Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Ranibizumab Versus Dexamethasone for Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE C): A European Label Study

Intravitreal Injection of Conbercept Combined with Dexamethasone for Macular Edema Following Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

Background

To compare the efficacy of intravitreal injections of Conbercept combined with dexamethasone (DEX) for macular edema (ME) following central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

Methods

This was a prospective, single-masked, randomised, controlled clinical trial. Patients with ME following CRVO were randomised into groups to receive intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg Conbercept plus 0.2 mg DEX or 0.5 mg Conbercept alone on day 0 followed by repeat injections as indicated. The primary outcome measure was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 12. Secondary outcome measures included decrease in central retinal thickness (CRT), injection frequency and interval and percentage of patients who gained more than 15 ETDRS letters or achieved a CRT of < 250 μm at month 12.

Results

33 males (51%) and 32 females (49%) were initially recruited with an average age of 56.64 ± 13.88 years. Patients in the Conbercept and Conbercept + DEX groups gained an average of 14.55 ± 19.19 and 14.88 ± 17.68 ETDRS letters, respectively, at months 12 (t = 4.221, P = 0.000; and t = 4.834, P = 0.000) with no significant difference between the two groups (t = 0.071, P = 0.943). In the Conbercept group, the mean reduction in CRT from baseline to month 12 was 435.26 ± 293.37 μm (t = 8.261, P = 0.000) compared to 431.36 ± 294.55 (t = 8.413, P = 0.000) in the Conbercept + DEX group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (t = 0.053, P = 0.958). The Conbercept + DEX group received fewer intravitreal injections. No major complications occurred.

Conclusion

Conbercept, alone or with DEX, can improve BCVA and reduce CRT in ME following CRVO without serious adverse events. The treatment interval was longer in the Conbercept + DEX group.

Trial Registration

The study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry at 5 July 2017. (http://www.chictr.org.cn, 05/07/2017 Registration Number: ChiCTR-INR-17011877).

Initial response and 12-month outcomes after commencing dexamethasone or vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors for retinal vein occlusion in the FRB registry

To compare baseline characteristics, initial response and 12-month efficacy and safety outcomes in eyes with branch and central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO and CRVO) treated with dexamethasone implants (DEX) or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) we performed a multi-centre, retrospective and observational study using Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry. Of 725 eligible eyes, 10% received DEX initially with very frequent adjunctive anti-VEGF (BRVO-DEX 49%, CRVO-DEX 60%). The primary outcome of mean adjusted change in VA at 12 months with DEX and anti-VEGF initiated groups were not statistically significantly different (BRVO: DEX + 6.7, anti-VEGF + 10.6 letters; CRVO: DEX + 2.8, anti-VEGF + 6.8 letters). DEX initiated eyes had fewer injections and visits than anti-VEGF initiated eyes. The BRVO-DEX eyes had greater initial mean changes in VA and central subfield thickness (CST) and achieved inactivity sooner than BRVO-anti-VEGF eyes. The mean CST after the first three months was above 350 μm in all but the BRVO-anti-VEGF group, suggesting undertreatment. In routine care DEX is uncommonly used when available as initial treatment of BRVO and CRVO requiring supplemental anti-VEGF within the first year. The 12-month outcomes were similar, but DEX initiated eyes had fewer injections and visits but more episodes of raised IOP Vs those starting anti-VEGF.

Management of macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central retinal vein occlusion and branch retinal vein occlusion are common causes of visual loss due to associated macular oedema. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions improving vision and treating macular oedema in central retinal vein occlusion and branch retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

Medical search engines and clinical trial registries were systematically searched. Randomised clinical trials with ≥90 eyes and real-world outcome studies with ≥100 eyes each with ≥6 months follow-up were included.

RESULTS

There were 11 randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for central retinal vein occlusion which met the inclusion criteria and 10 for branch retinal vein occlusion. There were 10 real world outcome studies of central retinal vein occlusion and 5 real world outcome studies of branch retinal vein occlusion. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that met the defined inclusion criteria. Main outcomes were change in visual acuity at 6-, 12-, 24- and 36 months by treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial derived growth factor is recommended as first line treatment over intravitreal corticosteroid due to its effectiveness and lower rate of ocular adverse events. Best outcomes are achieved when intravitreal treatment is started early. Macular laser may have an adjunctive role in branch retina vein occlusion but not central retinal vein occlusion.

Efficacy and effectiveness of anti-VEGF or steroids monotherapy versus combination treatment for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the main cause of retinal vascular blindness. Laser photocoagulation therapy is the regarded as the standard treatment for branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) in the guidelines, but it is not effective for macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). As anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) or steroids monotherapy has been used to treat RVO, but each has its advantages and disadvantages. Our purpose was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intraocular injection of anti-VEGF combined with steroids versus anti-VEGF or steroids monotherapy for ME secondary to RVO.

METHODS

We systematically searched trials on Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for RCTs (random clinical trials) or non-RCTs, comparing anti-VEGF or steroids monotherapy to their combination. The primary outcomes were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and intraocular pressure (IOP). The pooled data was analyzed by random effects model.

FINDINGS

A total of 10 studies selected from 366 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Our results favored anti-VEGF with steroids combination therapy in comparison with anti-VEGF {pooled SMD (standardized mean difference), 95% CI, -0.16 [-0.28, -0.04], P = 0.01} or steroids (pooled SMD, 95% CI, -0.56 [-0.73, -0.40], P < 0.00001) alone on changes of BCVA. Compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy group, the combination therapy also had a better effect {pooled MD (mean difference), 95% CI, -9.62 [-17.31, -1.93], P = 0.01)} at improvements on CMT. On the changes of IOP, assessment favored that combination therapy was associated with a better relief of IOP compared to steroids monotherapy group (pooled MD, 95% CI, -5.93 [-7.87, -3.99],P < 0.00001). What's more, the incidence of ocular hypertension was lower in the combined treatment group compared with control group treated with steroids alone (Odds Ratio, 95% CI, 0.21 [0.06, 0.77], P = 0.02). Results also showed that the combination group can prolong the average time to first anti-VEGF reinjection (MD, 95% CI, 1.74 [0.57, 2.90], P = 0.003) compared to control group treated with anti-VEGF alone.

CONCLUSION

Anti-VEGF with steroids combination treatment can enable a better achievement of improving BCVA, CMT, reducing the risk of increased IOP and improving patient prognosis compared to anti-VEGF or steroids therapy alone, lengthening the average time to anti-VEGF reinjection with reducing the injections during follow-up.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of intravitreal VEGF inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi) have transformed the treatment of many retinal diseases, including diabetic maculopathy. Increasing evidence supports systemic absorption of intravitreal VEGFi and development of significant cardiorenal side effects.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020189037) of randomised controlled trials of intravitreal VEGFi treatments (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) for any eye disease. Outcomes of interest were cardiorenal side effects (hypertension, proteinuria, kidney function decline and heart failure). Fixed-effects meta-analyses were conducted where possible.

RESULTS

There were 78 trials (81 comparisons; 13 175 participants) that met criteria for inclusion: 47% were trials in diabetic eye disease. Hypertension (29 trials; 8570 participants) was equally common in VEGFi and control groups (7.3 versus 5.4%; RR 1.08 [0.91; 1.28]). New or worsening heart failure (10 trials; 3384 participants) had similar incidence in VEGFi and control groups (RR 1.03 [0.70; 1.51]). Proteinuria (5 trials; 1902 participants) was detectable in some VEGFi-treated participants (0.2%) but not controls (0.0%; RR 4.43 [0.49; 40.0]). Kidney function decline (9 trials; 3471 participants) was similar in VEGFi and control groups. In participants with diabetic eye disease, risk of all-cause mortality was higher in VEGFi-treated participants (RR 1.62 [1.04; 2.46]).

CONCLUSION

In trials of intravitreal VEGFi, we did not identify an increased risk of cardiorenal outcomes, though these outcomes were reported in only a minority of cases. There was an increased risk of death in VEGFi-treated participants with diabetic eye disease. Additional scrutiny of post-licensing observational data may improve recognition of safety concerns in VEGFi-treated patients.

Antivascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in treating macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-ME).

Methods

Studies of randomised controlled trials were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov registry. RevMan V.5.4 software and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.

Results

Seventeen studies were included in this meta-analysis. The anti-VEGF agents showed significant better mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement, more patients with ≧15 Early Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters gained and fewer patients with ≧15 ETDRS letters lost, more effectiveness at reducing central retinal thickness (CRT) and improving the quality of life than sham and steroids both at 6 and 12 months. Compared with laser, the anti-VEGF agents showed significant BCVA improvement and more effectiveness at CRT both at 6 and 12 months. The proportion of eyes gaining ≧15 ETDRS letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at 6 months. The anti-VEGF and other three groups reported similar levels of non-ocular serious adverse events (SAEs). The incidence of eye pain was significantly higher in the anti-VEGF group than in the sham group. There was a significant increase in the incidence of ocular AEs and conjunctival haemorrhage in the anti-VEGF group compared with the laser group. The incidence of elevated intraocular pressure and cataract was significantly higher in the steroid group than in the anti-VEGF group.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggested that treatment of ME secondary to RVO with anti-VEGF improves visual and anatomical outcomes compared with other treatments. Thus, anti-VEGF treatment is the first choice for treating patients with ME secondary to RVO.

Risk Factors and Treatment Strategy for Retinal Vascular Occlusive Diseases

Retinal occlusive diseases are common diseases that can lead to visual impairment. Retinal artery occlusion and retinal vein occlusion are included in the clinical entity, but they have quite different pathophysiologies. Retinal artery occlusion is an emergent eye disorder. Retinal artery occlusion is mainly caused by thromboembolism, which frequently occurs in conjunction with life-threatening stroke and cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, prompt examinations and interventions for systemic vascular diseases are often necessary for these patients. Retinal vein occlusion is characterized by retinal hemorrhage and ischemia, which may impair visual function via several complications such as macular edema, macular ischemia, vitreous hemorrhage, and neovascular glaucoma. Even though anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is the current established first-line of treatment for retinal vein occlusion, several clinical studies have been performed to identify better treatment protocols and new therapeutic options. In this review, we summarize the current findings and advances in knowledge regarding retinal occlusive diseases, particularly focusing on recent studies, in order to provide an update for a better understanding of its pathogenesis.

[Retinal vein occlusion : Intravitreal pharmacotherapies and treatment strategies for the management of macular edema]

Intravitreal injection treatment for the management of macular edema as an expression of increased capillary permeability and leakage constitute the mainstay of treatment in retinal vein occlusion. In contrast to diabetic retinopathy or neovascular age-related macular degeneration, permanent and complete functional and morphological restoration can be achieved, as retinal vein occlusions are usually associated with risk factors, but do not represent the manifestation form of an underlying systemic or degenerative chronic disorder; however, successful long-term management of retinal vein occlusion -associated macular edema usually requires intensive and also long-term continued treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors or with a less favorable side effect profile, dexamethasone. A functional treatment success can be maintained over the long term by both pro re nata (PRN) or treat and extend (T&E) regimens. In contrast, according to the currently available data, the combination of anti-VEGF administration and grid laser treatment has no additional benefit compared to monotherapy. In patients with recalcitrant macular edema, switching to another intravitreal agent may be considered during the course of treatment, although a true therapeutic benefit with respect to the development of visual acuity has not yet been proven. The current review summarizes the relevant aspects in the management of RVO-associated macular edema and provides the foundations for the application of successful treatment strategies.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Has Better Retinal Perfusion than Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Five-Year Real-World Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the long-term effect of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection on macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

The medical records of RVO-ME cases, with intravitreal injections and followed up for at least 5 years, were retrospectively reviewed. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were primary outcomes. Images of fluorescence angiography and swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography were analyzed. Foveal avascular zone (FAZ) metrics and perfusion density at the last visit were also compared between the two treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 16 patients were recruited, 8 in the anti-VEGF group and 8 in the DEX group. At the 5th year, the BCVA and the CMT in the DEX group were not different from those in the anti-VEGF group (0.69 ± 0.36 LogMAR vs. 0.57 ± 0.30 LogMAR, p = 0.574; 183.25 ± 97.31 µm vs. 195.38 ± 40.92 µm, p = 0.442). Compared with the anti-VEGF group, the DEX group had higher FAZ circularity index (0.57 ± 0.14 vs. 0.68 ± 0.14, p = 0.130) and higher retinal perfusion density (0.45 ± 0.02 vs. 0.39 ± 0.03, p = 0.001), especially in the deep capillary plexus.

CONCLUSION

DEX implant and anti-VEGF injection had comparative long-term effects on RVO-ME. Compared with the anti-VEGF treatment, the DEX treatment had advantages in maintaining retinal perfusion in patients with RVO.

Real-Life Efficacy of Bevacizumab Treatment for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion according to Pro Re Nata or Treat-and-Extend Regimen in Eyes with or without Epiretinal Membrane

Purpose. To present real-life data of patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) treated with bevacizumab (BVZ); determine the possible influence of epiretinal membrane (ERM) on treatment efficacy; and compare treatment outcomes in a treat-and-extend regimen (TER) versus pro re nata (PRN). Methods. We carried out a retrospective analysis of 58 eyes (56 patients) with new-onset CRVO treated only with intravitreal bevacizumab according to TER or PRN. Outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) at baseline and 12 months after the first treatment, number of visits and injections, and presence of ERM confirmed by optical coherence tomography in the first 6 months. Results. At 12 months, the mean number of injections was 6.3 across all eyes, with significantly more injections given in TER ( $p<0.001$ ). Mean CRT improved from 627 μm to 359 μm ( $p<0.001$ ) in all eyes, with improvement noted in TER ( $p<0.001$ ), PRN ( $p<0.001$ ), ERM ( $p=0.003$ ), and non-ERM ( $p<0.001$ ) subgroups. The mean BCVA gain was +13.6 letters, and the mean BCVA improved from 0.81 to 0.54 LogMAR ( $p<0.001$ ) in all eyes. BCVA improvement from baseline was significant in TER ( $p<0.001$ ) and non-ERM ( $p<0.001$ ) but not in PRN ( $p=0.08$ ) or ERM ( $p=0.2$ ) subgroups. Seven eyes, all receiving PRN treatment, developed neovascularization. Conclusions. Intravitreal bevacizumab according to either PRN or TER resolved edema and stabilized vision in the first 12 months, with TER yielding significant visual improvement and avoiding neovascular complications. ERM had no influence on bevacizumab efficacy in reducing ME in CRVO during 12 months of treatment.

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.

Real-world treatment intensities and pathways of macular edema following retinal vein occlusion in Korea from Common Data Model in ophthalmology

Despite many studies, optimal treatment sequences or intervals are still questionable in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) macular edema. The aim of this study was to examine the real-world treatment patterns of RVO macular edema. A retrospective analysis of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model, a distributed research network, of four large tertiary referral centers (n = 9,202,032) identified 3286 eligible. We visualized treatment pathways (prescription volume and treatment sequence) with sunburst and Sankey diagrams. We calculated the average number of intravitreal injections per patient in the first and second years to evaluate the treatment intensities. Bevacizumab was the most popular first-line drug (80.9%), followed by triamcinolone (15.1%) and dexamethasone (2.28%). Triamcinolone was the most popular drug (8.88%), followed by dexamethasone (6.08%) in patients who began treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. The average number of all intravitreal injections per person decreased in the second year compared with the first year. The average number of injections per person in the first year increased throughout the study. Bevacizumab was the most popular first-line drug and steroids were considered the most common as second-line drugs in patients first treated with anti-VEGF agents. Intensive treatment patterns may cause an increase in intravitreal injections.

Microvascular changes in the recurrent cystoid macular edema secondary to posterior noninfectious uveitis on optical coherence tomography angiography

Background

Posterior uveitis represents the second most frequent type of uveitis (15–30% of all uveitis). Noninfectious posterior uveitis complicated with secondary cystoid macular edema (CME) affects the visual prognosis negatively. The objective of the current study is to detect possible microvascular changes causing relapsing uveitis-related CME using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA).

Methods

This is an interventional, observational, retrospective study with 1 year follow-up. Patients with noninfectious, posterior uveitis-related CME undergoing dexamethasone (DEX) implant were evaluated. Following the DEX-implant were carried out control visits after 1 month, 2-months, 4-months, 6-months, and for up 1-year. A total of 76 eyes of 38 consecutive patients with noninfectious posterior uveitis were enrolled (consecutive sample). Complicated noninfectious posterior uveitis with secondary CME was diagnosed in 56 eyes of uveitis patients (73.7%) and reviewed.

Results

Our investigation showed (1) a reduction in superficial vessel plexus (SVP) measurements within 2-month (84%), reaching 96.4% for up 1-year, (2) an irregular profile of SVP in 69.6% of cases, persisting for up 1-year; relapsing uveitis-related CME eyes with irregular superficial foveal avascular zone (FAZ) profile were in 51%, while the SVP measurements reestablished in 100% of cases. Conversely, (3) the deep vascular plexus (DVP) parameters restored in a lower number of eyes within the 2-month (39.3%), remaining abnormal in 46.4% of cases for up 1-year; despite DVP restored in 53.6% of cases for up 1 year, (4) a capillary rarefaction ring around the FAZ appeared in 80.4% of cases; the relapsing uveitis-related CME eyes with abnormal DVP parameters were present in 41% of cases, of which 92.1% showed a rarefaction ring had abnormal DVP.

Conclusions

The use of OCTA enabled the evaluation in detail of retinal microvascular changes. We suggested that the possibility of the recurrence of the uveitis-related CME depends on the persistence of modifications of the superficial and deep layers. In this regard, we propose to implement the current imaging armamentarium with OCTA for the follow-up of patients with noninfectious uveitis-related CME.

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.

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.

Retinal vein occlusion: drug targets and therapeutic implications

INTRODUCTION

The pathogenesis of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is extremely complex and includes several mediators. These mediators represent potential drug targets that can be used in the development of intravitreal drugs.

AREAS COVERED

PubMed/MEDLINE databases were accessed between April-May 2021 to find the most relevant scientific papers regarding drug targets and therapeutic implications in RVO, focusing on current therapeutic options and potential cornerstones of future advances in treatment.

EXPERT OPINION

Before the introduction of intravitreal therapies, the visual outcome following a diagnosis of RVO was extremely poor. Anti-VEGF and corticosteroid treatments have radically changed RVO prognosis, helping to preserve patients' visual function and their quality of life. According to current clinical data, anti-VEGF and corticosteroid drugs are associated with both pros and cons; the present recommendation is to employ anti-VEGF molecules as a first-line treatment. Advances in our understanding of the biomolecular characteristics of RVO offer a solid basis for the development of new therapeutic targets and treatments.

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion.

DESIGN

This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of -5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows - ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval -2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference -1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval -6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was -3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval -8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means -1.8, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to -0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered.

FUTURE WORK

To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Success of Masking 5% Povidone-Iodine Treatment: The Reducing Adenoviral Patient Infected Days Study

SIGNIFICANCE

The effectiveness of masking is rarely evaluated or reported in single- or double-masked clinical trials. Knowledge of treatment assignment by participants and clinicians can bias the assessment of treatment efficacy.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of masking in a double-masked trial of 5% povidone-iodine for the treatment of adenoviral conjunctivitis.

METHODS

The Reducing Adenoviral Patient Infected Days study is a double-masked, randomized trial comparing a one-time, in-office administration of 5% povidone-iodine with artificial tears for the treatment of adenoviral conjunctivitis. Masking was assessed by asking participants and masked clinicians at designated time points if they believed the treatment administered was povidone-iodine or artificial tears, or if they were unsure. Adequacy of masking was quantified using a modified Bang Blinding Index.

RESULTS

Immediately after treatment, 34% of participants who received povidone-iodine and 69% of those who received artificial tears guessed incorrectly or were unsure of their treatment (modified Bang Indices of 0.31 and -0.38, respectively). On day 4, 38% of the povidone-iodine participants and 52% of the artificial tear participants guessed incorrectly or were unsure of their treatment (modified Bang Indices of 0.24 and -0.05, respectively), indicating adequate and ideal masking. On days 1, 4, 7, 14, and 21, masked clinicians guessed incorrectly or were unsure of treatment in 53%, 50%, 40%, 39%, and 42% among povidone-iodine participants compared with 44%, 35%, 38%, 35%, and 39% among artificial tears participants, respectively. The modified Bang Indices for clinician masking in the povidone-iodine group ranged from -0.05 to 0.25 and from 0.13 to 0.29 in the artificial tears group.

CONCLUSIONS

Masking of participants and clinicians was adequate. Successful masking increases confidence that subjective measurements are not biased. We recommend quantitative assessment and reporting the effectiveness of masking in ophthalmic clinical trials.

Cardiovascular Adverse Events With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Systemic safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) is a matter of debate and regular updates are necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate systemic adverse events (SAEs) associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs compared with non-anti-VEGF treatments in patients with ocular diseases.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to July 7, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials conducted in adults with retinal diseases who received intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Studies and treatment characteristics and outcome data were extracted and analyzed, and study quality was evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Main outcomes were major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and total mortality. Secondary outcomes included nonocular hemorrhage, components of MACEs, other cardiovascular outcomes, serious SAEs, and all SAEs.

RESULTS

A total of 74 randomized clinical trials were analyzed: 32 trials (43%) included 14 190 patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), 24 (32%) included 5424 patients with diabetic retinopathy (diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy), 17 trials (23%) included 3757 patients with retinal vein occlusion, and 1 trial (1%) included 122 patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization. Anti-VEGF drug administration did not increase MACEs compared with control agents (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 0.85-1.58) or total mortality (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.82-1.96). There was an interaction (subgroup difference, P = .04) in mortality risk depending on the underlying disease with an increase (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03-3.16; P = .04) in the risk of death in patients with diabetic retinopathy; however, no increase was observed in patients with AMD or retinal vein occlusion. Administration of anti-VEGF drugs increased the risk of nonocular hemorrhage (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10), mainly in patients with AMD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Intravitreal anti-VEGF was not associated with an increase in MACEs in the trials examined herein. Increased mortality in patients with diabetes and nonocular hemorrhages, especially in those with AMD, could represent a safety signal, but the evidence was not strong. However, continued surveillance of SAEs remains warranted.

Retinal vascular occlusions

Acute retinal vascular occlusions are common causes of visual impairment. Although both retinal artery occlusions and retinal vein occlusions are associated with increased age and cardiovascular risk factors, their pathophysiology, systemic implications, and management differ substantially. Acute management of retinal artery occlusions involves a multidisciplinary approach including neurologists with stroke expertise, whereas treatment of retinal vein occlusions is provided by ophthalmologists. Optimisation of systemic risk factors by patients' primary care providers is an important component of the management of these two disorders.

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.

Comparison between Ozurdex and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for retinal vein occlusion-related macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatments for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). The electronic databases comprehensively searched for the studies that compared DEX with anti-VEGF treatments in patients suffering from RVO-related ME. The effectiveness was estimated using best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). All data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3. According to the meta-analysis from five randomized control trials, both DEX implant and anti-VEGF agent treatments were effective, but no significant differences in BCVA and CRT were observed between these two treatments. Novartis’ two studies indicated that anti-VEGF agents significantly reduced the CRT compared with DEX implant at 6 months [weighted mean difference: 158.53 μm, 95% confidence interval (CI): (71.09, 245.96), P = 0.0004]. Furthermore, anti-VEGF agents showed some advantages on cataract formation [risk ratio (RR): 3.43, 95% CI: (1.35, 8.71), P = 0.009] and other adverse events [RR: 1.19, 95% CI: (1.09, 1.31), P = 0.0002] without heterogeneity (P = 0.20, I² = 35%). Anti-VEGF agents were also effective treatments for cataract formation or less adverse events for RVO-related ME. In contrast, DEX implant had higher risk for IOP elevation and lower cataract incidence than anti-VEGF agents. Hence, complementary and alternative treatments are expected.

Use of Anti-VEGF Drugs in Retinal Vein Occlusions

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is one of the most prevalent causes of visual loss in the Western World. Its pathogenesis is still not completely known. Chronic macular edema and ischemia compromise the functional and anatomical status of the retina. Antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections have demonstrated better results than other previous options, including observation or laser therapy. This narrative review aims to analyze the current aspects related to these drugs.

Simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone and aflibercept for refractory macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess the functional and anatomical outcomes of concurrent administration of aflibercept injection and dexamethasone (DEX) implant in patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), refractory to each of the two drugs previously administered as monotherapy. Secondary outcomes included the number of retreatments required in a 12-month follow-up and safety.

METHODS

This is a prospective, interventional case series of consecutive patients with refractory ME secondary to RVO, followed over a year. One injection of aflibercept was followed by a DEX implant on the same day; retreatment was driven by the persistence of ME on SD-OCT at least 4 months after the previous combined therapy. Central retinal thickness (CRT), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were collected at 1 month and then every 2 months until the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty eyes of 30 Caucasian patients were enrolled; mean duration of RVO before the first combined treatment was 25 ± 5 months (range 11 ± 30). Baseline BCVA was 0.73 ± 0.5 LogMAR, with no significant changes at 12 months (0.77 ± 0.51 μm, p = 0.2). Baseline CRT was 578.3 ± 161 μm, reducing to 352.5 ± 81 μm at 12 months (p = 0.003). Thirteen eyes (43.3%) required a second treatment. Twenty eyes (66.6%) showed no ME at the end of follow-up. One patient (3.3%) required topical IOP-lowering therapy during the study.

CONCLUSION

In eyes with ME secondary to RVO unresponsive to either aflibercept or DEX administered singularly, a combination therapy with simultaneous administration of aflibercept and DEX was effective in resolving ME, despite the absence of visual improvement. Earlier combined treatment in the course of the disease might lead to better functional outcomes.

Aflibercept versus dexamethasone for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion

INTRODUCTION

Macular edema is a frequent complication of central retinal vein occlusion that might lead to deterioration of visual acuity. The most commonly used treatments are dexamethasone implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs, being aflibercept one of the most commonly used them. However, there is no consensus about which treatment constitute the best alternative.

METHODS

We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified two systematic reviews that included four primary studies overall, all randomized trials. We concluded that it is not possible to establish whether aflibercept is superior to dexamethasone in terms of improvement of visual acuity and safety, because the certainty of the existing evidence has been evaluated as very low.

Real-World Data: Ranibizumab Treatment For Retinal Vein Occlusion In The OCEAN Study

Purpose

The non-interventional OCEAN study (NCT02194803) evaluated frequency and monitoring of ranibizumab injections for retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in routine practice in Germany.

Methods

RVO patients (including branch and central RVO (BRVO/CRVO)) receiving ranibizumab were included. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) testing, imaging and treatment were performed at the investigators’ discretion and documented over 24 months.

Results

Overall, 744 RVO patients (27% BRVO, 16% CRVO, remaining unspecified RVO) were included. For 74% of patients, data were available for the 12-month visit and for 56% for the 24-month visit. Mean baseline BCVA was 52.0 Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (BRVO: 55.9, CRVO: 43.9). BCVA improved rapidly within the first 3 months, reaching 64.3 letters at 12 months and 64.7 at 24 months. CRVO patients showed less improvement than those with BRVO. Patients received a median of 4 (5) injections over 12 (24) months, with 100% of patients receiving injections at baseline, 70% at Month 1 and 81% at Month 2. Overall, 40% of patients demonstrated a ≥15 letter increase within the first 3 months (42% BRVO, 46% CRVO). Patients with low initial BCVA (<50 letters) showed greater improvement than patients with higher baseline BCVA. Due to considerable loss to follow-up, the number of injections and optical coherence tomography (OCT) examinations were not associated with the change in BCVA.

Conclusion

Patients with RVO in routine practice in Germany received fewer injections and fewer OCT examinations than in clinical trials. CRVO patients showed less and later improvement compared to BRVO patients.

Ranibizumab Pro Re nata versus Dexamethasone in the Management of Ischemic Retinal Vein Occlusion: Post-hoc Analysis from the COMRADE Trials

Purpose: To compare ischemia-related clinical outcomes in patients treated with either ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) or single dexamethasone implant in the Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE-B) or Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE-C) trials.Methods: A post-hoc analysis of the Phase IIIb, 6-month, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, COMRADE-B and COMRADE-C trials. Change over 6 months in retinal ischemia status (central avascular [CA] zone and peripheral nonperfusion [PNP]), mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the development of shunt vessels and neovascularization, and frequency of laser therapy were assessed in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) patients treated with either ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN or single dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, as per European labels, in the COMRADE-B (N = 244; ranibizumab, 126, dexamethasone, 118) or COMRADE-C (N = 243; ranibizumab, 124, dexamethasone, 119) trials. BCVA progression in ischemic vs. non-ischemic patients based on the ischemia assessment at month 6 was carried out.Results: Visual acuity (VA) gains from baseline to month 6 were higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone in both patients with central ischemia and those with peripheral retinal nonperfusion, independent of the type of RVO (branch or central). The presence of CA and PNP had a significant impact on VA gain over 6 months in CRVO patients (p < .0001), while there was no significant impact in BRVO. Ranibizumab was associated with less new ischemia than dexamethasone. Central RVO patients treated with dexamethasone received more laser treatments over the 6 months than those treated with ranibizumab, while there was no difference in the frequency of laser therapy between the branch RVO treatment groups.Conclusions: VA gain over six months in ranibizumab-treated RVO patients is not affected by ischemia, and is associated with less development of new ischemia during the first 6 months of treatment and equal or fewer laser treatments than dexamethasone implant.

Guidelines for the Management of Retinal Vein Occlusion by the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA)

The high prevalence of cardiovascular disease particularly in the elderly population is associated with retinal vascular disease. Retinal vein occlusions represent severe disturbances of the hypoxia-sensitive neurosensory retina. Acute and excessive leakage leads to the diagnostic hallmarks of retinal hemorrhage and edema with substantial retinal thickening. Advanced diagnostic tools such as OCT angiography allow to evaluate retinal ischemia and identify the risk for late complications and will soon reach clinical routine besides fluorescein angiography. Accordingly, the duration of non-perfusion is a crucial prognostic factor requiring timely therapeutic intervention. With immediate inhibition of vascular leakage, anti-VEGF substances excel as treatment of choice. Multiple clinical trials with optimal potential for functional benefit or a lesser regenerative spectrum have evaluated aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab. As retinal vein occlusion is a chronic disease, long-term monitoring should be individualized to combine maintenance with practicability. While steroids may be considered in patients with systemic cardiovascular risk, surgery remains advisable only for very few patients. Destructive laser treatment is an option if reliable monitoring is not feasible. Ophthalmologists are also advised to perform a basic systemic workup to recognize systemic concomitants. The current edition of the EURETINA guidelines highlights the state-of-the-art recommendations based on the literature and expert opinions in retinal vein occlusion.

Intravitreal Medications for Retinal Vein Occlusion: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes of different intravitreal injections for the treatment of retinal vein occlusion including central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, the metaRegister of ControlledTrials, and ClinicalTrials were searched for intravitreal anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and steroids with relevant keywords and date limitation of 2009-2018. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that met the defined inclusion criteria. Main outcomes were visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT).

Results

Out of 681 studies, 36 articles (including 21 reporting CRVO and 15 dealing with BRVO) were selected for systematic review. All five intravitreal drugs including triamcinolone, dexamethasone, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept showed improvement of CMT and VA as compared to placebo or laser treatment. Six randomized controlled trials were selected for meta-analysis in RVO patients. The pooled mean difference of visual improvement between sham and ranibizumab was 12.7 Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (95%CI: 11.00 to 13.2), and the pooled mean difference in CMT reduction was 221μm (95%CI: 153 to 284); both changes were significantly in favor of ranibizumab. The pooled mean difference of visual improvement between bevacizumab and triamcinolone was 5.3 ETDRS letters in favor of bevacizumab (95%CI: 16 μm to 17.5 μm). Triamcinolone led to 68.1 μm greater CMT reduction than bevacizumab (95%CI: 58 μm to 76 μm). However, none of these differences were statistically significant.

Conclusion

Treatment with anti-VEGF agents in RVO is superior to observation. No significant difference was seen between the eyes treated with bevacizumab or triamcinolone based on these results.

Efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with retinal vein occlusion resistant to anti-VEGF therapy: a 12-month prospective study

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of repeated intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) injections administrated on an "as-needed" protocol for retinal vein occlusion patients with macular oedema, previously subjected to at least five anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections with poor or no response. Methods: Prospective interventional case series of 13 branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and 10 central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) patients with persistent macular oedema (>250 μm) after at least five anti-VEGF injections. Exclusion criteria included: baseline visual acuity worse than 1.5 logMAR, previous intravitreal implant, history of vitreoretinal surgery, manifest glaucoma or ocular hypertension, epiretinal membrane, retinal neovascularization, massive retinal or macular ischaemia, vitreous haemorrhage or severe lens opacity, previous laser photocoagulation treatment. Each patient received an initial intraocular dexamethasone implant and the procedure was repeated at 6 months "as needed." Patients were followed up at months 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 with spectral domain optical coherence tomography and best corrected visual acuity measurements. Exclusion criteria included: baseline visual acuity worse than 1.5 logMAR, previous intravitreal implant, history of vitreoretinal surgery, manifest glaucoma or ocular hypertension, epiretinal membrane, retinal neovascularization, retinal or macular ischaemia, vitreous haemorrhage or severe lens opacity, previous laser photocoagulation treatment. Patients on topical or systemic corticosteroid therapy (during the last 3 months), and known steroid responders as well as diabetic patients were also excluded. Results: In the BRVO group, the mean central retinal thickness (CRT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved from 482.92 ± 139.99 μm (0.55 ± 0.12 logMAR) at baseline, to 369.31 ± 119.72 μm (0.43 ± 0.18 logMAR) at 6 months (p = 0.011/p = 0.019). At 12 months CRT was 295.82 ± 135.48 μm (p = 0.026) and BCVA 0.29 ± 0.17 logMAR (p = 0.002). Minimum CRT values were achieved at 3.45 months after the first injection, and 2.46 months after the second injection (197.00 ± 84.27 and 180.00 ± 76.89 μm, respectively). Best BCVA values were achieved at a mean of 4 ± 0.853 months after the first injection, and 4 months after the second injection (0.219 ± 0.129 and 0.222 ± 0.078 logMAR, respectively). In the CRVO group, neither the mean CRT nor BCVA improved significantly at 6 months: from 669.70 ± 203.20 μm (0.80 ± 0.231 logMAR) at baseline, to 586.20 ± 237.63 μm (0.740 ± 0.268 logMAR) at 6 months (p = 0.131/p = 0.333). At 12 months CRT was significantly improved: 549.90 ± 191.26 μm (p = 0.047), but BCVA lacked significant improvement: 0.690 ± 0.285 logMAR (p = 0.072). Minimum CRT values were achieved at a mean of 2 months after the first injection, and also 2 months after the second injection (261.60 ± 121.31 and 280.00 ± 177.43 μm, respectively). Best BCVA values were achieved at a mean of 2 months after the first injection, and 2 months after the second injection and were 0.390 ± 0.173 and 0.385 ± 0.233 logMAR, respectively. Cataract progression was a rare event (2/23 eyes), while transient steroid-induced ocular hypertension (5/23 eyes) was managed successfully with IOP-lowering medication Conclusion: Dexamethasone implant should be considered as an effective and safe alternative in patients with BRVO and CRVO who have failed anti-VEGF therapy. Shortening the re-injection interval especially for CRVO cases should be considered.

Effect of funding source on reporting bias in studies of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To examine the relationship between industry funding and outcome reporting bias in high-quality studies investigating the use of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for patients with macular oedema secondary to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

This systematic review in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE examined all randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses published in journals with impact factor of ≥2 that investigated effectiveness of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy in patients with RVO. The main outcome measure was correspondence between statistical outcome and abstract conclusion wording.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria; 38 (84%) showed correspondence between outcome and abstract conclusion without difference between industry-funded and nonindustry-funded publications (p = 0.39) or between publications in journals with impact factor ≥3 versus <3 (p = 0.96).

CONCLUSION

In high-quality studies of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for RVO, neither industry funding nor journal impact factor affected the rate of outcome reporting bias.

Intravitreal corticosteroid implant vs intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of macular edema: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid implant and intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of macular edema (ME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implant with ranibizumab in patients with ME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze the data, and the modified Jadad assessment tool was used to access the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our analysis. The types of causes of ME include central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), and diabetic retinopathy (DR). The ranibizumab treatment group had significantly better BCVA compared with the corticosteroid treatment group (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.80; 95% CI -1.08, -0.53; P<0.00001). The ranibizumab treatment group also had higher CST reduction compared with the corticosteroid treatment group, and there was a significant difference (weighted mean difference [WMD] 167.58; 95% CI 125.21-209.95; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference in serious adverse effects between the two groups (SMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.69, 4.05; P=0.26). However, the use of corticosteroid implant had a higher risk of intraocular pressure (IOP) (OR 6.88; 95% CI 4.53-10.44; P<0.00001) elevation and cataract (OR 3.98; 95% CI 1.89-8.37; P=0.0003) than ranibizumab treatment and fewer injections.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ranibizumab, corticosteroid implant did not have greater improved BCVA, but corticosteroid implant had less CST reduction. The advantages of corticosteroids are fewer injections, while the advantages of ranibizumab include fewer side effects.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implants versus intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment in treating patients with retinal vein occlusion: a meta-analysis

Background

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common retinal venous disorder that causes vision loss. No specific therapy has been developed. Controversy exists regarding two treatments: intravitreal dexamethasone implants and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone implants and anti-VEGF treatment for RVO.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implants with anti-VEGF in patients with RVO. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), intraocular pressure changes, conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema were extracted from the final included studies. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct the quantitative analysis and bias assessment.

Results

Four randomised controlled trials assessing 969 eyes were included. The anti-VEGF treatment showed better BCVA improvement (mean difference [MD] = − 10.59, P < 0.00001) and more CST decrease (MD = − 86.71 μm, P = 0.02) than the dexamethasone implants. However, the dexamethasone implants required fewer injections. As for adverse effects, the dexamethasone implants showed significantly higher intraocular pressure (IOP) and more cataracts than the anti-VEGF treatment. No significant differences were found in conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema.

Conclusions

Anti-VEGF treatment showed better functional and anatomical improvement with less risk of IOP elevation and cataract formation compared to dexamethasone implants. Thus, anti-VEGF treatment is the first choice for treating RVO patients.

Disorganization of Retinal Inner Layers and Ellipsoid Zone Disruption Predict Visual Outcomes in Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess the associations and predictive value of spectral-domain (SD) OCT inner and outer retinal structural parameters and visual acuity (VA) outcomes in macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

DESIGN

Retrospective, longitudinal cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-four patients with ME secondary to CRVO receiving pro re nata anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy at 3 tertiary-level retina referral centers.

METHODS

In all participants, VA, demographic and clinical parameters, and SD OCT images from baseline, 3 months, and 12 months were reviewed. Spectral-domain OCT-based morphologic features in the 1500-μm foveal zone were analyzed by masked graders for disorganization of the retinal inner layers (DRIL), ellipsoid zone (EZ) and external limiting membrane disruption, cone outer segment tip (COST) visibility, cysts, subretinal and intraretinal fluid, and epiretinal membranes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Spectral-domain OCT-based retinal structural parameters and VA outcomes.

RESULTS

In multivariate analyses adjusting for baseline VA, worsening VA over 1 year was associated with 1-year increases in DRIL (point estimate, 0.06 per 100 μm; P < 0.001) and EZ disruption (0.07 per 100 μm; P = 0.023), but decreased COST visibility (-0.09 per 100 μm; P = 0.018). A 3-month increase in DRIL (0.05 per 100 μm; P = 0.003) and EZ disruption (0.10 per 100 μm; P < 0.001) were the only factors predicting VA worsening over 1 year, after controlling for baseline VA. A multivariate model including 3-month evolution in DRIL, EZ disruption, and VA accounted for 86.3% of variability in 1-year VA change. Absolute differences between predicted and actual 1-year VA were within 2 lines in 80.9%. When DRIL increased by 250 μm or more over 3 months, no eyes showed VA improvement of 1 line or more in 1 year. When EZ disruption decreased by 250 μm or more over 3 months, no eyes worsened by 1 line or more over 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Early recovery over 3 months in both DRIL and EZ parameters are key drivers of 1-year VA outcomes. Predictive models incorporating 3-month changes in DRIL and EZ disruption support their usefulness as potential robust determinants of future VA.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of drug therapies for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and corticosteroids for the treatment of macular oedema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients from previously reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF and corticosteroids for the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until March 2017. Therapeutic effects were estimated using the proportions of patients gaining/losing ≥15 letters, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Treatment safety was estimated using the proportions of adverse events, namely increased intraocular pressure (IOP), cataracts, vitreous haemorrhage (VH) and retinal tear. The software ADDIS (V.1.16.8) was used for analysis. Treatment effect and safety of different drugs could be ranked based on simulation.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comprising 2060 patients were identified. Regarding patients gaining ≥15 letters, aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly more effective than sham/placebo at 6 months. Regarding patients losing ≥15 letters at 6 months, ranibizumab showed significant improvement compared with dexamethasone. Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab showed greater improvements in BCVA than sham/placebo at 6 months. Intravitreal ranibizumab injection demonstrated greater CRT reduction than both sham and dexamethasone did. Dexamethasone had a higher risk of increased IOP than aflibercept and ranibizumab. Ranibizumab demonstrated a greater risk of cataracts than dexamethasone. Aflibercept and ranibizumab demonstrated low incidence of VH and retinal tear, respectively. Aflibercept had a slight advantage over ranibizumab as assessed by benefit-risk analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF agents have advantages in the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO. Aflibercept and ranibizumab showed marked BCVA improvement and CRT reduction. Aflibercept may have a slight advantage over ranibizumab. The results of this study can serve as a reference for clinicians to provide patient-tailored treatment.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017064076.

Comparison of ranibizumab versus dexamethasone for macular oedema following retinal vein occlusion: 1-year results of the COMRADE extension study

PURPOSE

The COMRADE studies are the first randomized controlled head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab versus dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). The COMRADE extension trial was designed to provide additional 6-month data of patients who completed the core studies.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase IV study patients who completed the COMRADE core studies were prospectively enrolled. Overall, 92 branch RVO (BRVO) patients (ranibizumab 52, DEX 40) and 83 central RVO (CRVO) patients (ranibizumab 61, DEX 22) were treated, and 94.6% of BRVO patients and 97.6% of CRVO patients completed the extension study. Patients were assigned to the same treatment group as in the core studies. Patients were monitored monthly and received either 0.5 mg ranibizumab or a 0.7 mg DEX implant as needed.

RESULTS

Over the course of the extension, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of the study eye occurred in 55.8% of BRVO patients on ranibizumab and in 62.5% of those on DEX. Among CRVO patients, 65.5% in the ranibizumab group and 59.1% in the DEX group developed TEAEs. Overall, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) was more frequent with DEX than ranibizumab treatment. Mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in BRVO patients was significantly better for ranibizumab than DEX (p = 0.0249). The CRVO results were consistent with BRVO's, although not significant (p = 0.1119).

CONCLUSION

When used according to the European labels, ranibizumab revealed a better ocular safety profile and produced greater average BCVA gains than DEX. By the end of the additional 6-month study period, this difference in BCVA was more pronounced in BRVO as in CRVO patients. The main limitation of the COMRADE studies was that DEX patients received only a single intravitreal treatment during the first 6 months, which is presumably not adequate. However, frequent DEX implants could lead to more steroid-related side effects, especially to an increased intraocular pressure.

Extended Injection Intervals after Switching from Ranibizumab to Aflibercept in Macular Edema due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess treatment interval extension after switching from ranibizumab to aflibercept intravitreal injections in macular edema (ME) due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) with an insufficient response or frequent recurrences to initial treatment.

METHODS

CRVO eyes treated with ranibizumab injections on a treat-and-extend (TAE) basis with an insufficient response or frequent recurrences were switched to aflibercept. Primary endpoint was the change in injection intervals before and after the switch.

RESULTS

Eleven eyes were included in this retrospective bicentric study. Before switching, patients received a mean number of 15.3 ranibizumab injections (range, 6-34) during a mean follow-up of 23.4 months (range, 6-57). After switching to aflibercept, patients received a mean number of 12.4 injections (range, 6-20) during a mean follow-up of 25.5 months (range, 16-38). Treatment interval could be extended from 6.1 (range, 4-8) to 11 weeks (range, 8-16) (p=0.001) corresponding to a mean extension of injection interval of +4.9 weeks.

CONCLUSION

In case of insufficient response or frequent recurrences of ME due to CRVO in patients treated with ranibizumab on a TAE basis, switching to aflibercept could allow extending treatment intervals, which could reduce the injection burden for these patients.

Subconjunctival dendrimer-drug therapy for the treatment of dry eye in a rabbit model of induced autoimmune dacryoadenitis

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy of a single subconjunctival injection of dendrimer-dexamethasone conjugate in a rabbit model of induced autoimmune dacryoadenitis (AID).

METHODS

Dendrimer biodistribution after subconjunctival injection in AID animals was evaluated using Cy5-labelled dendrimer (D-Cy5) and confocal microscopy. Diseased animals were treated with free dexamethasone (Free-Dex), dendrimer-dexamethasone (D-Dex), or saline via a single subconjunctival injection. The efficacy was evaluated using various clinical evaluations, such as Schirmer's test, tear breakup time (TBUT), and fluorescein and rose Bengal staining. Histopathology was evaluated by H&E staining and immunostaining. Levels of inflammatory cytokines and aquaporin proteins in the LGs were determined by real-time PCR.

RESULTS

Subconjunctivally administered dendrimers selectively localized in the inflamed LGs, and were taken up by the infiltrating cells. At two weeks post single dose-treatment, the D-Dex group showed improved clinical evaluations. No significant changes were observed in other groups. H&E staining demonstrated less inflammatory cell infiltration and fewer atrophic acini in D-Dex group, compared to those treated with saline or Free-Dex. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated that the intensity of CD-18 (+) and RTLA (+) was weaker in LGs in the D-Dex group than in other treatment groups. Pro-inflammatory gene expression levels of MMP9, IL6, IL8, and TNFα were significantly decreased in the D-Dex group compared to the Free-Dex and saline group.

CONCLUSIONS

The dendrimer exhibits pathology-dependent biodistribution in the inflamed LGs. Subconjunctivally administered D-Dex suppressed LG inflammation, leading to partial recovery of LG function with clinical improvement in induced AID. Sjögren's patients may benefit from this targeted nanomedicine approach.

A 12-month, multicenter, parallel group comparison of dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus ranibizumab in branch retinal vein occlusion

Purpose:

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant and intravitreal ranibizumab are indicated for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. This non-inferiority study compared dexamethasone with ranibizumab in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion.

Methods:

In this randomized, 12-month head-to-head comparison, subjects with branch retinal vein occlusion were assigned to dexamethasone 0.7 mg at day 1 and month 5 with the option of retreatment at month 10 or 11, or ranibizumab 0.5 mg at day 1 and monthly through month 5 with subsequent as-needed injections at month 6–month 11. The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity at month 12; secondary outcomes included average change in best-corrected visual acuity, proportion of eyes with ≥10- and ≥15-letter gain/loss, change in central retinal thickness, and change in Vision Functioning Questionnaire-25 score.

Results:

In all, 307 of a planned 400 patients were enrolled in the study and received (mean) 2.5 dexamethasone injections (n = 154) and 8.0 ranibizumab injections (n = 153) over 12 months. The mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity at month 12 was 7.4 letters for dexamethasone versus 17.4 letters for ranibizumab (least-squares mean difference (dexamethasone minus ranibizumab), −10.1 letters; 95% confidence interval, −12.9, −7.2; p = 0.0006).

Conclusion:

Dexamethasone and ranibizumab improved best-corrected visual acuity and anatomical outcomes; however, dexamethasone did not show non-inferiority to ranibizumab in this under-powered study. Dexamethasone was associated with an increased risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract progression, but a lower injection burden, compared to ranibizumab.

The short-term efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone implant in the treatment of macular edema due to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the efficacy over 6 months of intravitreal ranibizumab (IR), aflibercept (IA) and dexamethasone implant (IDI) in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients who received pro re nata treatment of IR 0.5 mg, IA 2 mg or IDI 0.7 mg (as Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively) for the treatment of ME due to non-ischemic CRVO were included in the study. Efficacy outcomes were considered as the changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline over 6 months.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (Group 1) received IR, 16 patients received (Group 2) IA, and 24 patients (Group 3) received IDI. The mean numbers of injections were 2.56 ± 1.0, 2.68 ± 0.9, and 1.62 ± 0.5 in Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.000). In Groups 1 and 2, the mean BCVA values increased significantly after the treatment (p < 0.001). However, in Group 3, no increase in mean BCVA was statistically significant in any month (p = 0.061). The proportion of eyes gaining at least three lines in BCVA was 33.3% in Group 1, 43.8% in Group 2, and 33.3% in Group 3 (p = 0.762). In all groups, significant improvements were observed in CMT after treatment (p < 0.001). At month 6, the mean changes in CMT were - 162.7 ± 186.5 µm in Group 1, - 310.1 ± 345.9 µm in Group 2, and - 193.8 ± 228.3 µm in Group 3, with no significant difference among groups (p = 0.474). Cataract formation and IOP increase were higher in the IDI group, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.054 and p = 0.392, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IR and IA may be preferred treatment for ME due to non-ischemic CRVO as visual improvement remains the primary ophthalmological objective. The most important advantages of IDI are its effect on CMT and the need for fewer injections. The increase in IOP and the formation of cataract may be observed more in IDI-treated eyes.

Bevacizumab versus Dexamethasone Implant Followed by Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macula Edema Associated with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Purpose

To compare visual and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) treatment for macular edema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent intravitreal bevacizumab administered monthly on a pro re nata (PRN) basis (26 eyes, IVB group) or an initial 700-µg dexamethasone implant followed by a bevacizumab PRN injection (20 eyes, IVD group) for treatment of macular edema associated with BRVO. We compared best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). We also measured ellipsoid zone recovery rate and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer volume within the center 6 mm zone. A linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare serial changes in BCVA and CMT.

Results

Both groups showed significant improvement in BCVA and significant reduction in CMT. However, BCVA in the first month was significantly better in the IVD group (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, IVD group 0.21 ± 0.26 vs. IVB group 0.39 ± 0.30, p = 0.038) and the 1-month CMT was thinner in the IVD group (IVD group 270.0 ± 62.0 µm vs. IVB group 338.9 ± 122.6 µm, p = 0.028), and these trends were maintained during the 6-month follow-up. The IVD group showed more rapid macular edema resolution (p = 0.049); however, there were no significant differences in ellipsoid zone recovery rate (p = 0.268) or ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer volume between the two groups (p = 0.459).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in final visual or anatomical outcomes between the two groups; however, initial dexamethasone implant injection followed by bevacizumab PRN injection initially showed more rapid improvement in vision and BRVO-associated macular edema resolution compared to intravitreal bevacizumab administered monthly on a PRN basis.

Real-life clinical data for dexamethasone and ranibizumab in the treatment of branch or central retinal vein occlusion over a period of six months

PURPOSE

To evaluate the therapeutic outcome for dexamethasone implant (DEX) or intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections over 6 months in patients with macular edema due to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO, CRVO), in a real-life setting.

METHODS

A total of 107 patients with BRVO or CRVO were included into this retrospective single-center observational study. Patients were treated with monotherapy consisting of DEX or three monthly IVR injections following a pro re nata regimen (PRN). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were compared between the two therapy groups after 1, 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

BRVO patients treated with DEX achieved a statistically significant gain in BCVA measured in logMAR after 1 month (mean gain, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.08-0.34, p = 0.001), 3 months (0.16, 0.03-0.28, p = 0.012) and 6 months (0.19, 0.07-0.32, p = 0.002), whereas patients treated with IVR showed a statistically significant BCVA gain in month 3 (mean improvement, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.01-0.26, p = 0.039) and month 6 (0.16, 0.03-0.29, p = 0.018). BCVA in CRVO patients with DEX worsened slightly at month 6 (mean worsening, 95% CI: -0.08, -0.24 to 0.08, p = 0.305), while IVR treated-patients achieved a statistically significant BCVA gain at 3 months (mean improvement, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.02-0.25, p = 0.021). Both therapies were accompanied by statistically significant CRT reductions of 150 to 200 μm (median). Adverse events reported were predictable and limited.

CONCLUSIONS

In a clinical setting, comparable improvement in BCVA and CRT were observed after DEX and IVR injections for treatment of BRVO. CRVO patients showed greater benefit with IVR.

Switch of Intravitreal Therapy for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion from Anti-VEGF to Dexamethasone Implant and Vice Versa

PURPOSE

To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcome of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for macular edema secondary to central (C) or branch (B) retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in patients with persistent macular edema (ME) refractory to intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment compared to treatment naïve patients and to dexamethasone-refractory eyes switched to anti-VEGF.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational study including 30 eyes previously treated with anti-VEGF (8 CRVO, 22 BRVO, mean age 69 ± 10 yrs), compared to 11 treatment naïve eyes (6 CRVO, 5 BRVO, 73 ± 11 yrs) and compared to dexamethasone nonresponders (2 CRVO, 4 BRVO, 69 ± 12). Outcome parameters were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

Mean BCVA improvement after switch to dexamethasone implant was 4 letters (p = 0.08), and treatment naïve eyes gained 10 letters (p = 0.66), while we noted no change in eyes after switch to anti-VEGF (p = 0.74). Median CFT decrease was most pronounced in treatment naïve patients (-437 μm, p = 0.002) compared to anti-VEGF refractory eyes (-170 μm, p = 0.003) and dexamethasone-refractory eyes (-157, p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone significantly reduced ME secondary to RVO refractory to anti-VEGF. Functional gain was limited compared to treatment naïve eyes, probably due to worse BCVA and CFT at baseline in treatment naïve eyes.

Ranibizumab versus dexamethasone implant for central retinal vein occlusion: the RANIDEX study

PURPOSE

To compare intravitreal ranibizumab and dexamethasone implant in patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

METHODS

Participants were 42 treatment naive patients with ME due to CRVO, who received either intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 25) or intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone implant (n = 17). The main outcomes included the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) at month 12 compared to baseline in the two groups.

RESULTS

At month 12, there was no statistically significant difference in BCVA and CST change between the two groups. However, there was recurrence in ME at month 5 in the dexamethasone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ranibizumab and dexamethasone implant were found to be safe and effective at the 12-month follow-up in patients with ME secondary to CRVO. Since there was a recurrence in ME at month 5 in the dexamethasone group, we suggested that intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant should be potentially administered sooner than 6 months.

Systemic Steroid Sparing Effect of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in Chronic Noninfectious Uveitic Macular Edema

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and the systemic corticosteroid sparing effect of a single intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant in patients with chronic noninfectious uveitic macular edema (UME).

METHODS

Data from 22 eyes treated with DEX implant for UME related to systemic or ocular-confined noninfectious diseases were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean systemic prednisone (or equivalent) dosage significantly decreased at 3- and 6-month follow-up evaluations compared to baseline (P = 0.002 and P = 0.01, respectively). Compared to baseline, central macular thickness values significantly decreased at 1-, 3-, and 6-month evaluations after the implantation (P < 0.0001). The mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) value gradually improved at 1-, 3-, and 6-month visits compared to baseline (P = 0.009, P = 0.0004, and P = 0.0001, respectively). At fluorescein angiography, active retinal vasculitis was identified in 11 (50%) eyes at baseline, 3 (13.6%) eyes at 1- and 3-month follow-up, and in 2 (9.1%) eyes at the last visit. Regarding side effects, 3/22 (13.6%) eyes presented a newly recognized intraocular hypertension at 1-month follow-up; however, intraocular pressure reverted to normal values within the 6-month follow-up in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with intravitreal DEX implant in noninfectious uveitis allowed a significant corticosteroid sparing effect, a significant improvement in BCVA, and a prompt resolution of UME and vasculitis. No safety issues were observed.