Intravitreal bevacizumab alone or combined with 1 mg triamcinolone in diabetic macular edema: a randomized clinical trial

Anti-VEGF combined with ocular corticosteroids therapy versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for diabetic macular edema focusing on drugs injection times and confounding factors of pseudophakic eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of combining intravitreal endothelial growth factor inhibitor (anti-VEGF) and ocular corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Articles concentrating on the efficacy and safety of combining anti-VEGF and ocular corticosteroids therapy for DME versus anti-VEGF monotherapy was screened systematically. Meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of a protocol registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023408338) and performed on the extracted continuous variables and dichotomous variables. The outcome was expressed as weighted mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR).

RESULTS

Add up to 21 studies including 1468 eyes were enrolled in this study. The MD for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement at 1/3/6/12-month between the combination therapy group and monotherapy group were 2.56 (95% CI [0.43, 4.70]), 2.46 (95% CI [-0.40, 5.32]), - 1.76 (95% CI [-3.18, -0.34]), - 1.94 (95% CI [-3.87, 0.00]), respectively. The MD for central retinal thickness (CMT) reduction at 1/3/6/12-month between two groups were - 66.27 (95% CI [-101.08, -31.47]), - 33.62 (95% CI [-57.55, -9.70]), - 4.54 (95% CI [-16.84, 7.76]), - 26.67 (95% CI [-41.52, -11.82]), respectively. Additionally, the combination group had higher relative risk of high intraocular pressure and cataract progression events.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF combined with ocular corticosteroids had a significant advantage over anti-VEGF monotherapy within 3 months of DME treatment, which reached the maximum with increasing anti-VEGF injection times to 3. However, with the prolongation of the treatment cycle, the effect of combined therapy after 6 months was no better than monotherapy, and the side effects of combined therapy were more severe.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab Alone or in Combination with Calcium Dobesilate for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema in Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Patients: 12-Month Outcomes of a Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the efficacy of CaD combined with intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in patients with nonproliferative DR.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, case-control study enrolled consecutive patients newly diagnosed with DME. The patients were treated with 3-monthly loading dose injections of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) followed by pro re nata injections (3 + PRN), with or without daily oral CaD. The patients were treated and followed up for 12 months. We reviewed their medical records to determine the optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings, number of injections, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central macular thickness (CMT) at 3, 6, and 12 months after the first injection.

RESULTS

We reviewed 102 eyes of 102 patients; 54 patients received IVR combined with oral CaD (IVR + CaD group) and 48 received only IVR (IVR group). In both groups, BCVA was higher, and CMT was lower, at 3, 6, and 12 months after the injection compared to those at the baseline (p < 0.05 for all), while there were no significant differences in BCVA improvement or CMT reduction between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of IVR injections was significantly lower in the IVR + CaD group than the IVR group (5.4 ± 1.1 vs. 6.7 ± 1.6 injections, p < 0.05) during 1 year of treatment. No adverse events were noted in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to IVR alone, the addition of oral CaD to IVR in DME patients was safe and effective for improving visual function and restoring the retinal anatomy and was associated with the need for fewer injections.

Saudi Arabia Guidelines for diabetic macular edema: A consensus of the Saudi Retina Group

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and its complications are major public health burdens in Saudi Arabia. The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) is 19.7% and the prevalence of diabetic macular edema (DME) is 5.7% in Saudi Arabia. Diabetic macular edema is a vision-threatening complication of DR and a major cause of vision loss worldwide. Ocular treatments include retinal laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, intravitreal corticosteroids, and vitreoretinal surgery when necessary. The present consensus was developed as a part of the Saudi Retina Group's efforts to generate Saudi guidelines and consensus for the management of DME, including recommendations for its diagnosis, treatment, and best practice. The experts' panel stipulates that the treatment algorithm should be categorized according to the presence of central macula involvement. In patients with no central macular involvement, laser photocoagulation is recommended as the first-line option. Patients with central macular involvement and no recent history of cardiovascular (CVS) or cerebrovascular disorders can be offered anti-VEGF agents as the first-line option. In the case of non-responders (defined as an improvement of <20% in optical coherence tomography or a gain of fewer than 5 letters in vision), switching to another anti-VEGF agent or steroids should be considered after 3 injections. Within the class of steroids, dexamethasone implants are recommended as the first choice. In patients with a recent history of CVS events, the use of anti-VEGF agents is not recommended, regardless of their lens status. The experts' panel recommends that a future study be conducted to provide a cut-off point for early switching to steroid implants in pseudo-phakic eyes.

Intravitreal bevacizumab versus intravitreal triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema-Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

Background

The most frequent cause of vision loss from diabetic retinopathy is diabetic macular edema (DME). Earlier clinical trials tried to examine the role of intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT) and intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) in DME; they either qualified IVT over IVB or IVB over IVT or did not exhibit a significant difference.

Objective

This paper aims to compare the efficacy and safety of IVB versus IVT alone or combined IVB+IVT in the treatment of DME.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, Science Direct, OVID, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of IVB versus IVT alone or combined IVB+IVT and IVT versus the combined IVB+IVT in DME patients.

Results

A total of 1243 eyes of 17 trials were included in our meta-analysis and regression. Repeated injections of IVB were superior at improving VA comparing with those of IVT at 12, 24, 48-weeks, and IVB+IVT at 12, 24, 48-weeks. Single injections were comparable across the three arms regarding BCVA improvement. CMT reductions were also comparable across the three arms. Meanwhile, the overall safety regarding intraocular pressure and intraocular hypertension significantly favored the IVB group. Improvement in VA was best modified with CMT reduction from 480 um to 320um. This association was significant at 12-weeks in the three arms and persisted till 24-weeks and 48-weeks exclusively in the IVB group.

Conclusions and relevance

Our analysis reveals that repeated successive injections associate with better BCVA compared to single injection. Current evidence affirms that IVB is superior to IVT and IVB+IVT at improving BCVA, comparable at reducing CMT, and presents a better safety profile in the treatment of DME.

Novel hybrid lipid nanocapsules loaded with a therapeutic monoclonal antibody - Bevacizumab - and Triamcinolone acetonide for combined therapy in neovascular ocular pathologies

The aim of this study was to design and develop a novel hybrid formulation based on lipid nanocapsules containing bevacizumab (BVZ), an effective therapeutic antibody, on the surface and triamcinolone acetonide (TA) in the inner core (BVZ-TA-LNC) intended to improve ocular therapy. Hence, a phase inversion-insertion one step method was developed to drug loading and surface modification of lipid nanocapsules by post-insertion of a bifunctional polymer, followed by antibody coupling using "click" chemistry. The covalent bond and antibody capacity binding to its specific antigen were confirmed by thermal analysis and immunoassay, respectively. BVZ-TA-LNC presented nanometric size (102 nm), negative surface potential (-19 mV) and exhibiting 56% of TA in the lipid core. BVZ-TA-LNC tended to prevent the endothelial cell migration and significantly prevented the capillary formation induced by the vascular endothelium growth factor (VEGF). The novel hybrid system allowed the co-loading of two different therapeutic molecules and may be promising to improve the therapy of eye disorders that occur with inflammation and/or neovascularization.

Safety of Intravitreal Injection of Stivant, a Biosimilar to Bevacizumab, in Rabbit Eyes

Purpose

To evaluate the safety of intravitreal injection of Stivant, a biosimilar to bevacizumab, in rabbits using electrophysiological and histological analysis.

Methods

Both eyes of 41 New Zealand albino rabbits were injected with 0.1 mL (2.5 mg) of Stivant. The rabbits were scheduled to be sacrificed 1, 2, 7, 14, and 28 days after injection for histopathological evaluations. Clinical examinations and electroretinography (ERG) were performed at baseline and just before sacrificing the rabbits. Fourteen separate rabbits received a reference drug (Avastin) and were considered as the control group. Furthermore, three other rabbits received the same volume of saline (saline control group). Rabbits of both control groups were sacrificed four weeks after injection. ERG was performed 1, 2, 7, 14, and 28 days after injections.

Results

No significant difference was observed in a- and b-wave amplitudes and latency after intravitreal Stivant injection between baseline and different time points. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in wave amplitudes and latency between the Stivant and control groups. The histology of rabbit eyes of the Stivant and control groups after intravitreal injections was not distinguishable.

Conclusion

The biosimilar Stivant, up to a dose of 2.5 mg, did not appear to be toxic to the retina in albino rabbits. These results suggest that this drug could be a safe and inexpensive alternative to intravitreal bevacizumab. The efficacy of these injections was not investigated in this study and needs to be evaluated in future studies.

[Treatment switch in diabetic macular edema: Literature review and management algorithm]

Initial management of diabetic macular edema (DME) is well-defined, but there is a lack of national or international consensus for patients who do not respond or respond only partially to these treatments. Several studies, mostly retrospective, have assessed medication switches, but currently, the literature contains no randomized studies. The goal of this article is to present an algorithm for switching medications, which can be proposed to DME patients treated with anti-VEGF agents, as defined by a group of French retina experts, supported by the existing literature on the subject. After initiation of an anti-VEGF treatment for DME, the response is usually assessed after 5 monthly injections. A partial anatomical response (reduction of central retinal thickness between 10 and 20%), seen in 30 to 40% of patients, is associated with a favorable visual prognosis according to randomized studies. Continuation of the anti-VEGF injections after the induction phase is thus possible. If the response remains incomplete after 3 additional anti-VEGF injections, a complete ophthalmologic examination should be performed, and a switch to another therapeutic class (corticosteroids) may be proposed in the absence of contraindications. If a complete non-response is seen initially (reduction of central retinal thickness<10%), the switch is proposed immediately after the induction phase.

Combination therapy and co-delivery strategies to optimize treatment of posterior segment neurodegenerative diseases

Neurodegenerative diseases affecting the posterior segment of the eye are one of the major causes of irreversible blindness worldwide. The pathogenesis of these retinal pathologies is characterized by a multifactorial etiology, involving the complex interaction of different apoptotic mechanisms, suggesting that effective treatments will require a multimodal approach. Thus, combination therapy based on the potential synergistic activities of drugs with different mechanisms of action is currently receiving considerable attention. Here, we summarize several kinds of strategy for the co-administration of different drugs to the posterior segment of the eye, highlighting those that involve co-delivery from multiloaded drug delivery systems.

Pharmacological Management of Diabetic Macular Edema in Real-Life Observational Studies

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

of observational studies concerning the pharmacological management of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database on 1 February 2018 to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of anti-VEGF and dexamethasone (DEX) implants for DME. Studies with more than 10 patients and follow-up of more than 6 months were selected. Analyses were carried out on the overall population and on subgroups defined according to baseline visual acuity (BVA) and the patients' naïve or non-naïve status.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies evaluating the efficacy of anti-VEGF and 31 studies evaluating the efficacy of DEX-implants were retained, concerning 6,842 and 1,703 eyes, respectively. A mean gain of +4.7 letters for a mean of 5.8 injections (mean follow-up: 15.6 months) and +9.6 letters for a mean of 1.6 injections (10.3 months) was found in the anti-VEGF and DEX-implant studies, respectively. Final VA appears to be similar for both treatment (62 letters for anti-VEGF, 61.2 letters for DEX-implant), and BVA appears lower for DEX-implant, which may partially explain the greater visual gain. The DEX-implant studies show greater gains in VA compared to the anti-VEGF studies, especially for higher BVA. Indeed, mean gains for the subgroups of patients with BVA<50 letters, 5060 letters are +4.3, +5.8, and +3.1 letters, respectively, in the anti-VEGF studies and +10.5, +9.3, and +8.8 letters, respectively, in the DEX-implant studies. Regarding the patient's initial status, only naïve status appears to confer the best functional response in DEX-implant studies.

CONCLUSION

Observational studies investigating DEX-implant report clinically similar final VA when compared to anti-VEGF, but superior visual gains in real-life practice. This latter difference could be due to the better BVA, but also to the fact that less injections were administered in the anti-VEGF observational studies than in the interventional studies.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract.

MAIN RESULTS

There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.