Differences in the incidence of aflibercept-related sterile endophthalmitis according to types of disposable syringes used

[Translated article] Syringes for intraocular administration: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous of some patients. This situation derives from the lack of approved syringes for intraocular use in the Spanish market. The aim of this work is to review the use of syringes for intraocular administration, as well as to search for alternatives that meet the legal requirements for these unmet needs.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines by searching PubMed with the descriptors: (silicone) AND (syringes) AND ((intraocular) OR (intravitreal)) and filtering all existing publications from January 2006 to December 2023, including all those articles dealing with silicone oil release in intravitreal injections and analysing the possible consequences.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight results were found, 23 of which were excluded because they did not deal with the subject under study, leaving a total of 45 articles for the systematic review. These were classified according to the conclusions obtained in 4 groups: the adverse reactions produced by silicone; the administration technique; the physicochemical aspects of silicone release; and the characteristics of the medical device. After reviewing the current manufacturers and technical data sheets of commercialised syringes, the existing syringes for this use have been collected, finding 2 that will probably be commercialised in Spain at the beginning of 2024: Zero Residual™ 0.2 ml SiO-free and VitreJect® Ophthalmic.

CONCLUSIONS

From the results obtained, it can be interpreted that the use of syringes and needles with silicone for intravitreal use is a concern for health professionals due to the implications and consequences that may arise in patients, the most important being adverse reactions, so it is necessary to have silicone-free syringes on the market that are specific for intraocular use. Safety and legality in the use of intraocular syringes and needles is essential to guarantee ocular integrity and patient health.

Syringes for intraocular administration: Systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous of some patients. This situation derives from the lack of approved syringes for intraocular use in the Spanish market. The aim of this work is to review the use of syringes for intraocular administration, as well as to search for alternatives that meet the legal requirements for these unmet needs.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines by searching PubMed with the descriptors: "silicone" AND "syringes" AND ("intraocular" OR "intravitreal") and filtering all existing publications from January 2006 to December 2023, including all those articles dealing with silicone oil release in intravitreal injections and analysing the possible consequences.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight results were found, 23 of which were excluded because they did not deal with the subject under study, leaving a total of 45 articles for the systematic review. These were classified according to the conclusions obtained in 4 groups: the adverse reactions produced by silicone, the administration technique, the physicochemical aspects of silicone release, and the characteristics of the medical device. After reviewing the current manufacturers and technical data sheets of commercialized syringes, the existing syringes for this use have been collected, finding two that will probably be commercialized in Spain at the beginning of 2024: Zero Residual™ 0.2 ml SiO-free and VitreJect® Ophthalmic.

CONCLUSIONS

From the results obtained, it can be interpreted that the use of syringes and needles with silicone for intravitreal use is a concern for health professionals due to the implications and consequences that may arise in patients, the most important being adverse reactions, so it is necessary to have silicone-free syringes on the market that are specific for intraocular use. Safety and legality in the use of intraocular syringes and needles is essential to guarantee ocular integrity and patient health.

Differential diagnosis of endophthalmitis after intravitreal drug injection for age related macular degeneration: Sterile vs. infectious

The recent release of brolucizumab and the development of new antiangiogenic molecules as abicipar pegol has increased the interest towards inflammatory complications after intravitreal drug injection. Those drugs are associated to a higher rate of inflammatory adverse events compared to classic drugs. In this context it is essential to differentiate between sterile and infectious cases for a fast and effective treatment. The clinical similarities between infectious and sterile cases, the high rate of culture negative patients and the heterogeneity in the terminology used are obstacles for a correct diagnosis and report of these complications. Sterile cases appear early after the injection, before 48 hours; or 20 days after in brolucizumab-related vasculitis cases. Infectious cases show up around the third day after injection and up to a week after it. A severe visual impairment, severe pain, severe hyperemia, hypopyon and a more severe intraocular inflammatory process are signs of a likely infectious origin. If the cause of the inflammation is uncertain we must follow up the patient closely or "tap and inject" antimicrobial agents in order to prevent the eventual complications of an infectious endophthalmitis. On the other hand, sterile endophthalmitis might be observed in mild cases or treated with steroids according to the severity of the inflammation.

CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF ACUTE ENDOPHTHALMITIS AFTER INTRAVITREAL DELIVERY OF VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR INHIBITORS VERSUS STEROIDS

PURPOSE

To compare patients with acute endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors vs. steroids.

METHODS

Retrospective single-center, nonrandomized interventional study from 2013 to 2021.Patients underwent vitreous biopsy before initiating treatment and were divided into the following cohorts: (1) anti-VEGF managed medically (T&I-anti-VEGF), (2) anti-VEGF managed by immediate pars plana vitrectomy (PPV-anti-VEGF), and (3) steroid therapy and managed medically or by pars plana vitrectomy (steroid).

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients were analyzed. The steroid cohort demonstrated significantly worse presenting (median = 2.80 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]; P ≤ 0.01) and final (median = 2.30 logMAR) best-corrected visual acuity compared with T&I-anti-VEGF (presenting: median = 2.00 logMAR; final: median = 0.40 logMAR) and pars plana vitrectomy-anti-VEGF cohorts (presenting: median = 2.30 logMAR; final: median = 0.48 logMAR). There was no significant ( P = 0.33) difference in the final best-corrected visual acuity between T&I-anti-VEGF and pars plana vitrectomy-anti-VEGF cohorts. There were no significant ( P ≥ 0.63) differences among cohorts in best-corrected visual acuity before acute endophthalmitis diagnosis (T&I-anti-VEGF: median = 0.40 logMAR; pars plana vitrectomy-anti-VEGF: median = 0.40 logMAR; steroid: median = 0.44 logMAR). Microbial cultures revealed similar profiles for all cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Acute endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection steroid therapy had worse outcomes compared with anti-VEGF therapy.