Efficacy and safety of single-dose dexamethasone implantation for patients with persistent diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapy reduces the administration frequency of steroid injection in patients with diabetic macular edema: A cohort study using the Japanese health insurance claims database

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Severe diabetic macular edema (DME) is often resistant to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Steroids are particularly effective at reducing edema by suppressing inflammation; they are also used as an alternative to expensive anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in some patients. Therefore, the use of steroids in DME reflects an unmet need for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Notably, triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injections are widely used in Japan. Here, we evaluated the frequency of TA as an indicator of the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in DME treatment using a health insurance claims database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cohort study, we retrospectively analyzed the health insurance claims data of 11 million Japanese individuals from 2005 to 2019. The frequency and duration of TA injection after the initiation of SGLT2is or other antidiabetic drugs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 2,412 matched patients with DME, the incidence rate of TA injection was 63.8 times per 1,000 person-years in SGLT2i users and 94.9 times per 1,000 person-years in non-users. SGLT2is reduced the risk for the first (P = 0.0024, hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.87), second (P = 0.0019, hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.80) and third TA (P = 0.0053, hazard ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.80) injections. A subanalysis of each baseline characteristic of the patients showed that SGLT2is were effective regardless of the background factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SGLT2is reduced the frequency of TA injection in patients with DME. Therefore, SGLT2i therapy might be a novel, noninvasive and low-cost adjunctive therapy for DME.

Optical coherence tomography in the management of diabetic macular oedema

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is the major cause of visual impairment in people with diabetes. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is now the most widely used modality to assess presence and severity of DMO. DMO is currently broadly classified based on the involvement to the central 1 mm of the macula into non-centre or centre involved DMO (CI-DMO) and DMO can occur with or without visual acuity (VA) loss. This classification forms the basis of management strategies of DMO. Despite years of research on quantitative and qualitative DMO related features assessed by OCT, these do not fully inform physicians of the prognosis and severity of DMO relative to visual function. Having said that, recent research on novel OCT biomarkers development and re-defined classification of DMO show better correlation with visual function and treatment response. This review summarises the current evidence of the association of OCT biomarkers in DMO management and its potential clinical importance in predicting VA and anatomical treatment response. The review also discusses some future directions in this field, such as the use of artificial intelligence to quantify and monitor OCT biomarkers and retinal fluid and identify phenotypes of DMO, and the need for standardisation and classification of OCT biomarkers to use in future clinical trials and clinical practice settings as prognostic markers and secondary treatment outcome measures in the management of DMO.

The ideal treatment timing for diabetic retinopathy: the molecular pathological mechanisms underlying early-stage diabetic retinopathy are a matter of concern

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a prevalent complication of diabetes, significantly impacting patients' quality of life due to vision loss. No pharmacological therapies are currently approved for DR, excepted the drugs to treat diabetic macular edema such as the anti-VEGF agents or steroids administered by intraocular route. Advancements in research have highlighted the crucial role of early intervention in DR for halting or delaying disease progression. This holds immense significance in enhancing patients' quality of life and alleviating the societal burden associated with medical care costs. The non-proliferative stage represents the early phase of DR. In comparison to the proliferative stage, pathological changes primarily manifest as microangiomas and hemorrhages, while at the cellular level, there is a loss of pericytes, neuronal cell death, and disruption of components and functionality within the retinal neuronal vascular unit encompassing pericytes and neurons. Both neurodegenerative and microvascular abnormalities manifest in the early stages of DR. Therefore, our focus lies on the non-proliferative stage of DR and we have initially summarized the mechanisms involved in its development, including pathways such as polyols, that revolve around the pathological changes occurring during this early stage. We also integrate cutting-edge mechanisms, including leukocyte adhesion, neutrophil extracellular traps, multiple RNA regulation, microorganisms, cell death (ferroptosis and pyroptosis), and other related mechanisms. The current status of drug therapy for early-stage DR is also discussed to provide insights for the development of pharmaceutical interventions targeting the early treatment of DR.

The correlation between peripheral complete blood count parameters and diabetic macular edema in proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients: a cross-sectional study

Background

Numerous studies have demonstrated that retinal chronic inflammation plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of diabetic macular edema (DME). However, studies about the association between peripheral complete blood count, an inexpensive and easily measurable laboratory index, and DME are limited.

Research design and methods

The current study was a hospital-based, cross-sectional study. The participants were inpatients with type 2 diabetes who underwent vitrectomy for PDR, and the contralateral eyes in these PDR patients meeting the criteria were included in the study. Central macular thickness (CMT) was measured automatically and the DME was characterized as CMT ≥ 300 μm.

Results

A total of 239 PDR participants were enrolled. The average age was 55.46 ± 10.08 years old, and the average CMT was 284.23 ± 122.09 μm. In the fully adjusted model, for CMT, the results revealed a significantly negative association between CMT and both white blood cell (WBC) count and neutrophil count (β = -11.95, 95% CI: -22.08, -1.82; p = 0.0218; β = -14.96, 95% CI: -28.02, -1.90; p = 0.0259, respectively); for DME, the results showed an inverse association between DME and WBC count, monocyte count, and eosinophil count (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.59, 0.95; p = 0.0153; OR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.92; p = 0.0431; OR = 0.03, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.88; p = 0.0420, respectively).

Conclusions

In conclusion, our results suggest that WBC and its subtypes in circulation may play an important role in the pathogenesis of DME in PDR patients.

Persistent diabetic macular edema: Definition, incidence, biomarkers, and treatment methods

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment has drastically improved the visual and anatomical outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME); however, success is not always guaranteed, and a proportion of these eyes demonstrate persistent DME (pDME) despite intensive treatment. While standardized criteria to define these treatment-resistant eyes have not yet been established, many studies refer to eyes with no clinical response or an unsatisfactory partial response as having pDME. A patient is considered to have pDME if the retinal thickness improves less than 10-25% after 6 months of treatment. A range of treatment options have been recommended for eyes with pDME, including switching anti-VEGF agents, using corticosteroids and/or antioxidant drugs in adjunct with anti-VEGF therapy, and vitrectomy. In addition, multimodal imaging of DME eyes may be advantageous in predicting the responsiveness to treatment; this is beneficial when initiating alternative therapies. We explore the literature on persistent DME regarding its defining criteria, incidence, the baseline biological markers that may be useful in anticipating the response to treatment, and the available treatment options.

Efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of the intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes.

Methods: We performed a literature search in four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) from inception to 22 May 2022. Studies comparing the efficacy of the DEX implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with DME with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. The main outcomes included comparison of the mean change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to different follow-up endpoints between the vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized groups. The secondary outcomes were the mean duration of action for the first DEX implantation and the number of required injections throughout the follow-up period. Safety data were collected and compared.

Results: The final analysis included 7 studies involving 582 eyes, 208 vitrectomized eyes and 374 nonvitrectomized eyes. The mean between-group differences in BCVA improvement were not significant at any endpoint, with averages difference of −0.07 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (p = 0.088) at 1 month, −0.03 logMAR (p = 0.472) 3 months, −0.07 logMAR (p = 0.066) 6 months, and −0.04 logMAR (p = 0.486) 12 months. The mean between-group differences in CMT reduction were not statistically significant, with mean differences of 7.17 μm (p = 0.685) at 1 month, 20.03 μm (p = 0.632) 3 months, −1.80 μm (p = 0.935) 6 months, and −25.65 μm (p = 0.542) 12 months. However, the vitrectomized group had a significantly shorter duration of action during the first DEX implantation than the nonvitrectomized group, with a mean difference of 0.8 months (p = 0.005). No significant between-group differences were detected for the number of required injections or safety profile.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed similar efficacy and safety of the sustained-release DEX intravitreal implant for vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with DME. The intravitreal DEX implant could be considered an effective choice for DME treatment in eyes with prior vitrectomy.

Efficacy of single-dose intravitreal dexamethasone implantation for retinal vein occlusion patients with refractory macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To assess the functional and anatomical consequences of single-dose dexamethasone (DEX) implants for the treatment of refractory macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents.

Methods: A literature search of studies on switching therapy to DEX implants from anti-VEGF agents in refractory RVO patients was performed with five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) prior to January 2022. The main outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) changes at different follow-up endpoints from baseline. All analyses were performed using Stata version 15.0.

Results: The final analysis included four eligible studies with a total of 99 patients. After single-dose DEX implant application, BCVA improved significantly at 2, 3, and 6 months with an average gain of −0.23 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (p = 0.004), −0.20 logMAR (p = 0.027), and -0.09 logMAR (p = 0.021), respectively. Mean CMT reduction was also significant from baseline to 2 months (-241.89 μm, p < 0.001), 3 months (−222.61 μm, p < 0.001), and 6 months (−90.49 μm, p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the included studies.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that RVO patients with refractory ME could benefit significantly from switching therapy to DEX implantation, with efficacy lasting 6 months after a single-dose application. Intravitreal DEX implantation is a safe and effective option for refractory cases.

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.

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.