cause a sterile endophthalmitis and pseudoendophthalmitis. Migration of the intravitreal DEX and FA implants into the anterior chamber can be problematic. Because of their less favorable safety profile, corticosteroids are generally used as a second-line treatment for DME. Advantages of using an intravitreal corticosteroid implant include the reduction of treatment burden and predictable pharmacokinetics even in vitrectomized eyes. Pseudophakic eyes, previously vitrectomized eyes and eyes with long-standing DME, particularly of patients who have difficulty in maintaining a monthly appointment, may benefit from primary treatment with a corticosteroid intravitreal implant.

The Outcomes of Switching from Short- to Long-Term Intravitreal Corticosteroid Implant Therapy in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

BACKGROUND

First-line treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) is usually with antivascular endothelial growth factor agents, followed by intravitreal corticosteroids as a second-line treatment option. Long-term corticosteroids may offer quality of life and effectiveness benefits over short-term implants.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes of patients with persistent or recurrent DME who switched from a short-term (dexamethasone) to a long-term (fluocinolone acetonide, FAc) corticosteroid intravitreal implant in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study in 9 Portuguese centers. An FAc intravitreal implant was administered according to product labeling. Effectiveness outcomes were mean change in visual acuity (VA; ETDRS letters), central retinal thickness (CRT; µm), and macular volume (MV; mm3). The safety outcome was mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP; mm Hg). All were analyzed at months 1 and 3, and then quarterly until month 24 after implantation.

RESULTS

Forty-four eyes from 36 patients were analyzed. Mean duration of DME was 3.3 ± 1.9 years, and mean follow-up was 8 months. From baseline following FAc implantation, VA increased significantly at months 1 and 6 (mean +6.82 and +13.02 letters, respectively; p = 0.005), and last observation carried forward (LOCF; mean +8.3 letters; p = 0.002). CRT improved significantly at months 1 and 6 (mean -71.81 and -170.77 µm, respectively; p = 0.001), and LOCF (mean -121.46 µm; p = 0.001). MV was consistently, but not significantly, decreased from baseline to LOCF (mean -0.69 mm3; p = 0.062). The mean change in IOP was -0.25 and +0.88 mm Hg at months 1 and 6, respectively (p = 0.268), and +1.86 mm Hg at LOCF (p = 0.036). Increases were controlled with topical medication in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The FAc intravitreal implant is effective in patients previously treated with short-term corticosteroid implants. Thus, after a suboptimal response to antiangiogenics or a short-term corticosteroid, a single FAc implant may be considered an effective and tolerable treatment that can improve long-term outcomes for patients with sight-threatening DME.

Real-world retrospective comparison of 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide and 0.7 mg dexamethasone intravitreal implants for the treatment of diabetic macular edema in vitrectomized eyes

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term real-world effectiveness of FAc and DEX implants in vitrectomized DME eyes in a real-world setting.

Methods

This was a non-interventional, retrospective, comparative study of 46 vitrectomized eyes in 33 patients with persistent or recurrent DME quantified best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) over up to 37 months.

Results

Both FAc and DEX treatment led to statistically and clinically significant improvements in BCVA and CFT. FAc >10-letter improvement on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] chart over months 3–24 and a sustained ~200 µm CFT reduction over months 1–24; DEX: >5-letter improvement on the ETDRS chart at months 1 and 3 and >100 µm CFT reduction at month 1. FAc demonstrated sustained, stable and predictable effects on BCVA and CFT over 24 months and also improved BCVA and decreased CFT in a cohort of DME eyes that was refractory to DEX over 6 months.

Conclusion

This real-world study demonstrates long-term effectiveness of FAc in vitrectomized DME eyes and sustained effectiveness in DME eyes that did not respond to DEX therapy.

Emerging therapies in the management of macular edema: a review

Macular edema (ME) is a major complication of several vascular and inflammatory retinal diseases. Multiple mechanisms are implicated in its development and lead to visual impairment that could be reversible (the acute stages) or not reversible (long-standing ME). For this reason, an effective approach to the treatment of ME is of paramount importance in order to prevent irreversible damage of visual function. In this review, we discuss the management of ME and, in particular, current data of studies and clinical trials about drugs that have already been evaluated or are under investigation in the management of ME. Although several diseases could lead to the development of ME, we focus on the three main causes: diabetic retinopathy (DR), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and uveitis. The introduction into clinical practice of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (ranibizumab and aflibercept) and dexamethasone implants has revolutionized the treatment of ME secondary to DR and RVO. However, new drugs are needed in the treatment of resistant forms of ME secondary to DR and RVO. A fluocinolone acetonide implant has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of diabetic ME but not for RVO. Furthermore, brolucizumab and abicipar pegol have been shown to be effective in preliminary studies and have the chance to be approved soon for diabetic ME treatment. In ME secondary to uveitis, a crucial role is played by corticosteroids and non-biologic immunomodulatory drugs. However, several new biologic agents are under investigation in different clinical trials and could be important new therapeutic options in cases with a low response to first-line therapy. However, only a few of these drugs will enter the market after proving their safety and efficacy. Only after that will we be able to offer a new therapeutic option to patients affected by uveitic ME.

Comparison of data characterizing the clinical effectiveness of the fluocinolone intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN) in patients with diabetic macular edema from the real world, non-interventional ICE-UK study and the FAME randomized controlled trials

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant between the observational Iluvien Clinical Evidence study in the United Kingdom (ICE-UK) and the Fluocinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with diabetic macular edema (DME). Clinical Trials Registration: NCT00344968. Methods: This study selected patients randomized to receive 0.2 µg/day FAc insert (FAc treated eyes) or sham injection (control eyes) from the FAME RCTs, and patients' first FAc treated eye and non-FAc treated fellow (control) eye from the ICE-UK study. Outcomes included change in visual acuity (VA), central foveal thickness (CFT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). Results: After 12 months follow-up, mean change in VA was 5.0 letters improvement (p < .001) and 1.6 letters improvement (p = .003) in FAME FAc treated and control eyes, and 3.8 letters (p = .012) and -2.1 letters (p = .056) in ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes, respectively. Mean change in CFT was -144 µm (p < .001) vs -72 µm (p < .001) in FAME FAc treated and control eyes and -113 µm (p < .001) vs -13 µm (p < .001) in ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes. For eyes with a follow-up of 12 months, 77 (22.3%) and 15 (8.6%) FAME FAc treated and control eyes and 25 (18.7%) and six (4.3%) ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes required emergent IOP-lowering therapy. Conclusions: Statistically significant improvements in VA 12 months after FAc implantation were observed in both the real-world study and in the RCTs. The improvement in VA and CFT in the RCTs was marginally greater than in the real-world study; however, recruits in the real-world study had more severe visual morbidity at baseline. Whilst there were many changes in the care of people with DME over this time, these data all support the value of treatment with FAc intravitreal implant.

Advanced implantable drug delivery technologies: transforming the clinical landscape of therapeutics for chronic diseases

Chronic diseases account for the majority of all deaths worldwide, and their prevalence is expected to escalate in the next 10 years. Because chronic disorders require long-term therapy, the healthcare system must address the needs of an increasing number of patients. The use of new drug administration routes, specifically implantable drug delivery devices, has the potential to reduce treatment-monitoring clinical visits and follow-ups with healthcare providers. Also, implantable drug delivery devices can be designed to maintain drug concentrations in the therapeutic window to achieve controlled, continuous release of therapeutics over extended periods, eliminating the risk of patient non-compliance to oral treatment. A higher local drug concentration can be achieved if the device is implanted in the affected tissue, reducing systemic adverse side effects and decreasing the challenges and discomfort of parenteral treatment. Although implantable drug delivery devices have existed for some time, interest in their therapeutic potential is growing, with a global market expected to reach over $12 billion USD by 2018. This review discusses implantable drug delivery technologies in an advanced stage of development or in clinical use and focuses on the state-of-the-art of reservoir-based implants including pumps, electromechanical systems, and polymers, sites of implantation and side effects, and deployment in developing countries.

Three-year results from the Retro-IDEAL study: Real-world data from diabetic macular edema (DME) patients treated with ILUVIEN® (0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant)

INTRODUCTION

The Retro-IDEAL (ILUVIEN Implant for chronic DiabEtic MAcuLar edema) study is a retrospective study designed to assess real-world outcomes achieved with the ILUVIEN® (0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc)) in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) in clinical practices in Germany.

METHODS

This study was conducted across 16 sites in Germany and involved 81 eyes (63 patients) with persistent or recurrent DME and a prior suboptimal response to a first-line intravitreal therapy (primarily anti-VEGF intravitreal therapies).

RESULTS

Patients were followed-up for 30.8 ± 11.3 months (mean ± standard deviation) and had a mean age of 68.0 ± 10.4 years. Best-recorded visual acuity (BRVA) improved by +5.5 letters at month 9 (P ⩽ 0.005, n=56; from a baseline of 49 letters) and this was maintained through to month 30 (P ⩽ 0.05, n = 42). There was a concurrent improvement in central macular thickness with a reduction from 502 µm at baseline to 338 µm at year 1 (P ⩽ 0.0001, n = 43). This effect was sustained to year 3 (i.e. 318 µm; P ⩽ 0.0001, n = 29). Mean intraocular pressure (IOP) remained constant between baseline and year 3 with a peak change of 1.9 mm Hg occurring at year 1. Elevated IOP was observed in a similar percentage of patients prior to (22.2% of cases) and following (27.2%) treatment with the FAc implant. In the majority of cases, these elevations were managed effectively with IOP medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite substantial amounts of prior intravitreal treatments - primarily with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs - this real-world study showed that sustained structural and functional improvements can last for up to 3 years with a single FAc implant.

Treatment of refractory diabetic macular edema with a fluocinolone acetonide implant in vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes

AIM

To report real-life data on the use of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant in the treatment of refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) in pars plana vitrectomized (PPV) and non-PPV eyes.

METHODS

This was a comparative retrospective observational study of 23 eyes with chronic DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were recorded at baseline, 1, 4 and 12mo. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were performed to analyze and compare PPV and non-PPV eyes.

RESULTS

Seven PPV and 16 non-PPV eyes were included in the study. Median BCVA in the non-PPV group varied from 0.65 logMAR [Interquartile range (IQR): 0.40] at baseline to 0.42 logMAR (IQR: 0.40) at 12mo. Median CMT varied from 430 µm (IQR: 131.3) at baseline to 317 µm (IQR: 107.5) at 12mo. Median BCVA in the PPV group varied from 0.60 logMAR (IQR: 0.62) at baseline to 0.74 logMAR (IQR: 0.34) at 12mo. Median CMT varied from 483 µm (IQR: 146) at baseline to 397 µm (IQR: 132) at 12mo. Of 0/7 eyes and 1/16 eyes in the PPV and non-PPV eyes respectively had a baseline visual acuity of 6/12 or better (0.3 logMAR). At last follow up, 1/7 and 5/16 eyes in the PPV and non-PPV group respectively achieved a visual acuity of 6/12 or better.

CONCLUSION

Visual outcomes are modest following the use of the fluocinolone acetonide implant for chronic DME. The steroid implant is a useful treatment option in the management of refractory DME in vitrectomized and non-vitrectmized eyes.

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN®) for diabetic macular oedema: a literature review

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy and may lead to severe visual loss. In this review, we describe the pathophysiology of DMO and review current therapeutic options such as macular laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, and steroid implants with a focus on the new fluocinolone acetonide implant, ILUVIEN®. The results of the Fluocinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) studies are also presented together with the results of real-world studies to support the clinical use of ILUVIEN® in achieving efficient resolution of DMO and improving vision and macular anatomy in this challenging group of patients.

The efficacy and safety outcomes of the 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant after prior treatment with the 0.7 mg dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema

Purpose

There are little or no published data comparing the outcomes of ILUVIEN^® (0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide [FAc]) and OZURDEX^® (0.7 mg dexamethasone [DEX]) implants in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME), and this case sought to compare their outcomes.

Methods

This case was extracted from a monocentric audit involving a pool of 25 patients (33 eyes) with DME and treated with a single FAc implant between October 2013 and December 2016. This case, a 61-year-old male with a pseudophakic lens, is from a patient that had received 4 intravitreal injections of a DEX implant prior to FAc implant and then was monitored for 3 years until re-treatment with a second FAc implant. Parameters measured included visual acuity (VA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure (IOP).

Results

After the DEX implants, CRT transiently improved. In March 2014, the decision was taken to administer an FAc implant, and this led to a reduction in CRT below 300 µm (from a baseline of 748 µm), and this was sustained for 30 months. VA remained above 65 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters to month 36, after which time a second FAc implant (in April 2017) was administered due to recurrence of edema and CRT decreased to below 300 µm and VA improved to 70 letters. Side effects included elevated IOP, which was effectively managed with IOP-lowering drops.

Conclusion

A single injection of FAc implant led to sustained improvements in CRT and VA that lasted for between 30 and 36 months, which is in contrast to the DEX implant where re-treatment was generally required within 6–7 months. After 36 months, re-treatment with the FAc implant again led to improved VA and CRT, and responses that were similar to those achieved with the first FAc implant.

Changes in intraocular pressure after intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (ILUVIEN): real-world experience in three European countries

Aims

The ILUVIEN Registry Safety Study is an ongoing, multicentre, open-label, observational study collecting real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of the 0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in patients treated according to the European label requirements.

Methods

Patients included in this analysis were treated for the licensed indication of chronic diabetic macular oedema (cDMO; that is, DMO that persists or recurs despite treatment). Data presented in the current analysis were collected from patient records up to 6 March 2017. Visual acuity (VA) data, including mean change in VA over time and at last observation, intraocular pressure (IOP) over the course of the study, IOP events, use of IOP-lowering therapy and cup:disc ratio were analysed. Information on additional DMO treatments post-FAc implant was also captured.

Results

Five hundred and sixty-three patients (593 eyes) were enrolled on the study. Mean IOP for the overall population remained within the normal range throughout follow-up and 76.7% of patients did not require IOP-lowering therapy following treatment with the FAc implant. Sixty-nine per cent of eyes did not require additional DMO treatments. Mean VA in the overall population increased from 51.9 letters at baseline to 55.6 letters at month 12, with a significant increase of 2.9 letters at last observation. Patients with short-term cDMO experienced greater VA gains than those with long-term cDMO.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis are comparable with those of other studies, including the Fluocinolone Acetate for Macular Edema study. The study reinforces the good safety and effectiveness profile of FAc, and demonstrates the benefit of early FAc treatment.

Iluvien™ (Fluocinolone Acetonide 0.19 mg Intravitreal Implant) in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review

Diabetic macular edema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in the working age population. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy provided a major advance in treatment of DMO for many patients, there is a significant proportion of patients who maintain persistent DMO and have minimal response to anti-VEGF treatment. Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg [FAc]) is an important additional treatment option for DMO. In this review we describe the clinical context and the evidence for the use of the FAc implant in treating DMO, from pilot to randomized controlled studies, to later phase real world data. These studies indicate that the FAc implant is effective, well tolerated and a cost-effective option in the treatment of insufficiently responsive DMO.

ILUVIEN® technology in the treatment of center-involving diabetic macular edema: a review of the literature

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is one of the major causes of blindness, caused primarily by hyperglycemia and results from multiple pathological processes mostly secondary to increased levels of VEGF and other inflammatory cytokines. DME management includes control of systemic risk factors together with laser photocoagulation, frequent intraocular injections of anti-VEGF agents and steroids implants. Recent adoption of novel alternative drug delivery options has led to the development of sustained release ocular implants with longer duration of action with less injection frequency. This article will review the pharmacology and clinical data in terms of efficacy, safety and benefits of the sustained release steroid implants in treatment of DME with special emphasis on the fluocinolone acetonide ILUVIEN^® implant.

Treating Diabetic Macular Oedema (DMO): real world UK clinical outcomes for the 0.19mg Fluocinolone Acetonide intravitreal implant (Iluvien™) at 2 years

BACKGROUND

To compare visual function and structural improvements in pseudophakic eyes with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) treated with the 0.19mg Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (Iluvien^TM) in a 'real world' setting.

METHODS

A single centre retrospective evaluation of patients with DMO unresponsive to conventional treatment treated with the FAc implant according to UK guidelines. Primary efficacy endpoint was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA); secondary endpoints included optical coherence tomography evaluations of the macula (a) central retinal and (b) peak macular thickness collected at annual time points. Primary safety endpoint was new rise in IOP >27mmHg or glaucoma surgery. Patients with <1 year follow-up were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine eyes were included, with mean(SD) follow up of 792(270) days. Improvement in BCVA and reduction in macular oedema was noted at all timepoints. Mean improvement in BCVA from baseline was 6 ETDRS letters at year 1(n=29), 6.5L at year 2(n=22) and 11L at year 3(n=6). Mean central retinal thickness at baseline was 451 microns, 337 microns at year 1, 342 microns at year 2 and 314 microns at year 3. Two eyes required IOP-lowering drops post implant. Supplementary treatment for persistence or recurrence of DMO was necessary in 18 eyes over the total study period of 3 years with mean time to supplementary treatment being 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation of the 0.19mg FAc implant delivered in a real-world setting, provides additional evidence that it is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with DMO, and can provide sustained benefit for patients with previously refractory disease.

Evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide 190 µg intravitreal implant in diabetic macular edema: a comparison between study and fellow eyes

OBJECTIVES

To compare visual and anatomical outcomes between eyes treated with fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) 190 µg intravitreal implant for clinically significant chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) and fellow eyes not treated with FAc implant using data from the Iluvien Clinical Evidence study in the UK (ICE-UK) study.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, data on people attending hospital eye services and treated with the FAc implant between April 1, 2013 and April 15, 2015 were collected. Changes in visual acuity (VA), central foveal thickness (CFT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were compared between study eyes (intervention) and fellow eyes.

RESULTS

A total of 208 people were selected. Mean age was 68.1 years and 62% were male. Mean change in VA was -0.09 LogMAR units for study eyes and 0.04 LogMAR units for fellow eyes at 12 months post-implant (p < .001). Over the same period, ≥5 letter, ≥10 letter and ≥15 letter improvements in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) score were achieved by more FAc treated eyes than by fellow eyes (41% versus 23%, p < .001; 28% versus 11%, p < .001; and 18% versus 4%, p < .001 at 12 months, respectively). Differences in the mean change in CFT (-113 µm versus -13 µm, p < .001) and IOP (3.2 mmHg versus -0.2 mmHg, p < .001) were also observed between study and fellow eyes at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Visual acuity improved in study eyes over the 12 months following FAc implant and worsened in fellow eyes. Over the same period, study eyes showed a larger improvement in central foveal thickness. Intraocular pressure worsened in study eyes only. Change in visual acuity, central foveal thickness and intraocular pressure between FAc implant and the end of the 12-month follow-up period differed significantly between study and fellow eyes.

Evaluation of the clinical effectiveness in routine practice of fluocinolone acetonide 190 µg intravitreal implant in people with diabetic macular edema

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Iluvien Clinical Evidence study in the UK (ICE-UK) was to assess the real-world effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) 190 µg intravitreal implant for the treatment of clinically significant chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This retrospective study collected data from patient medical records in 13 ophthalmology centers for people with DME prescribed FAc intravitreal implant between April 1, 2013 and April 15, 2015. Visual acuity (VA) and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were collected for 12 months prior to and after implant.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eight people, contributing 233 eyes, treated with FAc implant were included. Mean age was 68.1 years and 62% were male. In the 12 months prior to FAc implant, VA declined. Median (interquartile range, IQR) VA was 0.66 (0.48-1.00) LogMAR units (equivalent to 52.0 ETDRS letters) at implant, improving to 0.60 (0.38-0.90) LogMAR units (55.0 letters) at 12 months post-implant (p < 0.001). In total, 44%, 30%, and 18% of people achieved an improvement in ETDRS score of ≥5, ≥10, and ≥15 letters, respectively, over the same period. A small but significant (p < .001) increase in median IOP was observed (median = 15.0, IQR = 13.0-18.0 mmHg at implant to 18.0, 15.0-21.0 mmHg at 12 months). In the 12 months following implant, additional IOP-lowering therapy was prescribed in 15% of subjects previously not requiring such therapy.

CONCLUSION

Following FAc implant, an overall significant improvement in VA was observed over a period of 12 months, accompanied by a significant but small increase in IOP.

Recurrent Diabetic Macular Edema: What to Do

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of blindness in the working population. Herein, we report the case of a patient with recurrent DME for about 6 years, uncontrolled by several medical and surgical treatments, that was successfully treated with a single sustained-release fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in her right eye. The affected eye had presented a visual acuity of 2/10 and a central macular thickness of 488 µm prior to the injection. After treatment with the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant, the patient's right eye presented an improvement in best corrected visual acuity to 6/10 and a reduction of central macular thickness to 198 µm. These functional and anatomical results were continuous and sustained during a follow-up period of more than 12 months, and with an acceptable and manageable safety profile. These results show that fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implantation is an effective treatment option in DME and should be considered in the DME treatment pathway.