Dexamethasone implant in diabetic macular edema in real-life situations

Comparison of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and dexamethasone implant monotherapy in treatment-naive eyes with diabetic macular edema: A 12-month real-life experience

PURPOSE

To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and dexamethasone implant monotherapy in treatment-naive eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-life conditions.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, data were obtained from the hospital database of treatment-naive patients diagnosed with DME with at least 12 months of follow-up. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) at baseline, third month, sixth month, ninth month, and 12th month were recorded. In addition, a subgroup analysis was performed based on having good (below 0.4 log of minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) or poor (0.4 logMAR and above) vision.

RESULTS

A total of 219 eyes of 142 patients were included in the study. The change in the mean BCVA from baseline to 12th month was from 0.62 logMAR to 0.42 logMAR (P < 0.001) in the ranibizumab group, from 0.56 logMAR to 0.39 logMAR (P < 0.001) in the aflibercept group, and from 0.46 logMAR to 0.5 logMAR (P = 0.653) in the dexamethasone group. There was no significant difference between the treatment groups at any time point (P > 0.05). The mean amount of CRT change was statistically significant at 12 months in all groups (ranibizumab: -175.4 µm, aflibercept: -153.3 µm, dexamethasone: -71.4 µm) (P < 0.05). In eyes with initially good vision, the final BCVA at 12 months was significantly better in the ranibizumab group compared to the dexamethasone group (P = 0.008). The aflibercept group had better visual acuity than the dexamethasone group, but there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.059). There was no significant difference in final BCVA in eyes with initially poor vision. No serious ocular/systemic complications were noted.

CONCLUSION

At the 12th month, a significant decrease in CRT was achieved in all treatment groups, whereas only ranibizumab and aflibercept groups had a significant BCVA increase. In eyes with initially good vision, the final BCVA at 12 months was better in the ranibizumab group compared to the dexamethasone group, whereas it was similar in all groups having initially poor vision.

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Macular Edema and Uveitis: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Purpose

The purpose of this review article is to provide a comprehensive review of the current applications of intravitreal DEX implant (Ozurdex^®, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA) for a variety of ophthalmic conditions – ranging from FDA approved indications to off-label uses. We have attempted to provide relevant evidence from the literature to help a reader develop an understanding of the biological and pharmacokinetic properties of DEX implant, its uses, and potential side effects.

Methods

PubMed searches were performed using the terms “Ozurdex”, or “intravitreal DEX implant”, AND “retinal vein occlusion”, or “diabetic macular edema”, or “uveitis”. The search was performed in July of 2021, with an additional search in October 2021. All original English language articles were considered for this review.

Results

DEX implant has evidence of efficacy in a variety of clinical situations including macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion, diabetes, uveitis, and others. Safety concerns include cataract formation and progression, intraocular pressure elevation, complications related to intravitreal injection, and opportunistic infections secondary to steroid-induced immune suppression.

Conclusion

DEX implant is a useful tool in the management of several retinal disorders. Further studies are needed for head-to-head comparison with other treatment modalities and to determine its precise place in clinical practice.

Intraoperative dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular edema patients undergoing phacoemulsification: The CataDex study

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of preoperative intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DexI) on functional and anatomic outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

METHODS

Prospective and non-comparative study conducted on consecutive DME patients undergoing cataract surgery. DexI was administered 15 days before surgery and in a pro re nata regime after surgery. Main outcome measures were mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), central subfield thickness (CST), total macular volume (TMV), and central subfield volume (CSV) from baseline to month-12. Secondary outcome was mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

RESULTS

Forty eyes were included in the study. CRT significantly decreased from 410.4  ±  64.8 µm at baseline to 303.2  ±  24.3 µm at month-12, p < 0.0001. Similarly, CST was significantly reduced from 436.4  ±  120.4 µm at baseline to 322.9  ±  54.2 µm at month-12, p < 0.0001. Total macular volume and CSV were significantly reduced from 9.95  ±  1.68 mm3 and 0.38  ±  0.11 mm³ at baseline to 8.49  ±  0.83 mm³ and 0.31  ±  0.05 mm³ at month-12, respectively (p < 0.0001 each, respectively). BCVA significantly improved from 0.26  ±  0.17 Snellen equivalent at baseline to 0.65  ±  0.19 at month-12, p < 0.0001. Mean DexI administered during the study were 2.0  ±  0.3. Neither DME subtype nor previous treatment status had any effect on functional or anatomic outcomes. Regarding safety, one (2.5%) eye developed ocular hypertension, which was successfully controlled with topical hypotensive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

DexI was and effective and safe strategy for managing DME in diabetic patients undergoing uneventful cataract surgery.

Impact of Different Clinical Baseline Characteristics on Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Ozurdex® Outcomes

Purpose

To determine the impact of different baseline clinical characteristics on the improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who underwent the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) Ozurdex^®.

Methods

This was a single center retrospective study conducted on patients with DME, either naïve or previously treated, who were treated with one or more DEX and had a follow-up of at least 6 months. The main outcome measure was the proportion of DEX achieving an improvement ≥15 letters in BCVA.

Results

The study analyzed 192 DEX implants administered to 97 eyes (65 patients). Among the 192 DEX analyzed, 57 (29.7%) implants achieved a BCVA improvement ≥15 letters (ETDRS) from baseline, with a mean time for achieving such improvement of 89.2 (39.7) days. Eyes who received an additional DEX and those with a duration of DME < 6 months had a greater probability of achieving a BCVA improvement ≥15 letters (odds-ratio: 2.55, p = 0.0028 and odds-ratio: 1.93, p = 0.0434). The mean (standard deviation) change in BCVA from baseline was 7.5 (14.5) letters, p < 0.0001. The mean change in central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline was -128.0 (151.0) µm, p < 0.0001. The mean number of DEX implanted was 1.9 (0.8). Four (2.1%) DEX experienced an intraocular pressure increased ≥10 mm Hg; all the cases were successfully managed with topical antiglaucoma medication.

Conclusion

The results of this study confirmed previous evidence suggesting that DEX is effective for improving BCVA and CMT in patients with DME.

Intravitreal Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: An Update

Diabetic macular edema (DME) represents a prevalent and disabling eye condition. Despite that DME represents a sight-threatening condition, it is also among the most accessible to treatment. Many different treatment options including photocoagulation, intravitreal medical treatment (either vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors or corticosteroids therapies), and surgical removal are currently available. Although laser has been considered as the gold standard for many years, over the past several years vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) have become first-line therapy. However, many patients do not adequately respond to them. With the development of sustained-release corticosteroid devices, steroids have gained a presence in the management of the DME. We review and update the role of anti-VEGF and intravitreal sustained-release corticosteroid management of DME. According to the currently available scientific evidence, the choice of one anti-VEGF over another critically depends on the baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). While aflibercept may be the drug of choice in low baseline BCVA, the three anti-VEGFs (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept) provided similar functional outcomes when the baseline BCVA was higher. DEX implants are a valuable option for treating DME, although they are usually seen as a second choice, particularly in those eyes that have an insufficient response to anti-VEGF. The new evidence suggested that, in eyes that did not adequately respond to anti-VEGF, switching to a DEX implant at the time to 3 monthly anti-VEGF injections provided better functional outcomes.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant one month before versus concomitant with cataract surgery in patients with diabetic macular oedema: the dexcat study

PURPOSE

To report clinical outcomes of two different timings of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant administration for prevention of diabetic macular oedema (DME) worsening following cataract surgery.

METHODS

This multicentre, retrospective study included patients with DME who received an intravitreal DEX implant 1 month before cataract surgery, 'precataract DEX' group, or at the time of cataract surgery, 'concomitant treatments' group. Inclusion criteria were a follow-up ≥3 months and ophthalmological examination with optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging at baseline (cataract surgery) and throughout follow-up. Anatomical improvement was considered to be a decrease in OCT central subfield (CSF) thickness ≥20% compared to baseline. The primary outcomes were anatomical and functional results at 3 months.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-one patients were included: 136 in the 'precataract DEX' group and 85 in the 'concomitant treatments' group. At 3 months, a reduction of CSF thickness ≥ 20% was found in 7.3% of eyes in the 'precataract DEX group' and in 83.7% of eyes in the 'concomitant treatments' group (p < 0.001), with mean CSF thickness lower in the latter group (371 ± 52 µm versus 325 ± 57 µm, p < 0.001). At 3 months, mean best-corrected visual acuity had improved from baseline in both groups (p < 0.001), with no difference between groups (p = 0. 20). No serious systemic adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Both approaches prevented a worsening of DME, showing a comparable visual outcome. Dexamethasone (DEX) implant given at the same time as cataract surgery provided a better anatomical outcome.

Visual Acuity Gain Profiles and Anatomical Prognosis Factors in Patients with Drug-Naive Diabetic Macular Edema Treated with Dexamethasone Implant: The NAVEDEX Study

Brief Summary Statement

NAVEDEX (NAive diabetic macular Edema treated by DEXamethasone implant) study is a real-life multi-center study on drug-naive diabetic macular edema treated by Dexamethasone-implant. Two different visual acuity gain (VA) profiles were identified, based on baseline visual acuity (VA). Baseline disorganization of retinal inner layers or ellipsoid zone alterations (EZAs) negatively influence final VA but has no impact on VA gain.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the visual acuity (VA) gain profiles between patients with drug-naive diabetic macular edema (DME) treated by dexamethasone implant (DEX-implant) and assess the baseline anatomical and functional factors that could influence the response to the treatment in real-life conditions. A retrospective, multi-center observational study included 129 eyes with drug-naive DME treated by DEX-implant. The Median follow-up was 13 months. Two groups of VA gain trajectories were identified—Group A, with 71% (n = 96) of patients whose average VA gain was less than five letters and Group B, with 29% (n = 33) of patients with an average gain of 20 letters. The probability of belonging to Group B was significantly higher in patients with baseline VA < 37 letters (p = 0.001). Ellipsoid zone alterations (EZAs) or disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRILs) were associated with a lower final VA (53.0 letters versus 66.4, p = 0.002) but without a significant difference in VA gain (4.9 letters versus 6.8, p = 0.582). Despite a low baseline VA, this subgroup of patients tends to have greater visual gain, encouraging treatment with DEX-implant in such advanced-stage disease. However, some baseline anatomic parameters, such as the presence of EZAs or DRILs, negatively influenced final vision.

Managing Diabetic Macular Edema in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Strategies and Treatment Options

Purpose

This meta-analysis aims to summarize 12-month best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and to identify factors affecting treatment response using evidence generated from meta-regression.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life/observational studies that reported 12-month changes in BCVA in patients with DME on anti-VEGF or dexamethasone implant treatment in monotherapy. Study factors that were analyzed are baseline patient characteristics, study type, drug employed, number of injections and 12-month change in BCVA. Data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis with BCVA change as the main outcome. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the impact of multiple covariates.

Results

One-hundred-five heterogeneous study populations (45,032 eyes) were identified and included in the analysis. The use of anti-VEGFs and dexamethasone implant induced an overall increase of +8.13 ETDRS letters in BCVA at 12 months of follow-up. Meta-regression provided evidence that mean BCVA change using anti-VEGFs was not statistically higher for RCTs (p=0.35) compared to observational studies. Dexamethasone implant showed a trend for better results in observational studies over RCTs. Populations following a fixed aflibercept regimen performed better than those following a reactive treatment regimen. Mean BCVA gain was higher in younger populations (p<0.001), with lower baseline BCVA (p<0.0001) and longer diabetes duration (p<0.0001), receiving a higher number of injections (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

Intravitreal therapy with anti-VEGFs or dexamethasone implant produces a significant improvement in BCVA at 12 months in patients with DME. Meta-regression identified the modifiable covariates that can be targeted in order to maximize functional results.

Differential response to intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated diabetic macular edema eyes

Background

To identify different response patterns to intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI) in naïve and previously treated (PT) diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes in a real-life setting.

Methods

342 IDI injections (203 DME eyes) were included. Number of IDI injections, percentage (%) of eyes with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 injections, time to reinjections, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated for naïve and PT DME eyes over 24 months.

Results

Mean number of injections was significantly lower in naïve vs PT DME eyes (1.40 ± 0.9 vs 1.82 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The percentage of eyes receiving 1 injection was significantly higher in naïve vs PT DME eyes (76.1 vs 47.7), (p < 0.001). However, it was significantly lower for 2 (16.4 vs 29.4), or 3 injections (1.4 vs 17.6) (both p < 0.001), with no differences in eyes receiving ≥4 injections (5.9 vs 5.1 respectively, p = 0.80). Mean time to reinjection was not significantly different between both groups for the second, third and fourth injection (9.6 ± 4.0 vs 10.0 ± 5.5, p = 0.75, 13.2 ± 4.0 vs 16.0 ± 3.5, p = 0.21 and 21.7 ± 3.8 vs 19.7 ± 5.8, p = 0.55). VA scores were consistently better in naïve vs PT DME eyes at all studied timepoints, with no significant differences in CRT reduction or adverse effect rates.

Conclusion

Naïve DME eyes received lower number of IDI injections and showed better VA levels than PT DME eyes for 24 months in a real-world setting. This data supports the IDI use in early DME stages and provide further evidence of better IDI response when used as first-line therapy.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema: a retrospective study

AIM

To assess the effect of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) Ozurdex on the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Totally 43 eyes (24 naïve and 19 previously treated) were included in the study. Retrospective and single-center study involved patients with a clinical diagnosed of DME, who received treatment with DEX implant and had a follow-up of at least 12mo. Primary endpoints included changes in BCVA and CRT.

RESULTS

At month 12, mean improvement in BCVA from baseline was 20.4±20.8 letters and 6.8±6.9 letters in naïve and previously treated patients, respectively (P=0.0132). The naïve patients achieved the BCVA improvement significantly faster (2.4±1.5mo) than the previously treated ones (3.5±2.4mo, P=0.0298; Mann-Whitney test). The proportion of eyes gaining ≥15 letters was 54.2% and 21.1% in the non-previously treated and previously treated groups, respectively (P=0.0293). CRT was significantly reduced from 484.0±119.8 and 487.5±159.9 µm to 272.0±39.2 and 233.5±65.7 µm in the naïve and previously treated patients, respectively; P<0.0001 each, respectively. The presence of subretinal fluid was significantly associated with the proportion of patients achieving a BCVA improvement ≥5 letters [HR (95%CI), 1.23 (1.04 to 1.45), P=0.0145]; ≥10 letters [HR (95%CI), 1.75 (1.10 to 2.77), P=0.0182]; and ≥15 letters [HR (95% CI), 2.04 (1.03 to 4.02), P=0.0407]. Naïve patients received less DEX implants throughout the study than the previously treated ones (1.8±0.6 vs 2.3±0.6, P=0.0172, respectively). Totally 9 patients (20.9%) have developed ocular hypertension, which was successfully controlled with topical hypotensive drugs. Of the 23 phakic eyes at baseline, 5 eyes (21.7%) either had new onset lens opacity or progression of an existing opacity during the study follow-up. Four of them (2 in the naïve group and 2 in the previously treated one) required cataract surgery at months 4, 6, 6, and 6, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained in this study may support the early use of DEX Ozurdex as first line therapy in naïve patients.

Efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in treatment naïve eyes with diabetic macular edema: Real world experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in treatment naïve eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of treatment naïve eyes with DME which received intravitreal dexamethasone implant between January 2016 and March 2018 was done. Demographic details of the patients, ocular examination findings at baseline and on follow up visits were noted. Morphological features of DME and central macular thickness were noted on optical coherence tomography at each visit. The details regarding additional treatment for macular edema on follow up were noted.

RESULTS

Sixty five eyes were included in the study. The mean age was 59.14 ± 9.59 years. The follow up ranged from 6 to 48 months. Psuedophakic eyes showed visual improvement whereas the phakic eyes showed stable vision. The central foveal thickness showed significant reduction (p = 0.05) in all the eyes. The best corrected visual acuity at final follow up (+0.65 logMAR) was slightly less as compared to baseline (+0.62 logMAR). Retreatment was needed in 37% eyes and antiglaucoma medications in 8% eyes. Cataract progression was noted in 24 eyes (37%); 17 eyes (26.1%) underwent surgery. Notably, 27 eyes (41.5%) had some degree of macular ischemia at baseline. And five eyes (7.7%) showed progression of retinopathy leading to vitreous hemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone implant is helpful in reducing the macular thickness and stabilizing the vision in treatment naïve DME; requiring less number of treatment sessions. However, it does not prevent progression of diabetic retinopathy. The visual improvement may be affected by cataract and macular ischemia.

Baseline SD-OCT characteristics of diabetic macular oedema patterns can predict morphological features and timing of recurrence in patients treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implants

AIMS

To evaluate the timing and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) features of diabetic macular oedema (DME) recurrence according to baseline OCT patterns in patients treated with dexamethasone implant (DEX-I).

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study (72 eyes/65 patients). Best-corrected visual acuity, timing of DME recurrence, and SD-OCT pattern [intraretinal cysts (IRC), IRC plus subretinal fluid (mixed), external limiting membrane (ELM), ellipsoid (IS/OS) layer integrity] were assessed at baseline and monthly until first DME recurrence.

RESULTS

Forty-two (58.3%) and 30 (41.6%) DME eyes had an IRC and mixed DME pattern at baseline, respectively. Twenty-four out of thirty mixed eyes (80%) relapsed without subretinal fluid. At baseline, mixed eyes showed similar changes in ELM and IS/OS (60 and 76.6% of eyes, respectively) versus IRC eyes (42.8 and 80.9% of eyes). After DME recurrence, more mixed eyes at baseline showed ELM and IS/OS changes (63.3 and 86.6%) than IRC eyes (50 and 76.2%). 33.3% of mixed eyes had DME recurrence at ≥ 6 months from first DEX-I implant versus 19% of IRC eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed DME eyes were treated with DEX-I relapse later and more frequently without subretinal fluid than IRC eyes. SD-OCT characteristics of different DME patterns at baseline can predict morphological features and timing of DME recurrence.

Results of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) in diabetic macular edema patients: Early versus late switch

PURPOSE

To assess the functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex® in eyes with diabetic macular edema that did not adequately respond to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.

METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective, and real-life case series study conducted on consecutive diabetic macular edema patients who underwent treatment with one or more dexamethasone implant injections and were followed up for a minimum of 12 months. Subjects were divided into three groups: I-naïve patients, II-previously treated eyes that received three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections before the study (early switch), and III-previously treated eyes that received >3 intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections before the study (late switch). Primary endpoints were best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness at month 12.

RESULTS

A total of 129 eyes (21 naïve and 108 previously treated, Group II: 32 and Group III: 76) were included. At month 12, best-corrected visual acuity significantly improved from 0.27 ± 0.23 and 0.31 ± 0.22 at baseline to 0.36 ± 0.25 and 0.37 ± 0.23 at month 12 in naïve and previously treated eyes, respectively, and p = 0.0063 and 0.0060, respectively. Central retinal thickness, in naïve and previously treated eyes, was significantly reduced from 483.0 ± 143.4 and 431.3 ± 115.5 µm, at baseline, to 278.8 ± 72.1 and 269.3 ± 66.2 µm, at month 12, respectively, and p < 0.0001 each, respectively. Best-corrected visual acuity improvement was significantly greater in both absolute and percentage values, p = 0.0393 and 0.0118, respectively, in Group II than in Group III.

CONCLUSION

In eyes with insufficient response to antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, switching to dexamethasone at the time to 3-monthly antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections provided better functional outcomes than those that received >3 antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections.

Real-Life Management of Diabetic Macular Edema with Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant: A Retrospective Analysis of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

Inflammation plays a key role in the pathogenesis of diabetic macular edema (DME), and intravitreal corticosteroids are among the recommended therapies. The goal of this retrospective analysis was to describe outcomes with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) in real life.

METHODS

Medical digital records of DME patients treated with DEX implant and followed up for 3 years were analyzed. Treatment with DEX implant was started either as first-line therapy in pseudophakic patients and in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities or as second-line therapy in patients refractory to the inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy. Analyzed outcomes included central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Mean number of implant injections per patient and mean duration of the interval between injections were also estimated.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (mean age 65.7 (±12.3) years; 53 phakic and 22 pseudophakic) with DME were included. Overall, 84 eyes were treated. Mean CMT improved from 380.1 (±100.3) µm at baseline to 306.8 (±77.0) µm at 36 months (p=0.0003). Mean BCVA improved for up to 6 months (p=0.08) and then started to decrease reaching values lower than baseline after 24 months. In pseudophakic patients, BCVA improvements were more pronounced and sustained up to 36 months (p=0.6). Over 36 months, each patient received on average 2.4 (±1.6) intravitreal injections of DEX implant. The time interval between consecutive injections was included between 180 and 240 days. No unexpected safety issues were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

With fewer than 3 injections per patient over a 3-year period, DEX implant was able to improve anatomic outcomes in DME patients. Only pseudophakic eyes showed also a long lasting functional benefit at 36 months.

Oculocardiac Reflex During Intravitreal Injection

Oculocardiac reflex (OCR) has been described to occur with mechanical manipulation of the eye, eyelids or orbit. There are no reports in the literature of OCR during intravitreal injection (IVI). This may be due to the fact that heart rate is not monitored during the procedure. We aimed to evaluate OCR during IVI. A total of 532 patients were enrolled in the study at Asociacion para Evitar la Ceguera en Mexico. Mexico City, Mexico. IVI was performed on one eye in every patient with diabetic retinopathy (DR), age related macular degeneration (AMD) or choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to pathological myopia. Heart rate was monitored with a pulse oximeter before, during and after injection. OCR was defined as a 20% decrease or more of basal heart rate. The population enrolled included 270 females and 262 males with mean age of 63.8 years. A decrease in heart rate of 20% or more occurred in 18 patients during IVI (3.3%; 95% confidence interval 1.85% and 4.92%). OCR was asymptomatic in these patients. OCR occurred in 3.3% of our patients during IVI. Hence, OCR must be considered when performing IVI.

DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA IN NAIVE COMPARED WITH REFRACTORY EYES: The International Retina Group Real-Life 24-Month Multicenter Study. The IRGREL-DEX Study

PURPOSE

To investigate efficacy and safety of repeated dexamethasone (DEX) implants over 24 months, in diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes that were treatment naive compared with eyes refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment, in a real-life environment.

METHODS

This multicenter international retrospective study assessed best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness (CST) of naive and refractory eyes to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections treated with dexamethasone implants. Safety data (intraocular pressure rise and cataract surgery) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 130 eyes from 125 patients were included. Baseline best-corrected visual acuity and CST were similar for naive (n = 71) and refractory eyes (n = 59). Both groups improved significantly in vision after 24 months (P < 0.001). However, naive eyes gained statistically significantly more vision than refractory eyes (+11.3 ± 10.0 vs. 7.3 ± 2.7 letters, P = 0.01) and were more likely to gain ≥10 letters (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.19-9.24, P = 0.02). At 6, 12, and 24 months, CST was significantly decreased compared with baseline in both naive and refractory eyes; however, CST was higher in refractory eyes than in naive eyes (CST 279 ± 61 vs. 313 ± 125 μm, P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Over a follow-up of 24 months, vision improved in diabetic macular edema eyes after treatment with dexamethasone implants, both in eyes that were treatment naive and eyes refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment; however, improvement was greater in naive eyes.

[Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) in patients with diabetic macular edema: Real life safety and efficacy]

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DI) for patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in real life.

METHODS

We conducted a monocentric retrospective analysis of the change in visual acuity and central macular thickness (CMT) after intravitreal injection of the DI at peak efficacy (2 months after injection) as well as the timing of reinjections and complications in patients with a loss of vision due to DME.

RESULTS

Forty eyes of 33 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 12.6 months. Thirty percent of the eyes experienced an increase in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA)>15 letters at peak efficacy (P<0.05) after each ID injection. Treatment-naive patients had a sustained response after Ozurdex injection, with better visual acuity at 3 months (P=0.02) and 4 months (P=0.04) than non-naïve patients and better visual acuity at 6 months despite identical baseline visual acuity (P<0.05). Anatomical efficacy was good, with approximately 60% of patients with CMT<300 microns at peak efficacy after each injection of ID. Thirty percent of eyes demonstrated ocular hypertension (OHT)>25mmHg at peak efficacy, and 12.5% of eyes required cataract surgery during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The DI has good functional and anatomic efficacy in these patients, with a good safety profile. Treatment-naïve patients with more recent DME had a more sustained increase in visual acuity after the injections and better visual recovery at 6 months. This encourages us to initiate DI therapy early if there is no response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in patients not previously treated with any intravitreal drug: a prospective 12-month follow-up study

Objective: To evaluate the mid-long-term efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant (Ozurdex¹) in naïve patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods: Prospective and single-center study conducted on consecutive patients with a diagnosis of DME, who received a DEX implant and were followed up for at least 12 months. The main outcomes measurements were the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and in foveal thickness (FT) as compared to the baseline values.Results: Of the 84 screened patients 50 were included in the study. The BCVA significantly improved from 52.4 (20.4) letters at baseline to 62.6 (15.6), 61.2 (18.4), 61.6 (18.6), 60.6 (19.0), and 60.6 (18.8) at 2, 4, 6, 12 months and end of follow-up period, respectively (repeated measures ANOVA and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction; p = .0008). At the end of the follow-up period, a gain of BCVA of ≥5, ≥10, and ≥15 letters were observed in 26 (52.0%), 18 (36.0%), and 16 (32.0%) patients, respectively. The mean FT was significantly reduced from 446.0 (139.9) µm at baseline to 327.2 (103.6) at the end of follow-up (repeated measures ANOVA and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction; p = .0008). During the study follow-up, the patients receive a mean of 3.4 (2.9-3.9) implants. Of the 32 phakic eyes at baseline, 17 (53.1%) either developed new lens opacity or progression of an existing opacity.Conclusion: In eyes with DME not previously treated with intravitreal drugs, DEX implants provide meaningful functional and anatomical benefits, and these results are sustained mid-long-term.

Pro Re Nata Dexamethasone Implant for Treatment-Naive Phakic Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema: A Prospective Study

PURPOSE

To determine the utility and safety of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant as primary therapy (pro re nata [PRN]) in phakic eyes with early treatment-naive diabetic macular edema (DME).

DESIGN

Prospective, case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with diabetes mellitus whose eyes were phakic and had early treatment-naive clinically significant macular edema.

METHODS

Patients whose eyes were phakic with DME (<3 months) were included if the central subfield thickness (CST) was >300 μm and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) between 0.3 and 1.0 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution. A comprehensive ocular and systemic examination was performed and the implant injected PRN using a standardized technique. Patients had follow-up at least monthly for 2 years. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze categorical variables in terms of size and proportions. The repeated-measures analysis of variance test was used to determine the change in CDVA, CST, intraocular pressure, and hard exudate area over time.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the determination of the change in CDVA at month 24 from baseline. Secondary outcome measures included determining the change in CST, median number of injections, proportion gaining 15 letters, and complications, if any.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients (85 males) were included. At 2 years, mean CDVA improved from 0.62 to 0.4 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution, and median CST improved from 397 to 236 μm. The median number of injections was 1.6. Cataract developed in 3 patients with a clear lens, and 31 patients required topical antiglaucoma therapy. Proliferative disease developed in 4 patients, which was managed with panretinal photocoagulation. None of the study patients required rescue therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with treatment-naive phakic eyes who had DME, primary therapy with the intravitreal dexamethasone implant PRN (for 2 years) resulted in significantly improved mean CDVA. A fifth of the patients required control of intraocular pressure, and new-onset cataract developed in 3 of 153 patients.

A Collaborative Retrospective Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant (Ozurdex) in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: The European DME Registry Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy, effect profile, and safety of dexamethasone implant on diabetic macular edema (DME) in a real-life setting, further comparing results by DME duration, previous treatment status, and diabetic control.

DESIGN

A multicenter, retrospective cohort of 340 DME eyes of 287 patients from 25 clinical sites from 8 countries.

METHODS

Data were analyzed in 2 perspectives: per injection, in which all measurements were grouped and baseline was defined as the day of injection, and thus the pharmacodynamics of single injections could be assessed; and injection series, defined as 2 or more injections with 3 to 6 months between injections analyzing the outcome 3 to 6 months after the last injection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was improvement of 15 or more letters in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline. Secondary outcomes included improvement of 10 letters or more in BCVA, change in central macular thickness (CMT), and time to maximum improvement and safety.

RESULTS

Overall, 762 injections were administered to 340 eyes of 287 patients. Injection series analysis included 171 series in 171 eyes of 150 patients, for a total of 444 injections, with a mean follow-up of 1.7±0.8 years. Of the 762 injections analyzed per injection, 22.7% achieved a 15-letter or more improvement, and 37.8% achieved a 10-letter or more improvement. Mean time to peak improvement was 81.9±39.7 days. Mean maximum change in CMT was -174±171 μm. Overall, 7.6% lost 15 or more letters. More eyes with early DME gained 10 or more letters and fewer eyes lost 10 or more letters compared with eyes with late DME (47.4% vs. 33.9% [P = 0.001] and 8.2% vs. 13.5% [P = 0.029], respectively). Patients with controlled diabetes showed greater CMT reduction (P = 0.0002). A higher percentage of treatment-naive patients gained 10 or 15 letter or more in BCVA (P = 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively). Intraocular pressure elevation of more than 25 mmHg was found following 7.9% of injections; no endophthalmitis was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone implant is an effective and safe treatment for DME. Peak improvement was achieved 3 months after injection and dissipated thereafter. Clinicians and providers may consider shortening treatment intervals.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant as an alternative to systemic steroids as prophylaxis for uveitic cataract surgery: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

To determine the utility of the dexamethasone implant (IVD) as an alternative to systemic steroids as prophylaxis against cystoid macular edema (CMO) in patients with chronic, recurrent CMO associated intermediate or posterior uveitis (IU/PU), and cataract undergoing cataract surgery.

METHODS

This was a randomized, parallel design, and clinical trial. Patients with IU/PU and cataract scheduled for cataract surgery were randomly assigned to receive the IVD concurrently with cataract surgery (Group 1: 20 patients) or systemic steroids (Group 2: 23 patients) tapered over 4-6 weeks along with uneventful cataract surgery and routine postoperative care. Patients with glaucoma/contraindications to steroids were excluded. All patients were followed up for 6 months.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary-incidence of postoperative CMO. Secondary-the change in BCVA (corrected distance visual acuity) and Central Subfield thickness (CST) and complications. Appropriate statistical analysis was done.

RESULTS

The median age was 47.3 ± 4.23 years (group 1) and 49.12 ± 5.32 years (Group 2). One patient (Group 1) and two (Group 2) developed CMO. The BCVA improved significantly in both groups (p = 0.013). The CST change was insignificant. Four patients (Group 1) required intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering medications. Three patients (Group 2) required early steroid taper.

CONCLUSIONS

IVD is a good alternative as prophylaxis in IU/PU and cataract in preventing postoperative CMO.

Recent advances in slow and sustained drug release for retina drug delivery

INTRODUCTION

Striking recent advance has occurred in the field of medical retina, greatly because intraocular drugs have been developed, enhancing their clinical efficacy while avoiding systemic side-effects. However, the burden of repeated intraocular administration makes limits the optimal efficacy of treatments, prompting the development of new drugs with prolonged half-life or of sustained drug delivery systems.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we describe the various drugs and drug delivery systems that have reached the clinical stage and those that are in clinical development and we discuss the limitations to clinical translation.

EXPERT OPINION

Substantial fundamental work is still required to build guidelines on optimal animal models for ocular pharmacokinetics and safety studies depending on the target disease site and the on the type of therapeutic compounds. The effects of a drug administered as a bolus at high concentration in the vitreous might differ from those resulting from the sustained release of a lower concentration, and no delivery platform can be simply adapted to any drug. For the treatment of retinal diseases, development of therapeutic compounds should integrate from its early conception, the combination of an active drug with a specific drug delivery system, administered by a specific route.

Early versus late switch: How long should we extend the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in unresponsive diabetic macular edema patients?

PURPOSE

To compare the results of early versus late switch to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant Ozurdex^® in patients with diabetic macular edema who had a poor response to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.

METHODS

Retrospective and single-center study conducted, in a real setting, on consecutive diabetic macular edema patients who were switch to an intravitreal dexamethasone implant after a poor response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Study sample was divided into two groups: (1) early-switch group, included those eyes who received three anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections before switch and (2) late-switch group, included those eyes that received six or more anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections before switch. The primary end-point was the difference in mean change in best-corrected visual acuity and in central subfoveal thickness.

RESULTS

A total of 69 (31 early-switch group and 38 late-switch group) eyes were included. In the early-switch group, median (25-75 quartile range) best-corrected visual acuity significantly increase from 0.2 (0.2-0.5) at baseline to 0.4 (0.3 -0.7) at month 24 (p = 0.0043). Whereas, in the late-switch group, best-corrected visual acuity did not increase (p = 0.8602). Central subfoveal thickness was significantly reduced in both early- and late-switch groups, p = 0.0002 and 0.0038, respectively. The proportion of eyes obtaining a central subfoveal thickness reduction ⩾ 10% was significantly greater in the early-switch group than in the late-switch group (71.0% vs 47.4%, respectively, p = 0.0498). Three (9.7%) and 10 (26.3%) eyes have developed ocular hypertension during the study in the early- and late-switch groups, respectively, p = 0.0816.

CONCLUSION

Early switch to Ozurdex in patients who did not adequately respond to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy provided better functional and anatomical outcomes.

Dexamethasone implant in the management of diabetic macular edema from clinician's perspective

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of characteristics and principles of use of dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). The condensed information about patient selection, dosing, and postinjection management is provided to make the clinician’s decisions easier in real-life practice. DME is a common complication of diabetes and the leading cause of visual loss in the working-age population. Inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis of DME. The breakdown of the blood–retinal barrier involves the expression of inflammatory cytokines and growth factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Steroids have proved to be effective in the treatment of DME by blocking the production of VEGF and other inflammatory cytokines, by inhibiting leukostasis, and by enhancing the barrier function of vascular endothelial cell tight junctions. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of DME resistant to anti-VEGF therapy and in vitrectomized eyes. Data from clinical trials suggest that dexamethasone implant can be considered as first-line treatment in pseudophakic eyes. Dexamethasone implant is also the first-line therapy in patients not suited for anti-VEGF therapy, pregnant women, and patients unable to return for frequent monitoring. It has been shown that the maximum effect of dexamethasone implant on visual gain and retinal thickness occurs approximately 2 months after injection. Various treatment regimens are used in real-life situations, and reported reinjection intervals were usually <6 months. The number of retreatments needed decreased over time. Treatment algorithms should be personalized. Postinjection management and follow-up should consider potential adverse events such as intraocular pressure elevation and cataract.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex® in naïve and refractory patients with different subtypes of diabetic macular edema

Background

Diabetic macular edema (DME) can be treated with different alternatives, among them Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) has demonstrated that may improve both central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex® in patients with different subtypes of diabetic macular edema over a 6-month follow-up period.

Methods

Eighty-four (29 naïve and 55 previously treated) eyes were included in this retrospective study. For each patient, the BCVA [Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts] and macular thickness on optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline visit and within the 2nd, 4th, and 6th months of follow-up were obtained. The main outcomes measurements were the mean change in BCVA and in CMT with respect to the baseline value. The percentage of patients gaining ≥5 letters and ≥ 10 letters in BCVA was also analyzed. Results: A total of 84 eyes, 29 (34.5%) naïve and 55 (65.5%) non-naïve, from 69 patients were included in the study. BCVA at baseline was 58.8 (16.4) and 61.8 (11.6) in naïve and refractory patients, respectively, p = 0.4513. At every visit, BCVA significantly improved from baseline in naïve and non-naïve eyes (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003, respectively; Friedman rank sum test). At baseline, the mean CMT was 466.2 (189.7) μm and 448.1 (110.7) μm in the naïve and non-naïve patients, respectively (p = 0.5830); and decreased to 339.3 (92.5) μm and 357.5 (79.1) μm, respectively (p = 0.0004 and p < 0.0001, respectively, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The proportion of patients gaining ≥10 letters was significantly greater in the naïve group, p = 0.0199.

Conclusion

The intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) is effective for the treatment of diabetic macular edema, even in refractory cases that have failed to respond to previous therapies.

Long-term probability of intraocular pressure elevation with the intravitreal dexamethasone implant in the real-world

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term cumulative probability of intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation with the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) when used to treat different indications: diabetic macular edema, uveitis, retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

705 IDI injections (429 eyes) were assessed and Kaplan-Meier graphs were generated to assess: the probability of different levels of IOP elevation (IOP≥21, ≥25 or ≥35 mmHg), IOP change ≥10 mmHg, initiation of IOP-lowering treatment, glaucoma surgery, IOP change with repeat injections and IOP elevation in eyes with glaucoma and ocular hypertension (OHT).

RESULTS

The cumulative probability of IOP ≥21, ≥25 and ≥35 mmHg was 50%-60%, 25%-30% and 6%-7% at 12-24 months, respectively. The probability of initiating IOP-lowering medication was 31%-54% at 12-24 months. Glaucoma and OHT eyes had a higher probability of mild IOP elevation (≥21 mmHg, 65.1%, 75% and 57.8%, p = 0.01), yet a similar moderate (≥25 mmHg, 22.3%, 28% and 30.2%, p = 0.91) and severe elevation of IOP (≥35 mmHg, 3.7%, 7.1% and 4%, p = 0.71) as normal eyes. Glaucoma surgery was required in only 0.9% cases (4/429). At baseline, 8.8% of the treated eyes had glaucoma, 6.7% OHT and 16.9% were already on IOP-lowering medication.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long-term (24 months), IOP elevation is common, generally mild (30% IOP, ≥25 mmHg) and well-tolerated, resolving with topical treatment (54%) and rarely requiring surgery (0.9%).

Long-term efficacy and safety profile of multiple injections of intravitreal dexamethasone implant to manage diabetic macular edema: A systematic review of real-world studies

INTRODUCTION

Systematic review of real-world studies about repeated dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi) 0.7 mg in diabetic macular edema management, in order to identify the effective window of time occurring between injections, the critical evaluation of efficacy of the treatment, and the relative long-term safety in the real life setting.

METHODS

Literature databases such as PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE were used to identify reports including DEX implant injections.

RESULTS

Twenty-one peer-reviewed publications were identified. DEX implants retreatment was considered on a pro re nata (PRN) basis at any time or starting from month three or four. About 1/3 of the eyes were retreated before six months from first injection (range 0-86.7%). Mean retreatment average time was 5.3 ± 0.9 months, with an estimated average of 1.3 injections each six months. There was no statistical correlation between average retreatment time and incidence of adverse events or other variables investigated. Limited safety issues related to implants number have been found, suggesting an overall good tolerance of long-term DEXi.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive evaluation of real-world data suggests an average DEXi duration close to five months, following a PRN treatment strategy, including about 1/3 of patients. Repeated DEXi administration revealed an acceptable long-term efficacy/safety ratio.

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

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) in Indian patients with macular edema: Real-life scenario

Context:

Role of Ozurdex in macular edema due to various posterior segment pathologies.

AIM:

The aim of this study is to report outcome of Ozurdex implant in macular edema (ME) secondary to various posterior segment pathologies.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

This was a single-center, retrospective, interventional study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Patients of ME were treated with one or more Ozurdex implants (0.7 mg). Data collection included demographic details, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), duration of efficacy, and record of adverse events (if any) within 24 weeks.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

Paired sample t-test, Stata data analysis, and statistical software, version 12.1, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA, were used in the study.

RESULTS:

One hundred and sixteen eyes of 104 patients were studied which had a diagnosis of diabetic ME (n = 46), retinal vein occlusion (n = 40), and uveitis (n = 30). The average age of patients (mean ± standard deviation) was 50.2 ± 21.9 years. Baseline mean ± SD (standard deviation) logMAR BCVA, CFT, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were 0.636 ± 0.4, 527.8 ± 210.1 μm, and 15.3 ± 3.8 mmHg, respectively. The reinjection interval was around 12–18 weeks. Ozurdex proved its efficacy in improving mean logMAR visual acuity and reduction of CFT from baseline till 12 weeks' follow-up period (0.414 ± 0.5 and 301.5 ± 278.5, respectively; P < 0.05), and after 12 weeks' follow-up, it started worsening (0.530 ± 0.9 and 444.8 ± 375.2, respectively; P > 0.05). The most common reported adverse event was significant rise of IOP (>5 mmHg), with a total of 12 cases followed by cataract 9 cases.

CONCLUSION:

Ozurdex implant leads to a significant improvement in BCVA and CFT values till 12 weeks, followed by a gradual decline for all the pathologies studied together. No new safety concerns were observed with the Ozurdex implant. The duration of efficacy was found to be <24 weeks.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema: Real-Life Data from a Prospective Study and Predictive Factors for Visual Outcome

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the long-term anatomical and functional outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant and to determine the predictive factors for the final visual outcome.

METHODS

The study included 54 patients with DME refractory to previous antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) who were treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant. Predictive factors for visual outcome were assessed. In addition, the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the percentage of patients with edema resolution were evaluated.

RESULTS

At the end of the 12-month follow-up, patients with DME gained + 5.2 letters (about 1 Snellen line), while 57.4% of patients presented total resolution of macular edema. Negative predictive factors for the final visual outcome were found to be increasing age, increasing macular thickness, phakic status, the presence of intraretinal fluid, hyperreflective foci, hard exudates, as well as external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone disruption. The mean number of injections was 2.1.

CONCLUSIONS

The various predictive factors that determine the visual outcome and possibly define patient prognosis after dexamethasone intravitreal implant in DME cases have been studied. The long follow-up showed that dexamethasone intravitreal implant seems to be a safe and effective treatment for this disease, requiring a limited number of injections.

Fluocinolone acetonide for the treatment of diabetic macular edema

INTRODUCTION

Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant is a non-erodible implant approved for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) insufficiently responsive to available therapies. Areas covered: The injectable intravitreal implant releases fluocinolone acetonide at an average rate of 0.2 µg/day for at least 36 months. The two pooled pivotal FAME trials showed that, in patients with DME previously treated with laser photocoagulation, fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant was more beneficial than sham injection when looking at the proportion of patients with an improvement from baseline in visual acuity of more than 15 letters at 24 months and at 36 months. Cataract (82%) and intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (37%) were the most common adverse events. Raised IOP was mostly treated with IOP-lowering medications, with <5% of eyes requiring incisional IOP-lowering surgery. FAME trial program results are confirmed by a series of real-world studies in eyes with chronic/recalcitrant DME. Expert opinion: data indicate that fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant is a useful second-line option for the treatment of DME.

Efficacy and Safety of a Dexamethasone Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema at Tertiary Centers in Korea

Purpose. To evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone implant (DEX implant) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods. Retrospective, multicenter, and noncomparative study of DME patients who were treated with at least one DEX implant. A total of 186 eyes from 165 patients were included. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), complications, and number of retreatments were collected. Data at baseline and monthly for 6 months were analyzed. Results. The average baseline BCVA and CRT were 0.60 LogMAR and 491.6 μm, respectively. The mean BCVA improved until 3 months and then decreased up to 6 months of follow-up (0.53, 0.49, and 0.55 LogMAR at 1, 3, and 6 months; p = 0.001, <0.001, and 0.044, resp.). The change of mean CRT was similar to BCVA (345.0, 357.7, and 412.5 μm at 1, 3, and 6 months, p < 0.001, <0.001, and <0.001, resp.). 91 eyes (48.9%) received additional treatment with anti-VEGF or DEX implant. The average treatment-free interval was 4.4 months. In group analyses, the DEX implant was more effective in pseudophakic eyes, DME with subretinal fluid (SRF), or diffuse type. Conclusions. Intravitreal dexamethasone implants are an effective treatment for patients with DME, most notably in pseudophakic eyes, DME with SRF, or diffuse type. A half of these patients require additional treatment within 6 months.