Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Injected 1 Month after Dexamethasone Implant for Diabetic Macular Oedema: the ILUVI1MOIS Study

What have we learned from a decade treating patients with diabetic macular oedema with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant?

Diabetic macular oedema [DMO] is a prevalent and sight-threatening condition among diabetic patients, which can cause irreversible blindness. Since angiogenesis and inflammation are two key elements in the etiopathogenesis of DMO, intravitreal injections of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors [anti-VEGF] and sustained released intravitreal corticosteroid implants are currently considered as treatments of choice. The introduction, 10 years ago, of the 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide [FAc] implant for treating eyes with vision impairment associated with recurrent and persistent DMO represented an important advance. Since then, two randomized-control trials and many real-world studies have shown its good efficacy/safety profile and the replicability of its treatment regimen. The FAc implant is, in general terms well tolerated, although it is associated with intraocular pressure-[IOP] and cataract-related adverse events [AEs]. Most IOP-related AEs are effectively controlled with ocular-hypotensive therapies. The objective of this paper is to review the role of FAc implant in the treatment of DMO over the 10 years since its launch, as well as its impact on clinical practice outcomes.

Fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci) one month after dexamethasone implant (DEXi) for chronic diabetic macular edema: 1-year results

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of FACi injected 1month after the last DEXi injection in pseudophakic patients without ocular hypertension who required frequent DEXi injections (<6months).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective study including pseudophakic patients with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) previously treated with DEXi without secondary ocular hypertension. All patients received DEXi followed by FAci one month later. Visits were scheduled at baseline, M1, then every 3months up to 12months.

RESULTS

Fourteen eyes of 11 patients were included and were followed until the 12-month time point. Visual gain was significant at M6 (+5.6 letters) and at M9 (+7.1 letters). A reduction in central macular thickness was obtained at 1 month (-86μm), remaining stable over subsequent visits. The rate of ocular hypertension requiring pressure lowering treatment was 14%. Three eyes needed additional treatment (21%); one eye was treated with aflibercept, and 2 eyes with DEXi at M5 and M11. No patient underwant additional FAc implantation during the 11 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Injection of FAci one month after DEXi in pseudophakic patients with chronic DME who responded previously to DEXi results in anatomical improvement and deferred visual gain. This prospective study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of both implants in DME patients who have been previously treated with other therapies.

Efficacy and Safety of Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema: Practical Guidelines from Reference Center

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Treatment with intravitreal injections is effective in most cases but is associated with a high therapeutic burden for patients. This implies the need for long-term treatments, such as the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant. A review of basic science, pharmacology, and clinical data was conducted to provide a state-of-the-art view of the FAc implant in 2024. Although generally well tolerated, the FAc implant has been associated with ocular hypertension and cataract, and caution should be advised to the patients in this regard. By synthesizing information across these domains, a comprehensive evaluation can be attained, facilitating informed decision-making regarding the use of the FAc implant in the management of DME. The main objective of this review is to provide clinicians with guidelines on how to introduce and use the FAc implant in a patient with DME.

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.