Randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion

Advances in ophthalmic therapeutic delivery: A comprehensive overview of present and future directions

Ophthalmic treatment demands precision and consistency in delivering therapeutic agents over extended periods to address many conditions, from common eye disorders to complex diseases. This diversity necessitates a range of delivery strategies, each tailored to specific needs. We delve into various delivery cargos that are pivotal in ophthalmic care. These cargos encompass biodegradable implants that gradually release medication, nonbiodegradable implants for sustained drug delivery, refillable tools allowing flexibility in treatment, hydrogels capable of retaining substances while maintaining ocular comfort, and advanced nanotechnology devices that precisely target eye tissues. Within each cargo category, we explore cutting-edge research-level approaches and FDA-approved methods, providing a thorough overview of the current state of ophthalmic drug delivery. In particular, our focus on nanotechnology reveals the promising potential for gene delivery, cell therapy administration, and the implantation of active devices directly into the retina. These advancements hold the key to more effective, personalized, and minimally- invasive ophthalmic treatments, revolutionizing the field of eye care.

Disparities Between Clinical Trial Recruitment and Real-World Demographics in Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

Clinical trial cohorts frequently differ demographically from the overall population receiving treatment for the condition under study. Our study describes the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of the cohorts of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) macular edema (ME) clinical trials and compares this to the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of patients undergoing treatment for ME secondary to RVO from the (Intelligent Research in Sight) IRIS® Registry.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series Subjects: Participants in RVO-ME clinical trials that met the following inclusion criteria: conducted in the United States of America, Phase III completed, data reported between Jan 1, 2000, and Jan 1, 2020, and demographic information reported with results.

METHODS

This study identified clinical trials by searching PubMed with the following search terms; "retinal vein occlusion" and "clinical trial" and by searching ClinicalTrials.gov with the search term "retinal vein occlusion".

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the enrollment fraction defined as the number of trial enrollees divided by the reference sample size of RVO patients undergoing treatment for ME from published IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) data. Enrollment fraction was compared between different races, ethnicities, and genders.

RESULTS

Eight clinical trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared to the enrollment fraction of 7.69% among Whites, lower enrollment fractions were found in Black patients (4.32%, odds ratio [OR] 0.541, confidence interval [CI] 0.468-0.626, P< 0.001) and Hispanic patients (3.38%, OR 0.420, CI 0.351-0.503, P<0.001), and higher enrollment fraction in Asian patients (10.68%, OR 1.436, CI 1.207-1.708, P<0.001). Men were more likely to enroll in the clinical trials compared to women (enrollment fraction, 7.69% vs 5.77%, respectively, OR 1.364, CI 1.273-1.462, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RVO-ME clinical trials have a higher relative proportion of Asian, White and male subjects when compared to the population undergoing treatment for ME secondary to RVO. Further efforts should encourage clinical trial recruitment that is reflective of the RVO population undergoing treatment for ME to ensure generalizability of clinical trial results.

Integrated Assessment of OCT, Multimodal Imaging, and Cytokine Markers for Predicting Treatment Responses in Retinal Vein Occlusion Associated Macular Edema: A Comparative Review of Anti-VEGF and Steroid Therapies

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a significant cause of vision loss, characterized by the occlusion of retinal veins, leading to conditions such as central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Macular edema (ME), a prevalent consequence of RVO, is the primary cause of vision impairment in affected patients. Anti-VEGF agents have become the standard treatment, showing efficacy in improving visual acuity (VA) and reducing ME. However, a subset of patients exhibit a suboptimal response to anti-VEGF therapy, necessitating alternative treatments. Corticosteroids, which address inflammatory pathways implicated in ME, have shown promise, particularly in cases resistant to anti-VEGF. This review aims to identify biomarkers that predict treatment response to corticosteroids in RVO-associated ME, utilizing multimodal imaging and cytokine assessments. Baseline imaging, including SD-OCT and OCT-A, is essential for evaluating biomarkers like hyperreflective foci (HRF), serous retinal detachment (SRF), and central retinal thickness (CRT). Elevated cytokine levels, such as IL-6 and MCP-1, correlate with ME severity and poor anti-VEGF response. Early identification of these biomarkers can guide timely transitions to corticosteroid therapy, potentially enhancing treatment outcomes. The practical conclusion of this review is that integrating biomarker assessment into clinical practice enables personalized treatment decisions, allowing for earlier and more effective management of RVO-associated ME by transitioning patients to corticosteroid therapy when anti-VEGF agents are insufficient. Advanced diagnostics and machine learning may further refine personalized treatment strategies, improving the management of RVO-associated ME.

Dexamethasone Implant under a Proactive Treatment Regimen in a Clinical Setting: The ProDEX Study

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of switching intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX-implant) from pro re nata (PRN) treatment regimen to a proactive regimen in patients with macular edema of diverse etiologies.

DESIGN

An observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, multicenter, national case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-one eyes from 68 patients treated between October 2015 and June 2023 were included.

METHODS

This study included consecutive eyes treated with DEX-implant who were switched from a PRN regimen to a proactive regimen for diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), noninfectious uveitis macular edema (UME; including postsurgical macular edema), and radiation maculopathy (RM).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) at each visit.

RESULTS

According to the etiology, DME represented 49.4% of eyes, UME 24.3%, RVO 21.0%, and RM 6.2%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of follow-up under the PRN and proactive regimens was 20.6 (13.3) and 14.2 (10.3) months, respectively. Switching from a PRN to a proactive regimen significantly improved mean (SD) BCVA by 3.7 (12.9) ETDRS letters (P = 0.01) with a mean (SD) decrease in CMT of 108.0 (151.4) μm (P < 0.001). The proportion of visits with significant anatomic recurrence (> 50 μm) also decreased from 40.1% to 6.0% after switching to a proactive regimen (P < 0.001). The number of DEX-implant injections significantly increased during the proactive treatment period (P < 0.001), but the change in the number of visits was not significantly different (P = 0.2). The proactive treatment period was not associated with a significant increase in IOP (P = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to a proactive regimen in patients already treated with DEX-implant seems to significantly improve BCVA and CMT while maintaining stable IOP.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Changes in intraocular pressure following intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with history of glaucoma filtration surgery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate changes in intraocular pressure following intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection, specifically in patients undergoing glaucoma filtration surgery.

METHODS

The degree of increase in intraocular pressure was compared retrospectively among three groups. Group 1 comprised patients who underwent prior glaucoma filtration surgery (54 eyes). Group 2 included patients with or suspected glaucoma without such surgical history (20 eyes). Group 3 included patients without glaucoma (33 eyes). Pressure measurements were taken before the injection and at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months post-injection. A subgroup analysis was performed for pressure > 35 mmHg, > 30 mmHg, > 25 mmHg, and a difference > 10 mmHg between the peak and baseline pressure.

RESULTS

Group 1 consistently displayed lower pressures compared with Group 2, with significant difference at both 1- and 6-month post-injections (15.09 mmHg vs. 18.10 mmHg, P = 0.042 and 13.91 mg vs. 17.25 mmHg, P = 0.040). The proportion of patients in Group 1 and Group 3 with pressures > 25 mmHg, > 30 mmHg, and a difference > 10 mmHg did not significantly differ (15.6% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.231; 3.1% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.867; and 17.1% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.231). Notably, Group 2 exhibited a significantly higher proportion within each category (> 25 mmHg, 24.0%; > 30 mmHg, 20.0%; > 10 mmHg difference, 28.0%).

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with a history of glaucoma filtration surgery compared with patients with suspected glaucoma; the risk was similar to those without glaucoma.

Evaluation of Anatomical and Tomographic Biomarkers as Predictive Visual Acuity Factors in Eyes with Retinal Vein Occlusion Treated with Dexamethasone Implant

Background: This prospective study evaluated the impact of anatomical and tomographic biomarkers on clinical outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Methods: The study included 46 patients (28 with branch RVO (BRVO) and 18 with central RVO (CRVO)). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved from a mean baseline of 0.817 ± 0.220 logMAR to 0.663 ± 0.267 logMAR at six months and 0.639 ± 0.321 logMAR at twelve months (p < 0.05). Central retinal thickness (CRT) showed a significant reduction from 666.2 ± 212.2 µm to 471.1 ± 215.6 µm at six months and 467 ± 175.7 µm at twelve months (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in OCT biomarkers between baseline and follow-ups. Results: The study analysed improvements in visual acuity relative to baseline biomarkers. At six months, ellipsoid zone disruption (EZD) was significant for all subgroups. Disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRIL), external limiting membrane (ELM) disruption, macular ischemia (MI), CRT, and BRVO showed significance for any improvement, while DRIL and ELM were significant for changes greater than 0.3 logMAR (p < 0.05). At twelve months, EZD remained significant for all subgroups. ELM, MI, CRT, and BRVO were significant for any improvement, while MI and BRVO were significant for changes greater than 0.3 logMAR (p < 0.05). Hyperreflective foci were not statistically significant at either time point (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The regression model suggested that MI and CRVO could be negative predictive factors for visual outcomes, while ELM and EZD were associated with BCVA improvement one-year post-treatment.

Combination Therapy with Anti-VEGF and Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and efficacy of intravitreal injection of ranibizumab alone or ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone intravitreal implant in the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.

STUDY DESIGN

A single center, case-controlled, prospective cohort study (Clinical Trail Registration Number: ChiCTR2400080048).

METHODS

A total of 44 patients were enrolled and randomized into the ranibizumab group (n = 23) and the combination group (ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone intravitreal implant) (n = 21). All patients received ranibizumab intravitreal injections in the first three months as the initial treatment. For the ranibizumab group, patients might receive repeat injections in case of the recurrence of macular edema; For the combination group, patients received an intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant after the first injection of ranibizumab at the day 15. The main outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and reduction of central macular thickness. The secondary outcome were the numbers of recurrence, the average injection interval, and the numbers of injection. Adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

The BCVAs in both groups were significantly improved compared with the baselines (all p < 0.001), but more increment in BCVA was noticed at the 3-month in the combination group (p = 0.022). Both groups showed a reduction of central macular thickness at all time points (p < 0.05). However, the combination group did not exhibit higher central macular thickness-reducing effects than the ranibizumab group (p > 0.05). Compared with the combination group, the ranibizumab group suffered a higher number of recurrences of macular edema (p < 0.001), a lower interval of injection (p = 0.050), and a higher number of injection (p < 0.011). The incidence of adverse events was not significant between the two groups (p = 0.944).

CONCLUSIONS

Ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone injection sustainably improved the BCVA of retinal vein occlusion patients with a good safety profile.

Central Retinal Thickness Variability as a Predictive Factor for Visual Acuity After Dexamethasone Implant in Retinal Vein Occlusion

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Investigate central retinal thickness (CRT) variability and changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after 12 months in patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Post hoc analyses of two randomized trials in patients with macular edema associated with branch or central RVO treated with a 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant. Central retinal thickness standard deviation (CRT-SD) and central retinal thickness amplitude (CRT-A) were measures of variability. Analyses included multinomial and simple linear regression.

RESULTS

In 400 patients, CRT-SD and CRT-A were significantly associated with central RVO, second dexamethasone implant, and baseline CRT. Baseline BCVA was associated with CRT-A. CRT-SD and CRT-A were significantly correlated with a 12-month change in BCVA (effect sizes of -0.032 and -0.013 letters/µm; P < 0.001). Patients in the highest CRT-SD quartile gained significantly fewer letters (+1.88 letters; 95% CI: -0.46 to 4.23).

CONCLUSION

Greater CRT variability was associated with smaller BCVA improvements in patients with RVO treated with dexamethasone implants. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2024;55:XX-XX.].

Improving corneal permeability of dexamethasone using penetration enhancing agents: First step towards achieving topical drug delivery to the retina

With an ever-increasing burden of vision loss caused by diseases of the posterior ocular segment, there is an unmet clinical need for non-invasive treatment strategies. Topical drug application using eye drops suffers from low to negligible bioavailability to the posterior segment as a result of static and dynamic defensive ocular barriers to penetration, while invasive delivery systems are expensive to administer and suffer potentially severe complications. As the cornea is the main anatomical barrier to uptake of topically applied drugs from the ocular surface, we present an approach to increase corneal permeability of a corticosteroid, dexamethasone sodium-phosphate (DSP), using a novel penetration enhancing agent (PEA). We synthesised a novel polyacetylene (pAc) polymer and compared its activity to two previously described cell penetrating peptide (CPP) based PEAs, TAT and penetratin, with respect to increasing transcorneal permeability of DSP in a rapid ex-vivo porcine corneal assay over 60 min. The transcorneal apparent permeability coefficients (Papp) for diffusion of pAc, and fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) conjugated TAT and penetratin were up to 5 times higher (p < 0.001), when compared to controls. When pAc was used in formulation with DSP, an almost 5-fold significant increase was observed in Papp of DSP across the cornea (p = 0.0130), a significant 6-fold increase with TAT (p = 0.0377), and almost 7-fold mean increase with penetratin (p = 0.9540). Furthermore, we investigated whether the PEAs caused any irreversible damage to the barrier integrity of the corneal epithelium by measuring transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) and immunostaining of tight junction proteins using zonula occludens-1 (ZO-1) and occludin antibodies. There was no damage or structural toxicity, and the barrier integrity was preserved after PEA application. Finally, an in-vitro cytotoxicity assessment of all PEAs in human retinal pigment epithelium cells (ARPE-19) demonstrated that all PEAs were very well-tolerated, with IC50 values of 64.79 mM for pAc and 1335.45 µM and 87.26 µM for TAT and penetratin, respectively. Our results suggest that this drug delivery technology could potentially be used to achieve a significantly higher intraocular therapeutic bioavailability after topical eye drop administration, than currently afforded.

Interleukin-17A in diabetic retinopathy: The crosstalk of inflammation and angiogenesis

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a severe ocular complication of diabetes which can leads to irreversible vision loss in its late-stage. Chronic inflammation results from long-term hyperglycemia contributes to the pathogenesis and progression of DR. In recent years, the interleukin-17 (IL-17) family have attracted the interest of researchers. IL-17A is the most widely explored cytokine in IL-17 family, involved in various acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. Growing body of evidence indicate the role of IL-17A in the pathogenesis of DR. However, the pro-inflammatory and pro-angiogenic effect of IL-17A in DR have not hitherto been reviewed. Gaining an understanding of the pro-inflammatory role of IL-17A, and how IL-17A control/impact angiogenesis pathways in the eye will deepen our understanding of how IL-17A contributes to DR pathogenesis. Herein, we aimed to thoroughly review the pro-inflammatory role of IL-17A in DR, with focus in how IL-17A impact inflammation and angiogenesis crosstalk.

Review of Risk Factors and Complications of Anterior Migration of Ozurdex Implant: Lessons Learnt from the Previous Reports

Purpose: Ozurdex had shown promising anatomical and functional outcomes in managing refractory Irvine-Gass syndrome over the years. Burgeoning usage of Ozurdex has prompted the study of its related complications, particularly the anterior chamber migration of the implant. Methods: Literature reviews on the anterior chamber migration of the Ozurdex via PubMed, EBSCO, and TRIP databases were searched from 2012 to 2020. The predisposing factors, outcomes, and management of such cases were evaluated. Results: A total of 54 articles consisting of 105 cases of anterior migration of Ozurdex were included in this analysis. The vitrectomized eye and compromised posterior capsule were highly associated with this complication. About 81.9% of the cases had cornea edema upon presentation, with 31.4% of them ending up with cornea decompensation despite intervention. Although there was high intraocular pressure reported initially in 22 cases, only 2 cases required glaucoma filtration surgeries in which they had preexisting glaucoma. Numerous techniques of repositioning or surgical removal of the implant were described but they were challenging and the outcomes varied. Conclusions: A noninvasive method of manipulating the Ozurdex into the vitreous cavity via the "Trendelenburg position, external pressure with head positioning" maneuvers is safe yet achieves a favorable outcome. Precaution must be taken whenever offering Ozurdex to the high-risk eyes. Prompt repositioning or removal of the implant is crucial to deter cornea decompensation. Clinical Trial Registration number: NMRR-22-02092-S9X (from the Medical Research and Ethics Committee (MREC), Ministry of Health, Malaysia).

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).

Subretinal fluid in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

We identified characteristics of patients with subretinal fluid (SRF) in macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and determined their clinical outcomes after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment. Fifty-seven eyes of BRVO patients with ME were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of SRF at diagnosis. We compared the aqueous profiles, ocular and systemic characteristics at baseline, and the clinical outcomes. The SRF group had significantly greater central subfield thickness (CST) values and poorer best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline compared to the non-SRF group. The former group had significantly higher aqueous levels of interleukin-8, VEGF, and placental growth factor. CST reduction and BCVA improvement during treatment were significantly greater in the SRF group than in the non-SRF group. Consequently, CST values were significantly lower in the SRF group than in the non-SRF group at 12 months, when BCVA did not differ significantly between the two groups. The SRF group required more frequent anti-VEGF treatment over 12 months and exhibited a higher rate of macular atrophy. Based on the aqueous profiles and the number of treatments required, the presence of SRF in BRVO patients appears to be associated with higher disease activity.

Timing of Switching to Steroid Implants in Cases of Recalcitrant Diabetic Macular Edema Not Responding to Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Therapy: A Real-World Study

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the timing of the steroid switch on both visual and anatomical outcomes in diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes that have shown an inadequate response to multiple intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections. In the treatment of DME, anti-VEGF injections are typically the initial course of action. However, in cases where DME persists despite anti-VEGF treatment, intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex®, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) are often utilized. Despite this, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the optimal timing for transitioning to steroid treatment. This study aims to shed light on the potential benefits of adjusting the timing of the steroid switch in cases of recalcitrant DME.  Methods The eyes (n = 105) of 77 patients with recalcitrant DME were included in this retrospective, interventional, comparative study comprising three groups: participants switched to steroid implants after three anti-VEGF injections (Group I), four to six anti-VEGF injections (Group II), and more than six anti-VEGF injections (Group III). Anti-VEGF treatment failure was defined as a central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 microns and/or a lack of visual improvement (≤1 line of visual gain according to Snellen acuity). The last follow-up took place after 10-12 weeks of Ozurdex® injections. Results Improvement was observed in 19 eyes (46%), 17 eyes (50%), and 10 eyes (33%) in Groups I, II, and III, respectively, after switching to dexamethasone implants. The best overall results (an improvement in vision and stabilization) were seen in Group II (32 eyes, 94%). The decrease in CRT was statistically significant in all three groups.  Conclusion Intravitreal dexamethasone implants improved functional and morphological outcomes in anti-VEGF-resistant DME eyes. After four to six anti-VEGF injections, switching to a steroid implant resulted in the best functional results.

Baseline intraocular pressure: an independent risk factor in severe steroid-induced ocular hypertension after intravitreal dexamethasone implant

PURPOSE

To evaluate the baseline intraocular pressure (IOP)-related risk of severe steroid-induced ocular hypertension (SIOH). We hypothesized that the incidence and severity of SIOH may differ according to baseline IOP in patients who received intravitreal dexamethasone implants.

METHODS

A total of 889 eyes treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implants and a baseline IOP of ≤ 23 mmHg were enrolled. Enrolled patients were divided into two groups: the steroid-responders (127 eyes) and the non-steroid-responders (762 eyes). The steroid-responders group was subdivided into post-injection IOP of ≥ 25, > 30, or > 35 mmHg or IOP elevation of ≥ 10 mmHg over the baseline value. The odds ratio of SIOH was calculated using univariable logistic regression analysis, and significant variables were analyzed with a multivariable model. IOP was measured before (baseline IOP) and after dexamethasone implant injection at 1 week and 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Although baseline IOP was significantly associated with the development of SIOH in logistic regression analysis, the results from the subgroup analysis differed. In the group with IOP elevation of ≥ 10 mmHg over the baseline, SIOH was not significantly associated with baseline IOP, but it was significantly related to higher baseline IOP in the severe SIOH group (IOP > 30 and > 35 mmHg).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher baseline IOP is a risk factor for severe SIOH. Clinicians should be aware of the risk of SIOH when administering steroids intravitreally to patients with high baseline IOP (IOP > 19 mmHg).

Anatomical and Functional Results of Early or Late Switching from Anti-VEGF to Dexamethasone Implant in Case of Poor Anatomical Response in Naïve Patients with Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of early or late switching from intravitreal (IV) anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection to IV Dexamethasone (DEX) implant injection in treatment-naïve patients with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

This study included 68 eyes of 68 treatment-naïve BRVO patients who started anti-VEGF treatment. After the loading dose, the patients were divided into two groups: Early DEX group (n:34) (DEX implant treatment started after 3 loading doses) and Late DEX group (n:34) (DEX implant treatment started after 6 months). Visual acuity and examination findings were recorded at baseline, 3rd, 6th, and 12th month follow-ups. Optical coherence tomography data were recorded for central macular subfield thickness assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 30 (44.1%) women and 38 (55.9%) men participated, and the average age was 67.6 ± 6.4 years. The mean letter gains at week 52 was 15.1 and 20.9 in the Early DEX and Late DEX groups, respectively. The group with the highest gain of ≥15 letters was the Late DEX group (26/34 patients) and the gain of ≥15 letters was 14/34 in the Early DEX group (p: 0.006). At week 52, the anatomical gain was 115.3 µm and 136.9 µm in the Early DEX and Late DEX groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A gain of 15 or more letters was demonstrated to be higher in patients who switched to DEX implant late after anti-VEGF treatment. If it is necessary to switch, the late switch may be more effective for more visual gain at the end of the first year.

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.

Outcomes of Eyes Lost to Follow-up After Treatment With Intraocular or Periocular Steroid Injections

Purpose: To evaluate the visual, intraocular pressure (IOP), and anatomic outcomes of eyes with loss to follow-up (LTFU) after intravitreal or periocular steroid injections. Methods: Patients receiving intraocular or periocular steroid injections and with LTFU for at least 180 days were included in this retrospective cohort study. Charts were reviewed for the visual acuity (VA), IOP, and central foveal thickness at the visit before LTFU, the first return visit, and 3, 6, and 12 months after return. Results: Fifty-three eyes of 47 patients were identified. The mean (±SD) age was 62.3 ± 14.9 years, the mean LTFU time was 295 ± 181.2 days (range, 182-1101), and the mean follow-up after return was 354 ± 339.3 days (range, 32-1141). The overall mean number of steroid injections was 5.2 ± 3.9 (range, 1-18). Compared with the mean logMAR VA at the visit before LTFU (0.59 [Snellen 20/77]), the mean VA remained stable at all timepoints after return as follows: return visit (0.62 [20/83]; P = .6), month 3 (0.55 [20/70]; P = .6), month 6 (0.55 [20/70]; P = .5), month 12 (0.64 [20/87]; P = .6), and final visit (0.69 [20/97]; P = .2). At the first return visit, 8 (15%) of 53 patients had an IOP of 21 mm Hg or higher (range, 21-31); 2 required treatment with a new antihypertensive medication (latanoprost and timolol, respectively). Conclusions: Patients with LTFU after receiving steroid injections maintained their VA. No patient required incisional glaucoma surgery. Compared with other etiologies, eyes with diabetic macular edema had a greater increase in IOP.

Real-world effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone implants - Comparison between eyes eligible and ineligible for clinical trials and their associated outcomes

BACKGROUND

Concerns about the generalizability of pivotal randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) findings have been raised. We aimed to compare intravitreal dexamethasone implants' (IDIs) effectiveness for diabetic macular edema (DME) and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), between eyes eligible and ineligible for pRCTs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed Taiwan's Chang Gung Research Database, including DME or CRVO eyes initiating IDIs during 2015-2020. We classified all treated eyes as eligible or ineligible for pRCTs following major selection criteria of the MEAD and GENEVA trials, and evaluated three-, six-, and twelve-month changes in central retinal thickness (CRT) and visual acuity (VA) after initiating IDIs.

RESULTS

We included 177 IDI-treated eyes (DME: 72.3%; CRVO: 27.7%), of which 39.8% and 55.1% were ineligible for DME and CRVO pRCTs, respectively. LogMAR-VA and CRT changes at different times were comparable in DME eyes eligible (LogMAR-VA difference: 0.11 to 0.16; CRT difference: -32.7 to -96.9 μm) and ineligible (LogMAR-VA difference: -0.01 to 0.15; CRT difference: -54.5 to -109.3 μm) for the MEAD trial. By contrast, CRVO eyes ineligible for the GENEVA trial had greater LogMAR-VA changes (0.37 ~ 0.50) than those eligible (0.05 ~ 0.13), with comparable CRT reductions (eligible eyes: -72.3 to -106.4 μm; ineligible eyes: -61.8 to -110.7 μm) (all p-values <0.05 of the mean differences between eligible and ineligible CRVO eyes for all follow-ups).

CONCLUSIONS

IDIs had similar VA and CRT outcomes among DME eyes, regardless of pRCT-eligibility. However, among CRVO eyes, those ineligible for pRCTs showed greater deterioration in VA than those eligible.

Safety and effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with ocular toxocariasis

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant in patients with active uveitis due to ocular toxocariasis (OT).

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with OT were recruited in this retrospective study, including 51 patients in DEX group treated with intravitreal DEX implant and 27 patients in control group without intervention. The reduction of vitreous haze scores (VHS), the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, intraocular pressure (IOP) and cataract progression and formation were recorded at baseline (V0), 1 (V1), 3 (V3) and 6 months (V6) after treatment in DEX group, and V0 and V6 in control group.

RESULTS

There was no change in VHS and BCVA in control group between V0 and V6. Better VHS (p=0.001) and BCVA (p=0.022) was achieved in DEX group; the rate of VHS=0 was 0%, 67.4%, 42.9% and 44.9% at V0, V1, V3 and V6, respectively (p＜0.001), and the mean BCVA was improved from logMAR 1.5±0.9 to 1.2±0.9 at V1, 1.4±1.0 at V3 and 1.4±1.2 at V6. A favourable BCVA at V1 was associated with older age (p=0.038) and uninvolved macula (p=0.000) in DEX group. No significant difference in IOP elevation ≥10 mm Hg, cataract progression and formation between groups. More eyes needed retinal surgery in control group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to investigate use of intravitreal DEX implant in OT patients, which can efficiently reduce ocular inflammation and improve BCVA in macular uninvolved patients.

Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema or Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusion Based on Repeated Injection of the Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis

Purpose

To assess the "real world" utility of repeated injection with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in routine practice.

Methods

This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive patients with diabetic macular edema, or macular edema following retinal vein occlusion, treated with DEX. None had received prior intravitreal steroid treatment. DEX was implanted as per the manufacturer's instructions.

Results

Seventy-eight individuals (95 eyes) were included (50.0% female; mean age: 68.1 ± 12.4 years; mean duration of macular edema: 13.2 ± 12.9 months). Thirty-three eyes (34.7%) had received previous treatment with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and/or laser. Thirty eyes (31.6%) underwent one round of DEX implantation; the remainder received 2-5 cycles (total: 225 cycles). Initial DEX treatment led to significant increases in visual acuity (VA) at 6 weeks (mean change: 4.6 letters; P=0.004). Greater VA improvements during the first treatment cycle were associated with inferior baseline VA (P=0.02), borderline associated with baseline central macular thickness (CMT; P=0.06), and independent of prior anti-VEGF treatment (P=0.39). In an analysis of all DEX injections, VA improvements were robust across cycles 1 and 2 but reduced in cycle 3 (P=0.03). CMT improvements did not differ based on injection number (P=0.20). Increases in intraocular pressure (IOP) were largest over the first 6 weeks (but rebounded towards baseline more rapidly) in cycle 1 versus cycles 2 and 3 (P<0.001). IOP rises were typically manageable with topical medications.

Conclusion

This analysis confirms the broad utility of DEX and may inform decision-making in routine practice.

SCORE2 Report 24: Nonlinear Relationship of Retinal Thickness and Visual Acuity in Central Retinal and Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

To investigate whether a nonlinear association between central subfield thickness (CST) on spectral-domain OCT and concurrent visual acuity letter score (VALS) exists in eyes treated initially with aflibercept or bevacizumab for macular edema associated with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2).

DESIGN

Long-term follow-up after a randomized clinical trial from 64 centers in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were followed up to 60 months and treated at investigator discretion after completing the 12-month treatment protocol.

METHODS

Two-segment linear regression models were compared with simple linear regression models of VALS on CST. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess strength of CST and VALS associations.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Central subfield thickness was measured by OCT and VALS by the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study methodology.

RESULTS

Estimated inflection points, reflecting turning points at which the CST and VALS association changes from positive to negative, calculated at 7 postbaseline visits, range from 217 to 256 μm. A strongly positive correlation exists to the left of each estimated inflection point, ranging from 0.29 (P < 0.01 at month 60) to 0.50 (P < 0.01 at month 12), and a strongly negative correlation exists to the right of each estimated inflection point, ranging from -0.43 (P < 0.01 at month 1) to -0.74 (P < 0.01 at month 24). Randomization statistical tests showed that 2-segment models are favored over 1-segment models for all postbaseline months (P < 0.001 for all tests performed).

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between CST and VALS in eyes with CRVO or HRVO after treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy is not simply linear. The usually modest correlations between OCT-measured CST and visual acuity belie strong left and right correlations present in 2-segment models. Post-treatment CST close to the estimated inflection points showed the best expected VALS. The SCORE2 participants with a post-treatment CST after treatment close to the estimated inflection points of 217 to 256 μm showed the best VALS. In patients treated with anti-VEGF for macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO, a thinner retina is not always associated with better VALS.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

An Analysis of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCT-A) Perfusion Density Maps in Patients Treated for Retinal Vein Occlusion with Intravitreal Aflibercept

AIM

The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the reduction in non-perfusion area and improvement in blood flow as well as the reduction in retinal edema on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) in patients with retinal vein occlusion treated with 2 mg intravitreal injections of aflibercept.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty eyes of nine patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and sixteen patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), aged 50 to 75 years, were collectively analyzed as retinal vein occlusion (RVO). The following parameters were analyzed: superficial vessel density (VDSF), deep vessel density (VDD), flow area in the outer retina (FAOR), choriocapillaris flow area (FACC), non-flow area (NFA) and the foveal avascular zone (FAZ).

RESULTS

OCT-A revealed a reduction in macular edema. The most significant change in central retinal thickness (CRT) was observed between measurement timepoint "5" and the baseline (46%). The non-flow area was also reduced. Following a significant decrease in superficial vessel density 30 days after the first dose of aflibercept, a non-significant increase was noted at the subsequent timepoints. An increase was also found in deep vessel density and choriocapillaris flow area. Improvements in the above OCT-A parameters resulted in increased retinal blood flow and improved visual acuity.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with retinal vein occlusion treated with 2 mg aflibercept exhibited reduced macular edema and FAZ, increased vessel density, improved blood flow, and better visual acuity.

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. Considering improvement in visual acuity, we assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.15 logMAR, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on improving BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time. To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.

Same-Day Bilateral Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and complications associated with the use of same-day bilateral intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implants for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of an open-label, multicenter, consecutive case series included 130 eyes of 65 patients with bilateral DME who were treated with intravitreal DEX implants. The patients were divided into two groups: a control group (comprising 40 eyes treated with an alternating unilateral regimen) and a study group (comprising 90 eyes treated with concomitant bilateral DEX implants). All patients were followed up monthly after implantation. The changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to sixth month after implantation, and ocular adverse effects such as intraocular pressure, cataract, and tolerability of bilateral implantation were reviewed. The primary endpoint was to assess the safety of the same-day bilateral treatment protocol. The secondary endpoints focused on evaluating the functional and anatomical changes associated with bilateral simultaneous or alternating implantations.

RESULTS

At 6 months after implantation, mean BCVA increased and CRT decreased in both groups. Moreover, no serious ocular adverse effects were observed. In addition, no differences were observed between the two groups in the number of patients who required extra follow-up visits or the number of extra visits made in addition to the treatment schedule.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day bilateral intravitreal DEX implants are associated with a low complication rate and are well tolerated by patients. This safe practice may optimize efficiency and reduce the burden on both the health-care system and patients, when used to treat bilateral DME.

Foveal Eversion is Associated with High Persistence of Macular Edema and Visual Acuity Deterioration in Retinal Vein Occlusion

INTRODUCTION

Foveal eversion (FE) is a recently described optical coherence tomography (OCT) finding associated with negative outcome in diabetic macular edema. The main goal of the present study was to investigate the role of the FE metric in the diagnostic workup of retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

This study was a retrospective, observational case series. We included 168 eyes (168 patients) affected by central RVO (CRVO) and 116 eyes (116 patients) affected by branch (RVO). We collected clinical and imaging data from CRVO and BRVO eyes affected by macular edema with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. On structural OCT, we classified FE as pattern 1a, characterized by thick vertical intraretinal columns, pattern 1b, presenting thin vertical intraretinal lines, and pattern 2, showing no signs of vertical lines in the context of the cystoid macular edema. For statistical purposes, we considered data collected at baseline, after 1 year and at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 40 ± 25 months for CRVO eyes and 36 ± 24 months for BRVO eyes. We found FE in 64 of 168 CRVO eyes (38%) and in 25 of 116 BRVO eyes (22%). Most of the eyes developed FE during the follow-up. For CRVO eyes, we found 6 eyes (9%) with pattern 1a, 17 eyes (26%) with pattern 1b and 41 eyes (65%) with pattern 2. Of those BRVO eyes with FE, we found 8 eyes (32%) with pattern 1a + 1b and 17 eyes (68%) with pattern 2. In both CRVO and BRVO the presence of FE was significantly associated with higher persistence of macular edema and worse outcome, with FE pattern 2 representing the most severe condition. Remarkably, FE patterns 1a and 1b were characterized by BCVA stability over the follow-up, whereas FE pattern 2 showed significant bestcorrected visual acuity (BCVA) worsening at the end of the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

FE can be considered a negative prognostic biomarker in RVO, associated with higher persistence of macular edema and worse visual outcome. Müller cell impairment might represent the pathogenic mechanism leading to the loss of macular structural support and impairment of fluid homeostasis.

Clinical utility of ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography angiography for retinal vein occlusions

Retinal vein occlusions (RVOs) are the second most common retinal vascular disease after diabetic retinopathy, and are a significant cause of visual impairment, especially in the elderly population. RVOs result in visual loss due to macular ischemia, cystoid macular edema (CME), and complications related to neovascularization. Vascular assessment in RVOs traditionally relies on standard fluorescein angiography (FA) for assessment of macular and retinal ischemia, which aids in prognostication and guides intervention. Standard FA has significant limitations-it is time-consuming, requires invasive dye administration, allows for limited assessment of the peripheral retina, and is usually evaluated semi-qualitatively, by ophthalmologists with tertiary expertise. More recently, the introduction of ultra-widefield FA (UWF FA) and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) into clinical practice has changed the tools available for vascular evaluation in RVOs. UWF FA allows for evaluation of peripheral retinal perfusion, and OCTA is non-invasive, rapidly-acquired, and provides more information on capillary perfusion. Both modalities can be used to provide more quantitative parameters related to retinal perfusion. In this article, we review the clinical utility and impact of UWF FA and OCTA in the evaluation and management of patients with RVOs.

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.

Systemic Outcomes of Intravitreal Injections of Dexamethasone and Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor

INTRODUCTION

Intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications have revolutionized ocular disease management and favorable ocular safety profiles, but few studies have compared their systemic adverse events (SAEs). This study investigated the SAEs of intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-VEGFs by using real-world data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study sourced medical records from the largest multi-institutional database in Taiwan. Patients who received intravitreal dexamethasone (n = 137) or anti-VEGFs (n = 10,345) between 2014 and 2019 were enrolled. Propensity score matching was performed to achieve homogeneity between the two groups. Subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Fine-Gray model. Systemic as well as ocular clinical events and systemic biomarkers after 1-year follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups demonstrated comparable risks of major cardiac adverse events (SHR 1.57, 95% CI 0.29-8.55), heart failure (SHR 0.62, 95% CI 0.07-5.33), major bleeding (SHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03-1.77), all-cause admission (SHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.41-1.30), and all-cause death (SHR 2.11, 95% CI 0.35-12.71). There were no significant differences in longitudinal changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or alanine aminotransferase between the groups. Both groups had a similar incidence of cataract surgery. Although the dexamethasone group exhibited a relatively high prevalence of antiglaucomatous medication use, there was not a significantly higher incidence of glaucoma surgery.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-VEGF medications had comparable systemic safety profiles in our study. Both drugs represent efficacious and safe therapies for ocular diseases.

In Situ Formation of Injectable Gelatin Methacryloyl (GelMA) Hydrogels for Effective Intraocular Delivery of Triamcinolone Acetonide

A novel drug delivery system designed for intraocular injection, gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA), has attracted much attention due to its sustained-release character and low cytotoxicity. We aimed to explore the sustained drug effect of GelMA hydrogels coupled with triamcinolone acetonide (TA) after injection into the vitreous cavity. The GelMA hydrogel formulations were characterized using scanning electron microscopy, swelling measurements, biodegradation, and release studies. The biological safety effect of GelMA on human retinal pigment epithelial cells and retinal conditions was verified by in vitro and in vivo experiments. The hydrogel exhibited a low swelling ratio, resistance to enzymatic degradation, and excellent biocompatibility. The swelling properties and in vitro biodegradation characteristics were related to the gel concentration. Rapid gel formation was observed after injection, and the in vitro release study confirmed that TA-hydrogels have slower and more prolonged release kinetics than TA suspensions. In vivo fundus imaging, optical coherence tomography measurements of retinal and choroid thickness, and immunohistochemistry did not reveal any apparent abnormalities of retinal or anterior chamber angle, and ERG indicated that the hydrogel had no impact on retinal function. The GelMA hydrogel implantable intraocular device exhibited an extended duration, in situ polymerization, and support cell viability, making it an attractive, safe, and well-controlled platform for treating the posterior segment diseases of the eye.

OFFICE MANAGEMENT OF OZURDEX IMPLANT DISLOCATION INTO THE ANTERIOR CHAMBER

PURPOSE

To describe a novel office procedure that permits the repositioning of an Ozurdex implant from the anterior chamber back into the vitreous cavity.

METHODS

Description of an office technique for Ozurdex repositioning using a 30-gauge needle.

RESULTS

In both cases, the Ozurdex implant was successfully returned to the vitreous cavity. In Case 1, the patient's visual acuities 1 and 2 weeks after this were 20/70 and 20/40, respectively, and had no further complications. In Case 2, the patient returned 1 week later, with the implant remaining posterior and a visual acuity of 20/40.

CONCLUSION

The success of this novel technique in these cases demonstrates the potential to avoid a surgical procedure in the event of Ozurdex implant migration to the anterior chamber, while at the same time allowing the Ozurdex implant to remain effective in the eye.

Update on Retinal Vein Occlusion

Retinal vein occlusion represents the second leading cause of retinal vascular disorders, with a uniform sex distribution worldwide. A thorough evaluation of cardiovascular risk factors is required to correct possible comorbidities. The diagnosis and management of retinal vein occlusion have changed tremendously in the last 30 years, but the assessment of retinal ischemia at baseline and during follow-up examinations remains crucial. New imaging techniques have shed light on the pathophysiology of the disease and laser treatment, once the only therapeutic option, is now only one of the possible approaches with antivascular endothelial growth factors and steroid injections being preferred in most cases. Nowadays long-term outcomes are better than those achievable 20 years ago and yet, many new therapeutic options are under development, including new intravitreal drugs and gene therapy. Despite this, some cases still develop sight-threatening complications deserving a more aggressive (sometimes surgical) approach. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to reappraise some old but still valid concepts and to integrate them with new research and clinical data. The work will provide an overview of the disease's pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical features along with a detailed discussion on the advantages of multimodal imaging and of the different treatment strategies with the aim of providing retina specialists with the most updated knowledge in the field.

Treatment of Non-Infectious Posterior Uveitis with Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants in a Real-World Setting

Purpose

The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety associated to the treatment of patients with non-infectious posterior uveitis with intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implants in a real-world clinical setting.

Patients and Methods

This is a retrospective, single center analysis of the data from 29 patients with non-infectious posterior uveitis in whom 38 eyes were treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implants in routine clinical practice between January 2012 and October 2017. The parameters of visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were recorded 6 weeks after the first implant was administered, in accordance with the clinical guidelines for the use of these implants, and after a 6-month follow-up period. In addition, the formation of cataracts was evaluated at 12 months.

Results

Treatment with the DEX implant caused a significant improvement in the VA from baseline at 6 weeks in eyes treated with 2-6 implants and for eyes without cataracts. A significant decrease in CRT was observed relative to the baseline at 6 weeks for eyes treated with 1 and 2-6 implants, which was maintained at 6 months for those eyes treated with 2-6 implants. This significant improvement in CRT at 6 weeks and 6 months was evident in eyes with and without cataracts. During the study period, the IOP was found to increase significantly from baseline at 6 weeks in some eyes but this was managed topically, and no surgical intervention was necessary.

Conclusion

Intravitreal DEX implants represent an effective and safe therapy for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis in routine clinical practice, producing favorable visual and anatomical outcomes after the administration of just 2-6 DEX implants.

Suprachoroidal triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Suprachoroidal Drug Delivery has emerged in recent years as a novel promising approach, which may help address the clinical unmet needs in the management of Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO) associated Macular Edema (ME). In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility in regard of the potential efficacy and safety of suprachoroidal injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide (TA) using a microinjector as a mono-treatment of ME due to RVO.

METHODS

This trial included 16 eyes of 16 patients with RVO associated ME presenting to the department of ophthalmology, Al Mouwasat university hospital, Syria. 4 mg of preserved TA was injected suprachoroidally 4 mm away from the inferotemporal limbus using a patient-customized microinjector. After injection, patients were followed after 1 week then monthly for 3 months. Primary outcome measures included the percentage of participants with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain≥15 letters and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥ 20 mmHg in months 1,2, and 3, secondary measures included mean change from baseline BCVA, central subfield thickness (CST), and IOP through each of the follow-up points in addition to other measures.

RESULTS

After injection, BCVA gain≥15 letters occurred in 68.7, 62.5, 50, 50% of patients at week 1 and through months 1,2 and 3 respectively, the mean BCVA improved significantly by 16.4, 16, 14.4, and 11.9 letters (p-value< 0.0005) at week 1 and months 1,2 and 3 respectively. This visual gain was associated with a significant reduction of CST by 290.94 ± 181.76 (week-1) (p-value< 0.0005), 274.31 ± 184.60 (month-1) (p-value< 0.0005), 183.50 ± 165.61 (month-2) (p-value = 0.006) and 137,75 ± 156.25 μm (month-3) (p-value = 0.038). We reported one case of increased IOP ≥ 20 mmHg in the first month that decreased in the second month. The mean change of IOP readings was not statistically significant, with an increase ranging from 0.75 mmHg after the first week (p-value = 0.09) and 0.5 mmHg after 3 months (p-value = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that suprachoroidal TA could be well tolerated and efficacious as a mono-treatment of RVO associated ME. Future clinical trials are required to confirm its longer-term safety and efficacy and to compare this efficacy with the other therapeutic options.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT05038072) on 08/09/2021. This article was published as a preprint on 22/06/2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1701105/v1 .

Acetazolamide and bevacizumab combination therapy versus bevacizumab monotherapy in macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and oral acetazolamide (OA) combination therapy versus IVB monotherapy in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial included 54 eyes of 52 patients with RVO central macular thickness (CMT) of more than 300μm, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 20/400 and 20/40. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to two groups: (I) IVB and OA (250mg twice daily) combination therapy or (II) IVB monotherapy. Ocular injections were repeated monthly for up to three months; BCVA and CMT were measured monthly.

RESULTS

Both regimens resulted in significant reduction in CMT (534±150μm to 352±90μm in the IVB+OA group, P<0.001; and 580±175μm to 362±90μm in the IVB group, P<0.001); neither showed superiority in this regard. Likewise, BCVA showed significant improvement in both groups (0.87±0.56 to 0.53±0.28 LogMAR in the IVB+OA group, P=0.001; and 0.85±0.62 to 0.46±0.4 LogMAR in the IVB group, P<0.001), with no intergroup difference.

CONCLUSION

Addition of oral acetazolamide to IVB in eyes with macular edema secondary to RVO may not result in additional short-term benefits regarding functional and anatomical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05290948, registered on March 22, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05290948.

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. We assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.22 logMAR, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.31; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time.  To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.

Mechanisms of macular edema

Macular edema is the pathological accumulation of fluid in the central retina. It is a complication of many retinal diseases, including diabetic retinopathy, retinal vascular occlusions and uveitis, among others. Macular edema causes decreased visual acuity and, when chronic or refractory, can cause severe and permanent visual impairment and blindness. In most instances, it develops due to dysregulation of the blood-retinal barrier which permits infiltration of the retinal tissue by proteins and other solutes that are normally retained in the blood. The increase in osmotic pressure in the tissue drives fluid accumulation. Current treatments include vascular endothelial growth factor blockers, corticosteroids, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. These treatments target vasoactive and inflammatory mediators that cause disruption to the blood-retinal barrier. In this review, a clinical overview of macular edema is provided, mechanisms of disease are discussed, highlighting processes targeted by current treatments, and areas of opportunity for future research are identified.

PHASE 2 RANDOMIZED STUDY (ORION-1) OF A NOVEL, BIODEGRADABLE DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT (AR-1105) FOR THE TREATMENT OF MACULAR EDEMA DUE TO CENTRAL OR BRANCH RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION

PURPOSE

AR-1105 is a novel biodegradable sustained-release dexamethasone implant designed to deliver 6-month durability. This Phase 2 study evaluated two AR-1105 formulations with different release profiles in patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

Patients received a single intravitreal injection with 340 µg dexamethasone. In the initial phase, five patients received clinical formulation (CF) 1. In the randomized phase, 44 patients were randomized 1:1 to CF1 or CF2. The follow-up was 6 months. Patients had vision loss due to macular edema diagnosed ≥9 (central retinal vein occlusion) or ≥12 months (branch retinal vein occlusion) before screening, and could be treatment-naive or -experienced (if received prior steroids, must have demonstrated response).

RESULTS

Both formulations improved vision and reduced retinal thickening from baseline across all visits. At Month 6, mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity were +4.3 and +8.0 letters, and mean changes in central subfield thickness were -93 µm and -211 µm in CF1 and CF2 randomized patients, respectively. Most common adverse events were reduced visual acuity, worsening macular edema, conjunctival hemorrhage, and increased intraocular pressure. No patients required surgery or laser for intraocular pressure control.

CONCLUSION

Both formulations were well tolerated and demonstrated clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in vision and retinal thickening in patients with retinal vein occlusion with longstanding edema.

Current Treatments and Innovations in Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide. Multiple treatment options have been used over time to attempt to modify the natural progression of the disease in both proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). These two retinal complications are the result of microvascular occlusions and vascular hyperpermeability and are considered one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness in patients of working age. It is now well demonstrated that PDR and DME are associated with increased levels of inflammatory and pro-angiogenic factors in the ocular compartment. To date, laser photocoagulation, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, and corticosteroids have demonstrated efficacy in their treatment in large randomized controlled trials and in real-life observational studies. This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive review of current treatments, including the main drugs used in diabetic pathologic manifestations, as well as new therapeutic alternatives, such as extended-release intraocular devices.

Macrophage-like Cells Are Increased in Retinal Vein Occlusion and Correlate with More Intravitreal Injections and Worse Visual Acuity Outcomes

Macrophage-like cells (MLCs) are an emerging retinal biomarker. MLCs are increased in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) eyes, but their predictive value is unknown. This study investigated if MLCs can predict meaningful clinical outcomes. This prospective, cross-sectional study involved 46 eyes from 23 patients with unilateral RVO. Patients' unaffected eyes were used as matched controls. MLCs were quantified to determine MLC density and percent image area. We collected demographic, clinical, ocular, and imaging characteristics at the time of MLC imaging. We additionally recorded best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and number of intravitreal injections at 6 months and 12 months post-imaging. MLC density and percent area increased by 1.86 (p = 0.0266)- and 1.94 (p = 0.0415)-fold in RVO compared to control eyes. We found no significant correlation between MLC parameters and any baseline characteristic. MLC density was positively correlated with the number of intravitreal injections at 6 months (n = 12, r = 0.62, p = 0.03) and 12 months (n = 9, r = 0.80, p = 0.009) post-imaging. MLC percent area was correlated with LogMAR BCVA change over 12 months (n = 17, r = 0.57, p = 0.02). High MLC counts correlated with more future intravitreal injections and worse visual acuity outcomes, suggesting that MLCs are a biomarker for treatment resistant RVO eyes.

A Comparison of Ocular Complications after 0.7 mg Dexamethasone Implant versus 2 mg of Intravitreal Triamcinolone in Vitrectomized Eyes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rates of complications in eyes that received a dexamethasone (DEX) implant (0.7 mg) or intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT) (2 mg) to treat postvitrectomy macular edema (ME).

DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative, case series.

SUBJECTS

A total of 148 eyes (147 patients); 75 eyes (75 patients) in the DEX group and 73 eyes (72 patients) in the IVT group.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who received an intravitreal DEX 0.7 mg (Ozurdex) or triamcinolone (2 mg) (Triesence) for postvitrectomy ME between July 2014 and December 2021 with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were reviewed. Ocular hypotony and ocular hypertension were defined as intraocular pressure of < 6 mmHg and > 24 mmHg, respectively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The rates of complications.

RESULTS

The follow-up duration was 2.5 ± 1.6 years, with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.398). The rate of transient ocular hypotony per eye and per injection was significantly higher in the DEX group (10 eyes [13%], 30 of 443 injections [7%]) compared with the IVT group (2 eyes [3%], 2 of 262 injections [0.8%]) (P = 0.039 and < 0.001, respectively). Mean visual acuity significantly decreased at the time of ocular hypotony (P = 0.031), but returned to preinjection level after resolution of the hypotony after a median of 12 days. The incidence of ocular hypertension was higher in the DEX group (23 eyes [31%]) than the IVT group (16 eyes [22%]), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.307). Ocular hypertension was controlled with observation or topical medication. There were no between-group differences in the incidence of vitreous hemorrhage (DEX, 3 eyes [4%]; IVT, 1 eye [1%]; P = 0.632) or rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (DEX, 3 eyes [4%]; IVT, 0 eyes [0%]; P = 0.253). Four eyes (5%) experienced migration of the DEX implant into the anterior chamber. No eye developed endophthalmitis.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of ocular hypotony, which causes transient visual impairment, was significantly higher in vitrectomized eyes treated with DEX compared with eyes treated with IVT. Injections other than the inferotemporal quadrant or rotating injection sites may be recommended.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Healthcare expenditure of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors compared with dexamethasone implant for diabetic macular oedema

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to estimate the 1-year costs associated with treating diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients using current intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) biologics compared with the dexamethasone implant.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive cost-evaluation analysis using data from Oslo University Hospital and literature to compare three different intravitreal drugs for DME: bevacizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone. Stratification of patients into 'Naive' or 'Switch' group was based on treatment history. We estimated the costs from healthcare and 'extended' healthcare perspectives. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the impact of various parameters.

RESULTS

The average injections per patient per year for the Naive group (bevacizumab), Switch group (aflibercept) and dexamethasone were 9.5, 9.1 and 3.0 respectively. From a healthcare perspective, the 1-year costs for the Naive group were 15% lower (bevacizumab, €3619), and for the Switch group, 23% higher (aflibercept, €5226) compared with dexamethasone (€4252). The 'extended' healthcare perspective showed the cost per patient per year for bevacizumab remained nominally lower in the Naive group, while dexamethasone remained lower for the Switch group (€5116 for dexamethasone, compared to €4987 for bevacizumab and €6537 for aflibercept).

CONCLUSIONS

From a primary healthcare perspective, the dexamethasone as a first-line DME treatment may increase economic costs in settings where bevacizumab is used off-label. Treating resistant DMEwith dexamethasone may reduce the costs and treatment burden compared with switching to aflibercept.

Representation of Race and Ethnicity in Randomized Clinical Trials of Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Compared to 2010 US Census Data

Importance

Diverse enrollment and adequate representation of racial and ethnic minority groups in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are valuable to ensure external validity and applicability of results.

Objective

To compare the distribution of race and ethnicity in RCTs of diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema from retinal vein occlusion (RVO) to that of US Census data.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis comparing racial and ethnic demographic characteristics of US-based RCTs of DME and RVO between 2004 and 2020 with 2010 US Census data. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to screen for completed phase 3 RCTs with published results. Of 169 trials screened, 146 were excluded because they were incomplete, did not report race and ethnicity, or were not based in the US, and 23 trials were included (15 DME and 8 RVO). The number and percentage of American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White participants was recorded in each RCT. The demographic distribution and proportion was compared to the reported distribution and proportion in the 2010 US Census using the χ2 test.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overrepresentation, underrepresentation, or representation commensurate with 2010 US Census data in the racial and ethnic populations of RCTs of retinal vascular disease.

Results

In 23 included RCTs of DME and RVO, there were a total of 38 participants (0.4%) who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (groups combined owing to small numbers), 415 Asian participants (4.4%), 904 Black participants (9.6%), 954 Hispanic participants (10.1%), and 7613 White participants (80.4%). By comparison, the 2010 US Census data indicated that 1.1% of the US population self-reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (groups combined for comparison in this study), 4.8% self-reported as Asian, 12.6% as Black or African American, 16.3% as Hispanic, and 63.7% as White. American Indian or Alaska Native and Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander participants were underrepresented in 2 trials, neither overrepresented nor underrepresented in 20, and not overrepresented in any of the included trials. Asian participants were underrepresented in 10 trials, overrepresented in 4, and neither overrepresented nor underrepresented in 8. Black participants were underrepresented in 9 trials, overrepresented in 2, and neither overrepresented nor underrepresented in 11. Hispanic participants were underrepresented in 15 trials, overrepresented in 2, and neither overrepresented nor underrepresented in 5. White participants were underrepresented in 2 trials, overrepresented in 14, and neither overrepresented nor underrepresented in 7. The χ2 values comparing RCT demographic distribution to US 2010 Census data were significantly different in 22 of 23 included RCTs.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings in this study indicated a discrepancy between racial and ethnic demographic data in RCTs of DME and RVO and the US population according to the 2010 Census. White study participants were most frequently overrepresented, and Hispanic study participants were most frequently underrepresented. These findings support the need for more efforts to recruit underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities to improve external validity in trial findings.

Describing Adverse Events Associated with Bilateral Same-Day Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To explore the incidence of adverse events after bilateral same-day intravitreal 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant (SDIDI) injections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an IRB approved, single-center, retrospective review of patients receiving bilateral SDIDI injections from January 1, 2016 to October 31, 2021 and reviewed adverse events that occurred within 3 months of injection.

RESULTS

A total of 206 bilateral (412 eyes) SDIDI injections were performed in 59 patients. Ocular hypertension or the addition of intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering drops occurred in 121 (29.4%) eyes after IDI. Two (0.5%) eyes required glaucoma drainage surgeries. Of the 117 phakic eyes, 32 (27.4%) had progression of cataract or cataract extraction. There were two (0.5%) episodes of vitreous hemorrhage and one (0.2%) retinal tear with retinal detachment. There were no cases of endophthalmitis.

CONCLUSION

Serious complication rates after bilateral same-day IDI injections appears low. Increased IOP that requires intervention can occur. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2022;53:612-618.].

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.

Predictive impact of optical coherence tomography biomarkers in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor resistant macular edema treated with dexamethasone implant

PURPOSE

To perform a longitudinal analysis of the effect of optic coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers on macular thickness in patients with persistent macular edema secondary to diabetes mellitus and retinal vein occlusion who recieved intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant.

METHODS

Eighty-nine patients were included in the retrospective study. Patients with anti-VEGF-resistant macular edema were included in the study. The effect of the presence or absence of OCT biomarkers before intravitreal DEX implant therapy on central foveal thickness (CFT) was evaluated. In addition, the change in biomarkers from the baseline visit to the final visit was evaluated. The evaluated OCT biomarkers were as follows: ellipsoid zone and external limiting membrane (ELM) integrity, hyperreflective foci (HRF), disorganization of inner retinal layers (DRIL), hard exudates, serous macular detachment (SMD), pearl necklace, posterior vitreous detachment and the epiretinal membrane (ERM).

RESULTS

The mean age of the overall sample in the study was 64.4 ± 9.6. CFT decreased significantly from 625.3 ± 22.3 μm at baseline to 365.0 ± 21.7 μm in the 1st month but increased significantly to 430.2 ± 22.6 μm in the 3rd month. In the presence of HRF and SMD, recurrence of macular edema was significant in the 3rd month. The percentage of ELM disruption, DRIL, and ERM deteriorated significantly and the percentage of SMD improved significantly at the final visit.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX implant therapy resulted in a satisfactory reduction in CFT in patients with DME and RVO. The presence of HRF and SMD is a negative predictor of recurrence in CFT in short term. DEX implant therapy resulted in satisfactory improvement in SMD.

[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.