A multimodal approach to diabetic macular edema

Aflibercept with adjuvant micropulsed yellow laser versus aflibercept monotherapy in diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of micropulsed laser (MPL) on modifying the number of aflibercept injections when used as an adjuvant therapy in diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

A prospective randomized interventional clinical study included patients with DME attending Al Hadi Clinic, Kuwait, during the period from May 2017 to December 2018. Patients were allocated in two groups; group A received aflibercept injections alone and group B received combined aflibercept injections followed by MPL within a week. The primary outcome was the number of Aflibercept injections in each group guided by the change in central macular thickness (CMT). All the patients were followed for 18 months. Secondary outcome measures included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity (CS), and any recorded complications.

RESULTS

Fifty-four eyes of 51 patients were included (27 in each group). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in baseline characteristics except for the age that was statistically higher in group B (p = 0.001). The number of injections were significantly lower in group B (4.1 ± 1.1) than group A (7.3 ± 1.1) (p < 0.005). At 18th month, there was significant reduction in CMT in both groups (p < 0.005) with no statistical difference between the two groups (p = 0.989). Final BCVA in both groups showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.005) without statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.082). In both groups, the CS showed significant improvement from baseline (p < 0.005). No ocular or systemic adverse effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Supplemental MPL in eyes with DME may decrease the burden of the aflibercept injection frequency while resulting in comparable anatomical and visual outcomes.

An efficacy comparison of anti-vascular growth factor agents and laser photocoagulation in diabetic macular edema: a network meta-analysis incorporating individual patient-level data

BACKGROUND

This was an updated network meta-analysis (NMA) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Unlike previous NMA that used meta-regression to account for potential confounding by systematic variation in treatment effect modifiers across studies, this update incorporated individual patient-level data (IPD) regression to provide more robust adjustment.

METHODS

An updated review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA. The network included intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) 2 mg bimonthly (2q8) after 5 initial doses, ranibizumab 0.5 mg as-needed (PRN), ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat-and-extend (T&E), and laser photocoagulation. Outcomes included in the analysis were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), measured using an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart, and patients with ≥10 and ≥ 15 ETDRS letter gains/losses at 12 months. Analyses were performed using networks restricted to IPD-only and IPD and aggregate data with (i) no covariable adjustment, (ii) covariable adjustment for baseline BVCA assuming common interaction effects (against reference treatment), and (iii) covariable adjustments specific to each treatment comparison (restricted to IPD-only network).

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL 2q8 was superior to laser in all analyses. IVT-AFL 2q8 showed strong evidence of superiority (95% credible interval [CrI] did not cross null) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.20, 95% CrI 1.90-8.52 ETDRS letters), ≥15 ETDRS letter gain (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% CrI 1.12-4.20), and ≥10 ETDRS letter loss (OR 0.25, 95% CrI 0.05-0.74) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model with baseline BCVA adjustment). IVT-AFL 2q8 was not superior to ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.15, 95% CrI -0.26-10.61 ETDRS letters) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model).

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA, which incorporated IPD to improve analytic robustness, showed evidence of superiority of IVT-AFL 2q8 to laser and ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN. These results were irrespective of adjustment for baseline BCVA.

Oral Dextromethorphan for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: Results From a Phase I/II Clinical Study

Purpose

The activation of microglia, the primary innate immune cell resident in the retina, produces inflammatory mediators, which underlie changes in diabetic retinopathy including increased vascular permeability. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of dextromethorphan, a drug capable of inhibiting microglial activation, in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

A single-center, prospective, open-label phase I/II clinical trial enrolled five participants with macular involving DME who received oral dextromethorphan 60 mg twice daily for 6 months as monotherapy. Main outcome variables included central retinal subfield thickness (CST), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), macula sensitivity, and late leakage on fluorescein angiogram (FA).

Results

The study drug was well tolerated. At the primary end point of 6 months, mean CST decreased by −6.3% ± 6.8% and BCVA increased by +0.6 ± 5.11 (mean ± SEM) letters. Late leakage on FA was scored as improved in four of five study eyes. These findings were not correlated with changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), creatinine, or blood pressure.

Conclusions

In this proof-of-concept study, dextromethorphan administration as the primary treatment for DME was associated with decreased vascular leakage, suggesting possible therapeutic effects. Additional studies investigating the modulation of microglial activation is warranted.

Translational Relevance

These findings highlight microglial modulation as a potentially useful therapeutic strategy in the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Diabetic macular edema in proliferative stage treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent and triamcinolone acetonide by laser-based strategies

AIM

To appraise the effect of treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) in proliferative stage with sufficient panrentinal photocoagulation (PRP) therapy and intravitreal injections (IV) Conbercept and posterior subtenon's triamcinolone acetonide (STTA) sequential therapy.

METHODS

This prospective clinical randomized controlled trial of cross-over design was conducted in three phases. The participants included cases of DME in proliferative stage. They were divided into two groups and treated with PRP before enrollment. Group A were treated with IV-Conbercept 0.5 mg for one month in the 1^st phase. Group B were treated with STTA 40 mg (twice per two weeks). The interventions were exchanged in the second phase (2mo) between the two groups. In the third phase (3-6mo) no other treatment was given. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) measured by OCT and complications were compared.

RESULTS

After phase I: in Group A, BCVA improved from 0.201±0.17 to 0.37±0.24 (F=5.88, P=0.004). CMT changed from 449±155.10 to 304.1±84.70 µm (F=14.9, P<0.01). In Group B, BCVA changed from 0.195±0.19 to 0.26±0.20 (F=0.76, P=0.41) while CMT changed from 463.82±152.92 to 366.00±115.40 µm (F=3.70, P<0.03). The improvement of BCVA was better in Group A (P<0.05). After phase II: in Group A, BCVA raised to 0.47±0.27 (F=0.26, P<0.01), CMT reduced to 260.67±62.97 µm (F=-188.3, P<0.01); in Group B, BCVA raised to 0.51±0.26 (F=0.31, P<0.01), CMT reduced to 261.93±50.15 µm (F=-201.9, P<0.01). But there were no difference between two groups (P>0.05). After phase III: in Group A, BCVA maintained 0.42±0.25 (F=0.22, P=0.001), CMT maintained 267.8±58.34 µm, (F=-0.27, P<0.01); in Group B, BCVA was 0.47±0.25 (F=-0.27, P<0.01), CMT was 272.71±49.16 µm (F=-191.1, P<0.01). No serious complications happened in all phases.

CONCLUSION

PRP+Conbercept is better than PRP+STTA in DME with proliferative stage but PRP+Conbercept+STTA sequential therapy may be a wiser choice for persistent effectiveness on anatomical as well as functional status.

Efficiency and safety of laser photocoagulation with or without intravitreal ranibizumab for treatment of diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the therapeutic effect and safety of laser photocoagulation along with intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) versus laser therapy in treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Pertinent publications were identified through comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing IVR+laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Therapeutic effect estimates were determined by weighted mean differences (WMD) of change from baseline in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) at 6, 12, or 24mo after initial treatment, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 10 letters of improvement or reduction at 12mo. Data regarding major ocular and nonocular adverse events (AEs) were collected and analyzed. The Review Manager 5.3.5 was used.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 2069 patients with DME were selected for this Meta-analysis. The results showed that IVR+laser significantly improved BCVA compared with laser at 6mo (WMD: 6.57; 95% CI: 4.37-8.77; P<0.00001), 12mo (WMD: 5.46; 95% CI: 4.35-6.58; P<0.00001), and 24mo (WMD: 3.42; 95% CI: 0.84-5.99; P=0.009) in patients with DME. IVR+laser was superior to laser in reducing CRT at 12mo from baseline with statistical significance (WMD: -63.46; 95% CI: -101.19 to -25.73; P=0.001). The pooled RR results showed that the proportions of patients with at least 10 letters of improvement or reduction were in favor of IVR+laser arms compared with laser (RR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.77-2.57; P<0.00001 and RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22-0.62; P=0.0002, respectively). As for AEs, the pooled results showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients suffering from conjunctival hemorrhage (study eye) and diabetic retinal edema (fellow eye) in IVR+laser group compared to laser group (RR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.53-7.09; P=0.002 and RR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.24-7.32; P=0.01, respectively). The incidence of other ocular and nonocular AEs considered in this Meta-analysis had no statistical difference between IVR+laser and laser alone.

CONCLUSION

The results of our analysis show that IVR+laser has better availability in functional (improving BCVA) and anatomic (reducing CRT) outcomes than laser monotherapy for the treatment of DME. However, the patients who received the treatment of IVR+laser may get a higher risk of suffering from conjunctival hemorrhage (study eye) and diabetic retinal edema (fellow eye).