Safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in Chinese patients: randomized, sham-controlled, multicenter study

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety and Efficacy of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Given Either First-Line or Second-Line in Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the leading cause of severe visual impairment among the working-age population. Several therapeutic options are available for the management of DME, including intravitreal corticosteroids. They have been traditionally used as second-line treatment, due to the risk of intraocular pressure increase and cataract-related adverse events. However, attention has recently been focused on the primary or early use of intravitreal corticosteroids, due to growing evidence of the crucial role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME. Furthermore, intravitreal steroid implants offer the additional advantage of a longer duration of action compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGF). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, with a specific focus on clinical scenarios in which it might be considered or even preferred as first-line treatment option by adequate selection of patients, considering both advantages and possible adverse events. Patients with contraindications to anti-VEGF, DME with high inflammatory OCT biomarkers, pseudophakic patients and phakic patients' candidates to cataract surgery as well as vitrectomized eyes may all benefit from first-line DEX implant. Additionally, DME not responders to anti-VEGF should be considered for a switch to DEX implant and a combination therapy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF could be a valid option in severe and persistent DME.

Incidence and treatment approach of intraocular pressure elevation after various types of local steroids for retinal diseases

PURPOSE

For the treatment of macular edema, in addition to the use of antivascular endothelial growth factors, steroids are also used intravitreally and sub-Tenon. Side effects include among others cataract formation and elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP). The aim of this retrospective study was to elicit the IOP elevation after administration of various steroidal medication, the time of onset, and the efficacy of the administered IOP-lowering therapies.

METHODS

We included 428 eyes with a postoperative (n = 136), diabetic (n = 148), uveitic macular edema (n = 61), and macular edema after retinal vein occlusion (n = 83). These patients were treated with one or more diverse steroidal agents once or multiple times. These drugs included: triamcinolone acetonide (TMC) as intravitreal injection (TMC IVI) or sub-Tenon (TMC ST), as well as dexamethasone (DXM) and fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreally. An increase of IOP of ≥ 25 mmHg was designated as pathological. A steroid response in anamnesis, the time of onset of IOP rise from the first administration, and the therapy administered were documented.

RESULTS

Of 428 eyes, 168 eyes (39.3%) had IOP elevation up to a mean of 29.7 (SD ± 5.6) mmHg, which occurred at a median of 5.5 months. Steroids most frequently leading to rise of IOP included DXM (39.1% of all eyes receiving that drug), TMC IVI (47.6%), TMC ST combined with DXM (51.5%), DXM with FA (56.8%), and TMC IVI with DXM (57.4%). A Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Log Rank test showed a significant difference (p < 0.001). IOP rise was treated as follows: 119 conservatively (70.8%), and 21 surgically (12.5%, cyclophotocoagulation 8.3%, filtering surgery 1.8%, in 4 the steroidal drug implant was removed 2.4%), and 28 eyes received no therapy (16.7%). Sufficient IOP regulation was achieved in 82 eyes (68.9%) with topical therapy. In 37 eyes (31.1%) with persistently elevated intraocular pressure, topical therapy had to be continued over the follow-up of 20 ± 7 months.

CONCLUSIONS

IOP increases after any type of steroid application are not rare. Results of our study let us suspect that especially therapy with intravitreal dexamethasone, either as a monotherapy or in combination with another steroid, tends to increase IOP more than other steroids. Regular IOP checks are necessary after each steroid administration, with possible initiation of long-term conservative and/or surgical therapy if necessary.

Anterior segment complications after dexamethasone implantations:real world data

PURPOSE

We aim to contribute to the literature in terms of treatment safety with our real world data by examining the anterior segment complications and follow-up results of patients who underwent dexamethasone implants in our clinic.

METHODS

The records of patients treated with at least one intravitreal dexamethasone implant for various retinal diseases: diabetic macular edema (265 eyes), central retinal vein occlusion (45 eyes), retinal vein branch occlusion (91 eyes), postoperative cystoid macular edema (18 eyes), non-infectious uveitis (37 eyes) and other (14 eyes) between July 2013 and April 2020 were reviewed.

RESULTS

After 925 injections were applied to 470 eyes of a total of 383 patients, the eyes were controlled during a mean follow-up of 24 months. No complications were detected in 328 eyes. Intraocular pressure (IOP) above 25 mmHg was detected in 97 eyes (20.6%) that had no previous history of ocular hypertension. Of these 97 eyes, 71 (73.1%) eyes with increased IOP were treated with topical monotherapy, 26 (26.8%) eyes were treated with topical combined therapy and 1 (1.03%) patient had glaucoma surgery. Cataracts requiring surgical intervention developed in 55 (%21.73) of 253 phakic eyes. Three patients have anterior chamber dislocation of dexamethasone, 1 patient was hospitalized with sterile endophthalmitis on the 7th day after the injection, and pars plana vitrectomy was performed.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first long-term follow-up study in our country evaluating the safety of dexamethasone implant injections in various retinal diseases and presenting the first real world data. Cataract progression and increased IOP were found to be the most common side effects. We observed that the patient's diagnosis did not cause a statistically significant change in the observation of side effects. As a result of our findings, close follow-up of IOP after the injection of dexamethasone implants would be appropriate.

The Impact of Intraocular Treatment on Visual Acuity of Patients Diagnosed with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusions

Branch retinal vein occlusions are a significant cause of vision loss and present several ophthalmic and systemic risk factors, including age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and glaucoma. Retinal vein occlusion is the second-most-common retinal vascular disease. This study evaluated the effects of Ozurdex in contrast to a combination therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and cortisone in treatment-naive branch retinal vein occlusions-macular edema (BRVO-ME) cases, at 4-month and 6-month follow-ups. Thirty eyes were included in the study, which were divided into two groups. The first group consisted of 15 eyes, and each received 1 injection of dexamethasone intravitreal implant Ozurdex (DEX). The second group of 15 eyes received 3 intravitreal injections, the first and second with the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor aflibercept and the third one with 4 mg of triamcinolone acetonide (Vitreal S), spaced at one month. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) results suggested that the peak efficacy was at 4 months for both groups, with mean values of 0.5 LogMAR and 0.4 LogMAR. Regarding macular edema, there were no significant changes between the 4- and 6-month follow-up periods, with mean values of 361 μm and 390 μm. Six patients experienced transient raised intraocular pressure at one week after treatment. This study highlights the benefits to visual acuity of the combination of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and cortisone, which represents a viable solution with similar results to Ozurdex therapy.

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.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

The Efficacy and Safety of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema and Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) with retinal vein occlusion secondary to macular edema (RVO-ME).

Materials and Methods

Relevant databases were searched to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DEX for DME and RVO-ME. The search was conducted until March 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.4.1 software after screening the literature by inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting information, and evaluating the methodological quality of the included studies.

Results

The study showed that DEX treatment of RVO-ME was associated with an improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (MD = −9.08, 95% CI: −10.89–7.27, P < 0.00001) and central retinal thickness (CRT) (MD = 93.47, 95% CI: 28.55–159.39, P=0.005). DEX treatment of DME was significantly better than anti-VEGF treatment in terms of CRT reduction (MD = −72.35, 95% CI: −115.0–29.69, P=0.0009). The safety study showed that the risk of cataract from RVO-ME (OR = 5.06, 95% CI: 1.96 to 13.06, P=0.0008) and the incidence of high intraocular pressure (OR = 6.67, 95% CI: 3.46 to 12.86, P < 0.00001) were significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy. The risk of cataract from DME (OR = 4.70, 95% CI: 2.10 to 10.54, P=0.00022) was significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy (OR = 4.70, 95% CI: 2.10 to 10.54, P=0.0002). The incidence of high IOP (OR = 13.77, 95% CI: 4.96 to 38.18, P < 0.00001) was significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy.

Conclusions

In patients with DME and RVO-ME, DEX was more efficacious but slightly less safe than anti-VEGF therapy.

Analysis of the Cytokine Expression in the Aqueous Humor of Individuals with BRVO-Associated Macular Edema

Purpose

This study aimed to determine the expression levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin-6 (IL-6), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) in the aqueous humor of patients with macular edema (ME) caused by branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), as well as to investigate the relationship between the cytokines as mentioned earlier and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ME, and the degree of ME from the molecular level.

Methods

In a prospective observational study, fluorescein fundus angiography (FFA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were used to classify 58 patients with non-ischemic BRVO-ME into three groups according to the degree of ME: 14-mild, 17-moderate, and 27-severe. The specific concentration of IL-6, VEGF, ICAM-1, and VCAM-1 in the aqueous humor was detected using the BD CSCanto™ II Flow Cytometer (US). Spearman or Pearson correlation analysis was used to test the correlation between the levels of BCVA and severity of ME and the expression levels of IL-6, VEGF, ICAM-1, and VCAM-1 in the aqueous humor.

Results

According to the obtained data, BCVA did not correlate with the severity of ME, and these four cytokines expression levels in patients' aqueous humor (P > 0.05). Moreover, BCVA did not correlate with mild, moderate, or severe ME as well (P > 0.05). However, the levels of these four cytokines were correlated with the severity of the ME. These underlined cytokines were linked to the mild, moderate, and severe degrees of ME. VEGF was also significantly correlated (r > 0.8, P < 0.0001) with the severity of ME.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the severity of ME in BRVO-ME patients is significantly correlated with the expression levels of IL-6, VEGF, ICAM-1, and VCAM-1 in the aqueous humor. Lowering the level of disease-associated cytokines may potentially reduce the degree of ME. Therefore, an in-depth study of the levels and the relationship may provide some evidence for the pathogenesis, treatment, and prevention of BRVO-ME.

Results of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex®) for retinal vascular diseases with macular edema: An observational study of real-life situations

To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex®) for the treatment of macular edema (ME) associated with retinal vascular diseases in real-life situations. This retrospective study included patients with ME associated with retinal vascular occlusion (RVO) or diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with dexamethasone implants. Demographic data, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central retinal thickness (CRT) at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively were collected and analyzed, and the adverse events were recorded. Forty-four eyes, 42 patients were included in the study. The mean logMAR BCVA improved from 0.79 ± 0.38 at baseline to 0.60 ± 0.34 (P < 0.001), 0.72 ± 0.38 (P = .002), and 0.72 ± 0.37 (P = .002) at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The CRT decreased from 526.70 ± 159.58 µm at baseline to 279 ± 66.23, 422.91 ± 206.99, and 350.23 ± 151.51 µm at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively (P < 0.001, all visits). The average number of injections was 1.43 ± 0.5. Nineteen eyes (43.18%) received second injections at an interval of 4.20 ± 0.61 months. The mean logMAR BCVA was greater in RVO than in DME patients and in treatment-naïve eyes than in previously treated ones. The baseline CRT of the reinjection group was significantly higher than that of the single-injection group for both the RVO (P < 0.001) and DME groups (P = .002). Nine eyes (20.45%) with increasing intraocular pressure (IOP) were well controlled with medication, and cataract progression was observed in five eyes (21.73%) during follow-up. The dexamethasone implant was effective for the treatment of macular edema secondary to RVO and DME in terms of visual acuity and CRT improvement over 6 months. The visual acuity was greater in the RVO and treatment-naïve eyes. Reinjection may be associated with a high baseline CRT. The increase in the occurrence of IOP and cataract progression was similar to that reported in previous studies.

Optical coherence tomography biomarkers in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion treated with dexamethasone implant

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of optical coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers on intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant clinical outcomes in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-ME).

Methods

Retrospective study conducted on a cohort of patients with RVO-ME, either naïve or previously treated, who underwent treatment with DEX implant and had a follow-up of 6 months. Anatomic success was defined as a central retinal thickness (CRT) < 250 μm or a relative reduction of CRT ≥10% from baseline. The primary endpoint was the mean change in CRT from baseline to month-6. Secondary end-points included changes in BCVA, the impact of baseline OCT biomarkers on functional and anatomic outcomes; and the impact of treatment on the different OCT biomarkers. OCT biomarkers associated with functional and anatomic outcomes were estimated using a logistic regression model.

Results

Fifty-seven eyes were included in the study. Baseline CRT was significantly decreased from 567.6 ± 226.2 μm to 326.9 ± 141.0 μm at month-6 (p < 0.0001). Baseline BCVA was significantly lower in the eyes with disrupted external limiting membrane (ELM) (mean 40.3 ± 21.3 letters) than in those with non-disrupted (mean 68.6 ± 10.7 letters) or partially-disrupted ELM (mean 59.6 ± 13.2 letters), p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0011, respectively. Baseline BCVA was significantly lower in eyes with > 20 hyperreflective foci (HRF) than in those with < 10 HRF (p = 0.0388). The eyes with disorganization of the retinal inner layers (DRIL) had lower baseline BCVA than those without DRIL (Hodges-Lehmann median difference: − 12.0 letters, 95% CI: − 25.0 to − 5.0 letters, p = 0.0042). At month-6, 26 (45.6%); 24 (42.1%), and 20 (35.1%) eyes achieved a BCVA improvement ≥5, ≥10, and ≥ 15 letters respectively. Forty (70.2%) eyes were classified as anatomic success at month-6. Logistic regression analysis found none factor significantly associated with success in the multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggested a positive impact of DEX on CRT and BCVA in eyes with RVO-ME. No OCT-biomarkers were identified as predictors of clinical-outcomes. Additionally, presence of DRIL, presence of HRF (> 20), or disrupted ELM were significantly associated with worse baseline BCVA.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Macular Edema and Uveitis: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Purpose

The purpose of this review article is to provide a comprehensive review of the current applications of intravitreal DEX implant (Ozurdex^®, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA) for a variety of ophthalmic conditions – ranging from FDA approved indications to off-label uses. We have attempted to provide relevant evidence from the literature to help a reader develop an understanding of the biological and pharmacokinetic properties of DEX implant, its uses, and potential side effects.

Methods

PubMed searches were performed using the terms “Ozurdex”, or “intravitreal DEX implant”, AND “retinal vein occlusion”, or “diabetic macular edema”, or “uveitis”. The search was performed in July of 2021, with an additional search in October 2021. All original English language articles were considered for this review.

Results

DEX implant has evidence of efficacy in a variety of clinical situations including macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion, diabetes, uveitis, and others. Safety concerns include cataract formation and progression, intraocular pressure elevation, complications related to intravitreal injection, and opportunistic infections secondary to steroid-induced immune suppression.

Conclusion

DEX implant is a useful tool in the management of several retinal disorders. Further studies are needed for head-to-head comparison with other treatment modalities and to determine its precise place in clinical practice.

The Efficacy of Simultaneous Injection of Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab Into Vitreous Cavity on Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous vitreous injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab on macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). We conducted a 6-month retrospective self-control study. Twenty-five patients diagnosed with macular edema secondary to CRVO were enrolled in this study. The patients received intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab. The changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and interocular pressure (IOP) before and at 2w, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 m after injection were recorded and compared. The adverse reactions in eyes and whole body were observed. The BCVA of all patients at 2 w (61.8 ± 5.42), 1 m (68.68 ± 5.23), 2 m (70.8 ± 5.8), 3 m (68.44 ± 5.61), 4 m (65.76 ± 5.76), 5 m (67.08 ± 5.57), and 6 m (70.12 ± 5.46) after surgery were significantly higher than that before surgery (52.2 ± 5.06,p < 0.01), and CRT of all patients at 2w (393.36 ± 52.66 um), 1 m (334.52 ± 32.95 um), 2 m (298.800 ± 29.97 um), 3 m (309.080 ± 28.78 um), 4 m (345.48 ± 39.81 um), 5 m (349.080 ± 29.88 um), and 6 m (309.76 ± 30.41 um) after surgery were significantly reduced than that before surgery (583.76 ± 121.09 um, p < 0.01). Macular edema recurred in an average of 4.44 ± 0.51 months after treatment, and those patients received combined treatment again. During follow-up, the most common adverse reactions were subconjunctival hemorrhage and increased intraocular pressure, with the incidence of 22% (11/50) and 18% (9/50) respectively. In all cases, the increased intraocular pressure could be controlled by a single intraocular pressure reducing drug. No patient needed to receive anti-glaucoma surgery. The overall incidence of lens opacity was 4% (2/50). After the first injection, no case showed lens opacity. After re-injection, 2 patients (2 eyes) (8%) developed lens opacity. None of the patients showed serious ocular adverse reactions or systemic complications such as vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, uveitis or ocular toxicity. The simultaneous vitreous injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab can significantly improve the visual acuity and anatomical prognosis in macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO-ME) patients, exhibiting good safety and effectiveness.

Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacotherapy for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Network Meta-analysis

Purpose: This network meta-analysis was conducted to obtain the relative effectiveness of different pharmacotherapy of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) by summarizing all available evidences.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials. The outcomes were estimated through a network meta-analysis, including the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline, the proportion of patients who gained ≥15 letters in BCVA from baseline, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT).

Results: We identified 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3,431 patients with RVO in our study. Different therapeutic regimens were compared including three anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept), ranibizumab with laser, dexamethasone intravitreal implant, and laser. For branch RVO, ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 11, 95% confidence intervals (CrI) 3.6 to 19], ranibizumab 0.5 mg 3 + pro re nata (WMD = 9.4, 95% CrI 0.43–18) is most effective in terms of changes of BCVA and 15 letters or more of BCVA improvement. For central RVO, three anti-VEGF regimens can improve visual acuity and there is no significant difference of efficacy among ranibizumab, bevacizumab and aflibercept (p > 0.05). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly could achieve additional efficacy in CRT reduction in eyes with branch RVO or central RVO (WMD = -130, 95% CrI -400 to 140 or WMD = -280, 95% CrI -590 to 16)). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (WMD = 1.7, 95% CrI -4.2 to 7.1 or WMD = 0.38, 95% CrI -9.8 to 8.8)) did not show a significant improvement in visual acuity at the end of 6 months follow-up in eyes with branch RVO or central RVO.

Conclusion: In summary, this network meta-analysis demonstrated several anti-VEGF agents had equivalent effects on mean visual acuity changes and anatomical recovery in 6 months in eyes with branch or central RVO. Only one injection of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in 6 months could not maintain the visual benefit. Patients and clinicians could choose pharmacotherapies with further consideration toward personal factors.

Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema in the Asia-Pacific Region

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) compared with laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

Patients and Methods

This Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, efficacy evaluator–masked, parallel-group, 12-month clinical study enrolled adults in China and the Philippines with reduced visual acuity secondary to fovea-involved DME in the study eye. Participants were randomized 1:1 to study eye treatment with laser photocoagulation every 3 months as needed (n = 139) or DEX every 5 months (n = 145). The main efficacy measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and leakage area. The primary endpoint was the average change in BCVA from baseline over 12 months (area-under-the-curve method). Preplanned subgroup analyses evaluated outcomes in Chinese patients.

Results

Mean average change in BCVA from baseline during the study (letters) was 4.3 with DEX (n = 145) versus 1.4 with laser (n = 127) overall (P = 0.001) and 4.6 with DEX (n = 129) versus 0.6 with laser (n = 113) in Chinese patients (P < 0.001). At Month 12, mean change in CRT from baseline was −209.5 μm with DEX versus −120.3 μm with laser (P < 0.001) and mean change in total leakage area from baseline was −8.367 mm² with DEX versus −0.637 mm² with laser (P < 0.001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the DEX group were increased intraocular pressure and cataract.

Conclusion

DEX administered every 5 months provided significantly greater improvement in BCVA, CRT, and total leakage area compared with laser treatment. DEX demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, consistent with an intraocular corticosteroid, and similar to that reported in completed global registration studies.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusion: Post Hoc Analysis of Post-Marketing Surveillance Data in the Real-World Setting in Korea

Purpose

To supplement established efficacy and safety data, this analysis evaluated the real-world use of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant 700 µg for retinal vein occlusion (RVO)-related macular edema in an Asian population and baseline factors potentially associated with DEX implant efficacy.

Patients and Methods

A prospective, observational, post-marketing surveillance study was conducted at 38 sites in South Korea in patients consecutively presenting with macular edema following branch or central RVO (BRVO, CRVO), and administered a first DEX implant. Follow-up visits and subsequent DEX or other therapies conformed with local practice. Outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), change in BCVA from baseline, responder rates, and adverse events. Associations between baseline characteristics and BCVA gains were evaluated. Month-1, -2, -4, and -6 visit analysis windows were established.

Results

In all, 700 patients (79.1% BRVO, 20.9% CRVO) received 1.12 DEX implants (mean) and were followed for 101.5 days (standard deviation, 51.7); 90% received a single implant. Among patients with analyzable data, mean BCVA improved from baseline with peak changes in Month 2 of −0.193 and −0.212 LogMAR, (P < 0.0001) and remained significant in the BRVO subgroup at the Month 4 and 6 windows (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0039, respectively). Treatment-naïve patients experienced greater BCVA increases. The proportion of patients with stable/improved BCVA tended to decrease after Month 2 through Month 6 and the decline was greater in the CRVO subgroup. At the Month-2 window, ≥1-, 2- and 3-line increases were positively associated with younger age, worse baseline BCVA, and treatment naivety. The most common adverse event was increased intraocular pressure.

Conclusion

In the real-world clinical setting in South Korea, DEX implant improved visual acuity and had a favorable safety profile similar to that reported in randomized controlled trials and observational European and North American studies. These data further support the value of DEX implant as a treatment option for RVO.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier

NCT01976650. Date of registration: November 6, 2013.

Anterior chamber changes assessment by Scheimpflug analysis after intravitreal dexamethasone implantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate structural changes in the anterior chamber and intraocular pressure (IOP) changes following intravitreal dexamethasone implantation.

METHODS

Forty-two eyes of 42 patients that received intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the management of macular edema secondary to diabetic retinopathy or branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) were included in the study. IOP was measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry. Anterior chamber depth (ACD) and iridocorneal angle (ICA) was measured by a Scheimflug camera (Sirius, CSO, Italy) the day before the injection of the dexamethasone implant and on postoperative day 1, first week, and first month.

RESULTS

Mean IOP was 15.14 ± 2.77 mmHg before the procedure and, 15.67 ± 3.70 mmHg, 15.86 ± 3.11 mmHg, 16.21 ± 2.75 mmHg on day 1, first week, and first month following intravitreal dexamethasone implantation, respectively. Mean ICA and ACD were significantly higher in pseudophakic eyes compared to phakic eyes. However, there was no statistically significant change in ICA before and after the procedure (on postoperative day 1, first week, and first month) among both phakic and pseudophakic patients (p = 0.783). Similarly, ACD remained unchanged after the procedure (on postoperative day 1, first week, and first month) compared to the initial measurement (p = 0.802).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that there was an increase in IOP. However, these changes were not accompanied with a change in ACD or ICA.

Risk factors for repeated dexamethasone intravitreal implant therapy for macular edema due to treatment-naïve branch retinal vein occlusion

Background

This study evaluated the effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant on treatment-naïve branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO)-induced macular edema (ME), and the risk factors for earlier repeated treatment.

Methods

Patients treated from 2013 to 2016 were enrolled. The patients’ demographics, medical history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central retinal thickness (CRT) were recorded. Risk factors for repeated treatment were identified using a Cox proportional hazard model and logistic regression.

Results

29 patients (mean age: 58.64 ± 13.3 years) were included; 44.8% received only one injection, while 55.2% received two or more. The mean initial CRT was 457.8 ± 167.1 μm; the peak CRT and final CRT improved significantly to 248.9 ± 57.9 μm and 329.2 ± 115.1 μm, respectively. The peak BCVA improvement and final improvement were 29.5 ± 23.5 approximate ETDRS letters and 19.8 ± 24.4 letters, respectively, with 62.1% of patients improving by more than 15 letters. Older age, higher initial CRT, and diabetes were the risk factors for multiple injections.

Conclusion

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant results in significant peak CRT and BCVA improvements, while older age, higher initial CRT, and diabetes are risk factors for repeated injections. The optimal retreatment schedule for these patients should be further explored.

Initial Ten Years of Experience with the Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant: A Retrospective Chart Review

Purpose

To evaluate the initial ten years of results from the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) in patients treated for retinal vein occlusion (RVO), diabetic macular edema (DME) or uveitis.

Methods

Retrospective chart review of patients receiving DEX since its FDA approval. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography, intraocular pressure and cataract status were collected. Baseline data were collected from the initial DEX and post-treatment data at the visit at least four weeks after the last DEX.

Results

In total, 315 eyes received 1216 DEX over 63.9±4.6 weeks. In the branch RVO (n=90), central RVO (n=59) and DME (n=62) cohorts, BCVA improved significantly (p<0.05). The uveitis (n=154) cohort did not have a significant change in BCVA, 0.62±0.04 to 0.61±0.04 logMAR (p=0.34). Younger patients, vitrectomized eyes, and eyes without a history of glaucoma were associated with significantly better BCVA outcomes in the uveitis cohort (p<0.05). Overall, CMT decreased significantly from 376.6±6.8 to 322.7±5.0 µm (p<0.05). Intraocular pressure increased significantly (p<0.001) and the percentage of patients requiring anti-glaucoma medications increased from 33.0% to 67.6%. Of phakic eyes, 58.8% (n=63) had cataract progression or underwent surgery with those who underwent surgery experiencing a significant improvement in BCVA (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Repeated DEX over extended follow-up offers significant anatomic benefits to all cohorts. Visual benefits are only seen in RVO, DME and select uveitis demographics.

Effect of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant on Visual Acuity and Foveal Photoreceptor Integrity in Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vascular Disease

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant on the external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity in treatment-naïve patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vascular disease (RVD).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted on patients with ME secondary to RVD, who underwent a DEX implant.

RESULTS

One-hundred eyes were included. Mean age was 70.3 ± 11.1 years. Mean ELM integrity significantly improved from 1,575.9 ± 285.9 μm at baseline to 1,711.7 ± 244.0 μm at month 3 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, there was a significant improvement in EZ integrity from baseline to month 3 (1,531.5 ± 317.1 vs. 1,694.3 ± 252.8 μm, respectively, p < 0.0001). At month 3, mean visual acuity (VA) gain was 9.9 ± 14.1 letters (p < 0.0001). Mean central retinal thickness (CRT) significantly decreased by -193.2 ± 185.7 μm from baseline to month 3 (p < 0.0001). Mean changes in VA and CRT were significantly correlated with baseline ELM integrity (p = 0.0065 and p = 0.0046, respectively) and EZ integrity (p = 0.0300 and p = 0.0035, respectively). At month 3, the proportion of eyes which had an intact ELM (mean difference 16.0%, 95% CI 5.4-26.4%, p = 0.0033) and EZ (mean difference 12.0%, 95% CI 1.8-22.1%, p = 0.0210) was significantly higher than at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX implant was able to significantly improve ELM and EZ integrity in naïve patients with ME.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant as a Sustained Release Drug Delivery Device for the Treatment of Ocular Diseases: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Drug delivery into the vitreous chamber remains a great challenge in the pharmaceutical industry due to the complex anatomy and physiology of the eye. Intravitreal injection is the mainstream route of drug administration to the posterior segment of the eye. The purpose of this review is to assess the current literature about the widening use of the intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (Dex) implant, and to provide a comprehensive collection of all the ocular disorders that benefit from Dex administration. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth-factors (VEGFs) have been largely indicated as a first-choice level, the Dex implant represents an important treatment option, especially in selected cases, such as vitrectomized eyes or patients in whom anti-VEGF failed or are contraindicated. In this article, the safety profile as well as the list of the possible complications related to intravitreal Dex injection are also discussed.

Comparison of intravitreal dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion-induced oedema: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 10 December 2019, without language restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observation studies comparing the efficacy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of patients with RVO, naïve or almost naïve to both arms, were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data for mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and product safety. Review Manager V.5.3 and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and 12 real-world studies were included. An average lower letter gain in BCVA was determined for the DEX implant (mean difference (MD) = -6.59; 95% CI -8.87 to -4.22 letters) administered at a retreatment interval of 5-6 months. Results were similar (MD_{6 months}=-12.68; 95% CI -21.98 to -3.37 letters; MD_{12 months}=-9.69; 95% CI -12.01 to -7.37 letters) at 6 and 12 months. The DEX implant resulted in comparable or marginally less CST reduction at months 6 and 12 but introduced relatively higher risks of elevated intraocular pressure (RR=3.89; 95% CI 2.16 to 7.03) and cataract induction (RR=5.22; 95% CI 1.67 to 16.29). Most real-life studies reported an insignificant numerical gain in letters for anti-VEGF drugs relative to that for DEX implant. However, the latter achieved comparable efficacy with a 4-month dosage interval.

CONCLUSION

Compared with anti-VEGF agents, DEX implant required fewer injections but had inferior functional efficacy and safety. Real-life trials supplemented the efficacy data for DEX implant.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Injection in Eyes with Comorbid Hypotony

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes in patients with hypotony treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen patients (15 eyes) that received a total of 99 dexamethasone implant injections on occasions at which the intraocular pressure was low, meeting the definition of statistical hypotony.

METHODS

The medical records of 13 patients (15 consecutive eyes) receiving 1 or more intravitreal dexamethasone implants between December 2014 and April 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Hypotony was defined as intraocular pressure less than 6.5 mmHg. The indications for intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection were intermediate or posterior uveitis (86.7%), diabetic macular edema (13.3%), and/or cystoid macular edema (6.7%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were safety outcomes and best visual acuity within 6 months of the final intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection in a hypotonous eye.

RESULTS

In 15 eyes (13 patients), 99 injections were administered to eyes under circumstances of hypotony. Uveitic cystoid macular edema or diabetic macular edema was reduced after treatment in all cases. No complications were noted during the injection procedure. Three complications were noted in 2 patients after injection. Pseudophakodonesis and mild vitreous hemorrhage immediately after injection were noted in 1 patient, and a case of delayed-onset vitreous hemorrhage with pigment release was noted in another. All 3 complications resolved without intervention. The primary end point of this study-mean visual acuity-was stable over the follow-up period. In patients with hypotony whose intraocular pressure normalized during the follow-up period, this was attributable to management of glaucoma surgery-related complications rather than an effect of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection is a reasonable treatment option for patients with comorbid hypotony in whom clinical findings warrant treatment with a sustained-delivery intravitreal steroid implant. Further studies, including imaging of zonules before and after intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection in a hypotonous eye, could help define risks to intraocular lens stability with this procedure.

The effects of temporary intraocular pressure spikes after intravitreal dexamethasone implantation on the retinal nerve fiber layer

Background and objective: The dexamethasone (DEX) implant is known to cause temporary intraocular pressure (IOP) spikes after implantation. The purpose of this study is to determine if IOP spikes after DEX implant cause significant thinning in the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL).

Study design, patients, and methods: A total of 306 charts were reviewed with 48 and 21 patients meeting inclusion criteria for the cross-sectional and prospective groups, respectively. Cross-sectional inclusion criteria: IOP spike ≥22 mmHg up to 16 weeks after DEX implant, DEX implant in only 1 eye per patient, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) RNFL imaging of both eyes ≥3 months after IOP spike. Prospective inclusion criteria: OCT RNFL performed within 1 year prior to DEX implantation, IOP spike ≥22 mmHg up to 16 weeks after DEX implant, and OCT RNFL performed ≥3 months after IOP spike. The average RNFL thickness in the contralateral eye was used as the control in the cross-sectional group. Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Results: In the cross-sectional group, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean RNFL thicknesses in the treated vs untreated eyes (80.4±15.5 μm and 82.6±15.8 μm, respectively; P=0.33) regardless of treatment diagnosis, magnitude of IOP spike, or history of glaucoma. In the prospective group, mean RNFL thicknesses before and after IOP spikes ≥22 mmHg were similar (78.0±14.8 μm and 75.6±13.6 μm, respectively; P=0.13).

Conclusion and relevance: Temporary elevation of IOP after DEX implantation when treated with topical IOP lowering drops does not appear to lead to a meaningful change in RNFL thickness.

Comparison of dexamethasone intravitreal implant with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in the treatment of macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched for published studies comparing DEX with anti-VEGF for the treatment of ME caused by BRVO. Outcomes of the selected studies included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and adverse events. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Six trials comparing the efficacy and safety of DEX with anti-VEGF were included in this meta-analysis. At 1 month, DEX achieved a mean BCVA superior to that achieved by anti-VEGF (MD = -0.11, P < .0001), in addition to a superior mean BCVA change (MD = -0.35, P < .00001). At 3 months, the mean BCVA showed a significant difference (MD = -0.06, P = .03) between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment, while the mean BCVA change was similar to that with anti-VEGF treatment (MD = -0.06, P = .11). However, neither mean BCVA nor mean BCVA change showed a significant difference between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment at 6 months (MD = 0.08, P = .06; MD = 0.06, P = .43, respectively). Mean CMT and mean CMT change were significantly lower in the DEX group than in the anti-VEGF group at 1 month (MD = -53.63 μm, P < .00001; MD = -60.1 μm, P = .005, respectively). However, at 3 months, mean CMT and mean CMT change were similar between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment (MD = 17.4 μ, P = .74; MD = 18.01 μm, P = .72, respectively). Although mean CMT in the anti-VEGF group was not significantly lower than that in the DEX group at 6 months (MD = 55.53, P = .07), the mean CMT change from baseline achieved by the anti-VEGF treatment was significantly superior to that obtained with DEX (MD = 75.53, P = .0002). Concerning adverse events, no statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of cataract (OR = 4.25, P = .07), but the use of DEX led to a higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation compared with anti-VEGF treatment (OR = 12.04, P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that visual acuity recovery and CMT were better in the DEX group than in the anti-VEGF group after 1 and 3 months, although the difference in CMT at 3 months was not significant. However, there were no significant differences in terms of visual acuity and CMT between the two groups after 6 months of follow-up. Therefore, DEX may be recommended as the first treatment option in ME associated with BRVO.

Safety of 6000 intravitreal dexamethasone implants

PURPOSE

To evaluate the real-life safety profile of intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection for various retinal conditions.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter analysis of intravitreal dexamethasone implant injections (700 µg) due to various retinal conditions including central retinal venous occlusion (1861 injections), diabetic macular oedema (3104 injections), post-surgical cystoid macular oedema (305 injections) and uveitis (381 injections). The eyes were evaluated mainly for the occurrence of adverse events such as glaucoma, cataract, retinal detachment and endophthalmitis along during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 6015 injections in 2736 eyes of 1441 patients (mean age of 65.7±12.9 years) were in total analysed over an average period of 18 months (range 6 months to 102 months). A total of 576 eyes (32.5% of the phakic eyes) developed cataract requiring surgical intervention. However, visually insignificant cataract progression was observed in another 259 phakic eyes (14.6%) which did not require surgical removal. A total of 727 eyes (26.5%) experienced an intraocular pressure (IOP) rise of >25 mm Hg, with 155 eyes (5.67%) having a prior history of glaucoma and 572 eyes (20.9%) having new onset IOP rise. Overall, more than 90% of eyes with IOP rise were managed medically, and 0.5% eyes required filtering surgery. Endophthalmitis (0.07%), retinal detachment (0.03%) and vitreous haemorrhage (0.03%) were rare. There was no significant change in visual acuity (p=0.87) and central macular thickness (p=0.12) at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest real-life study assessing the safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant injections in various retinal conditions. Cataract progression and intraocular pressure rise are the most common side effects, but are often rather easily manageable.

Nanofluidic microsystem for sustained intraocular delivery of therapeutics

Globally, 145.2 million people suffer from moderate to severe vision impairment or blindness due to preventable or treatable causes. However, patient adherence to topical or intravitreal treatment is a leading cause of poor outcomes. To address this issue, we designed an intraocularly implantable device called the nanofluidic Vitreal System for Therapeutic Administration (nViSTA) for continuous and controlled drug release based on a nanochannel membrane that obviates the need for pumps or actuation. In vitro release analysis demonstrated that our device achieves sustained release of bimatoprost (BIM) and dexamethasone (DEX) at concentrations within clinically relevant therapeutic window. In this proof of concept study, we constructed an anatomically similar in silico human eye model to simulate DEX release from our implant and gain insight into intraocular pharmacokinetics profile. Overall, our drug-agnostic intraocular implant represents a potentially viable platform for long-term treatment of various chronic ophthalmologic diseases, including diabetic macular edema and uveitis.

The efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant as the first-line treatment for retinal vein occlusion-related macular edema in a real-life scenario

Purpose

This study evaluated the effect of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI; Ozurdex) injection for treating macular edema in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

Methods

This prospective study included 40 eyes of 40 patients with nonischemic BRVO and 31 eyes of 31 patients with nonischemic CRVO who received IDI injection as the first-line treatment for macular edema. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) value before and after the treatment; intraocular pressure; optic coherence tomography findings; and all ocular examination findings, including central foveal thickness (CFT) measurement and fluorescein angiography findings, were evaluated for each patient.

Results

After the IDI injection, BCVA value increased (P < 0.001) and CFT value decreased (P < 0.001) in both groups. The recurrence rates of CFT elevation after the first and the second Ozurdex injections were 65.0% and 65.3%, respectively, in patients with BRVO and 70.9% and 68.1%, respectively, in patients with CRVO. A statistically significant correlation was observed between preinjection CFT value and postinjection recurrence of CFT elevation (P = 0.017).

Conclusion

Treatment with the IDI injections resulted in significant short-term improvement in CFT and BCVA values in patients with clinically significant RVO-related macular edema. Moreover, we observed that high preinjection CFT value was associated with a risk of postinjection recurrence of CFT elevation.