Long-term outcomes of phakic patients with diabetic macular oedema treated with intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implants

Suboptimal outcomes and treatment burden of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular oedema in phakic patients

OBJECTIVES

In England and Wales, treatment options were limited for patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) with phakic eyes that failed anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment pre-2022. This study aimed to quantify the response to, and treatment burden of, anti-VEGF treatment in phakic eyes.

METHODS

Retrospective, cohort study using electronic patient record data from two UK centres between 2015 and 2020. Primary objective was proportion of phakic eyes with a suboptimal response after initial 6 months of anti-VEGF treatment. Data were available for 500 eyes from 399 patients.

RESULTS

At 6 months significantly more eyes had a suboptimal response to anti-VEGF treatment: 65.8% (95% CI 61.5-70.0%) vs 34.2% (95% CI 30.0-38.5%), p < 0.0001. Baseline visual acuity (VA) predicted VA outcome, however, despite greater gains in eyes with poorer VA, such eyes did not achieve the same VA levels as those who started treatment with better VA. Only 53.6% of eyes had more than three injections in the first 6 months indicating difficulties in delivering high volume/high frequency treatment. Treatment and review burden were similar over the following years regardless of response to anti-VEGF treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Data confirm previous real world evidence around response to anti-VEGF treatment, importance of baseline VA and frequency of injections in predicting outcomes in a UK setting. Continuing treatment beyond 6 months in suboptimal responders imposes unnecessary treatment burden without significant change in VA. In suboptimal responders, consideration of early switch to longer acting steroid treatments may help to reduce treatment burden, whilst maintaining or improving vision.

Safety and effectiveness of the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN): 3-year results from the European IRISS registry study

BACKGROUND

The ILUVIEN Registry Safety Study was a multicentre, open-label, non-randomised, observational, phase 4 study designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in all indications in real-world practices in Europe.

METHODS

The study included data collected prospectively and retrospectively. Patients receiving FAc implants between 2013 and 2017 were included and monitored until the last patient reached ≥3 years of follow-up. Mean intraocular pressure (IOP) data over the course of the study, along with IOP events, use of IOP-lowering therapy, mean change in visual acuity (VA) and information on supplemental therapy use were analysed post-FAc implantation.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ninety-five eyes from 556 patients, with a mean±SD follow-up of 1150.5±357.36 days, were treated with a FAc implant. 96.7% of eyes had chronic diabetic macular oedema (cDMO). IOP lowering was achieved in 34.5% of eyes using topical agents and 4.3% by surgery. Seventy-three eyes (64.6% of 113 phakic) required cataract surgery during follow-up. Mean VA increased from a baseline of 52.2 letters to 57.1 letters at month 36, with improvement observed up to month 48. Supplementary therapies were given in 43.7% of eyes. When classified by length of cDMO less than or greater than the median duration those with a shorter history experienced greater VA gains than those with a longer history.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the favourable, long-term benefit-to-risk profile of the FAc implant in eyes with cDMO, with an additional benefit in patients when this therapy is administered earlier.

Pathogenesis and current therapies for non-infectious uveitis

Non-infectious uveitis (NIU) is a disorder with various etiologies and is characterized by eye inflammation, mainly affecting people of working age. An accurate diagnosis of NIU is crucial for appropriate therapy. The aim of therapy is to improve vision, relieve ocular inflammation, prevent relapse, and avoid treatment side effects. At present, corticosteroids are the mainstay of topical or systemic therapy. However, repeated injections are required for the treatment of chronic NIU. Recently, new drug delivery systems that may ensure intraocular delivery of therapeutic drug levels have been highlighted. Furthermore, with the development of immunosuppressants and biologics, specific therapies can be selected based on the needs of each patient. Immunosuppressants used in the treatment of NIU include calcineurin inhibitors and antimetabolites. However, systemic immunosuppressive therapy itself is associated with adverse effects due to the inhibition of immune function. In patients with refractory NIU or those who cannot tolerate corticosteroids and immunosuppressors, biologics have emerged as alternative treatments. Thus, to improve the prognosis of patients with NIU, NIU should be managed with different drugs according to the response to treatment and possible side effects.

Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant (ILUVIEN®) for the Treatment of Retinal Conditions. A Review of Clinical Studies

Fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (Iluvien®) is a corticosteroid implant indicated for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) in patients who have previously received conventional treatment without good response, non-infectious posterior uveitis, and as an off-label treatment of the macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. FAc is a non-biodegradable 0.19 mg intravitreal implant which is designed to release FAc over 3 years at a rate of approximately 0.2 mcg per day. The aim of this review is to describe the special pharmacological properties of Iluvien and display the outcomes of the most important clinical trials and real-world studies regarding its efficacy and safety for the management of the above retinal disorders.

Diabetic Macular Oedema Guidelines: An Australian Perspective

The number of people living with diabetes is expected to rise to 578 million by 2030 and to 700 million by 2045, exacting a severe socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems around the globe. This is also reflected in the increasing numbers of people with ocular complications of diabetes (namely, diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and diabetic retinopathy (DR)). In one study examining the global prevalence of DR, 35% of people with diabetes had some form of DR, 7% had PDR, 7% had DMO, and 10% were affected by these vision-threatening stages. In many regions of the world (Australia included), DR is one of the top three leading causes of vision loss amongst working age adults (20-74 years). In the management of DMO, the landmark ETDRS study demonstrated that moderate visual loss, defined as doubling of the visual angle, can be reduced by 50% or more by focal/grid laser photocoagulation. However, over the last 20 years, antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and corticosteroid therapies have emerged as alternative options for the management of DMO and provided patients with choices that have higher chances of improving vision than laser alone. In Australia, since the 2008 NHMRC guidelines, there have been significant developments in both the treatment options and treatment schedules for DMO. This working group was therefore assembled to review and address the current management options available in Australia.

Factors associated with the response to fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg in diabetic macular oedema evaluated as the area-under-the-curve

OBJECTIVES

The area-under-the-curve (AUC) measures the average drug effect over time. We investigated the impact of baseline clinical and optical coherence tomography (OCT) factors on the response to fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) 0.19 mg implant in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) as the AUC over 36 months.

METHODS

Retrospective study of DMO eyes undergoing FAc with follow-up from 12 to 36 months. The AUC of the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the central macular thickness (CMT) were calculated with the trapezoidal rule. Demographic and clinical data at the time of FAc administration were collected, and associations with BCVA and CMT changes were investigated with linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine eyes of 63 patients were enroled; median follow-up was 26 months. Mean±standard deviation (SD) AUCBCVA and AUCCMT after FAc injection were 0.24 ± 0.17 LogMAR/month and 179.6 ± 54.3 μm/month, respectively. Worse baseline BCVA (β = 0.30 LogMAR/month, p < 0.001), higher AUCCMT after FAc administration (β = 0.08 LogMAR/month, p < 0.001), diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (β = -0.04 LogMAR/month, p = 0.04), and absent ELM/EZ layers (β = 0.06 LogMAR/month, p = 0.01) were associated with worse vision over time (higher AUCBCVA). Eyes with higher CMT at baseline (β = 9.61 μm/month, p < 0.001) and those with tractional DMO (β = 24.7 μm/month, p = 0.01) had worse anatomic outcomes (higher AUCCMT). The need for additional treatments after FAc was also associated with higher AUCCMT (β = 33.9 μm/month, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Baseline better visual acuity, lower macular thickness, and photoreceptors' layers integrity are associated with better functional response to FAc in DMO. Eyes with severe DMO at the time of implant or tractional oedema have worse anatomic response. These findings might guide clinicians in a more informed decisional algorithm in treating DMO.

Optimizing treatment for diabetic macular edema during cataract surgery

Diabetic macular edema (DME) causes visual impairment in diabetic retinopathy (DR). Diabetes mellitus is a global epidemic and diabetic individuals are at risk of developing DR. Approximately 1 in 10 diabetic patients suffers from DME, which is the commonest cause of vision-threatening DR at primary-care screening. Furthermore, diabetes predisposes to a higher frequency and a younger onset of cataract, which further threatens vision in DME patients. Although cataract extraction is an effective cure, vision may still deteriorate following cataract surgery due to DME progression or recurrence, of which the risks are significantly higher than for patients without concurrent or previous history of DME at the time of operation. The management of pre-existing DME with visually significant cataract is a clinical conundrum. Deferring cataract surgery until DME is adequately treated is not ideal because of prolonged visual impairment and maturation of cataract jeopardizing surgical safety and monitoring of DR. On the other hand, the progression or recurrence of DME following prompt cataract surgery is a profound disappointment for patients and ophthalmic surgeons who had high expectations for postoperative visual improvement. Prescription of perioperative anti-inflammatory eye drops is effective in lowering the risk of new-onset DME after cataract surgery. However, management of concurrent DME at the time of cataract surgery is much more challenging because DME is unlikely to resolve spontaneously even with the aid of anti-inflammatory non-steroidal or steroid eye drops. A number of clinical trials using intravitreal injection of corticosteroids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) as first-line therapy have demonstrated safety and efficacy to treat DME. These drugs have also been administered perioperatively for the prevention of DME worsening in patients undergoing cataract surgery. This article reviews the scientific evidence to guide ophthalmologists on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for managing patients with DME who are particularly vulnerable to cataract surgery-induced inflammation, which disintegrates the blood-retinal barrier and egression of fluid in macular edema.

An update on long-acting therapies in chronic sight-threatening eye diseases of the posterior segment: AMD, DMO, RVO, uveitis and glaucoma

In the real-world setting, there is suboptimal compliance with treatments that require frequent administration and assessment visits. This undertreatment frequently has negative consequences in eye disease and carries a real risk to vision. For example, patients with glaucoma risk progression of visual loss even with a small number of missed doses, and patients with neovascular age-related degeneration (nAMD) who fail to attend a bi-monthly clinic appointment to receive an intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drug injections may lose the initial vision gains in vision. Protracted regular treatment schedules represent a high burden not only for patients and families, but also healthcare professionals, systems, and ultimately society too. There has been a clear need for longer-acting therapies that reduce the frequency, and therefore the burden, of treatment interventions. Several longer-acting interventions for nAMD, diabetic macular oedema, retinal vein occlusion, uveitis and glaucoma have either been developed or are in late-phase development, some of which employ novel mechanisms of actions, and all of which of promise longer (≥3 month) treatment intervals. This review delivers an overview of anti-VEGF agents with longer durations of action, DARPins, bispecific anti-VEGF/Ang2 therapies, anti-PDGF and anti-integrin therapy, Rho-kinase inhibitors, the Port Delivery System, steroids, gene therapy for retina and uveitis, and for glaucoma, ROCK inhibitors, implants and plugs, and SLT laser and MIGS. The review also refers to the potential of artificial intelligence to tailor treatment efficacy with a resulting reduction in treatment burden.

Intraocular Pressure Changes After Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant: Results from Four European Countries

Introduction

The 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant delivers a continuous intravitreal corticosteroid dose for the treatment of refractory diabetic macular oedema (DMO). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an FAc intravitreal implant on intraocular pressure (IOP).

Methods

We retrospectively collected anonymised data on the patients’ characteristics, DMO treatment, and IOP and IOP-lowering treatments before and after the FAc intravitreal implant between September 2013 and March 2020 in several European centres.

Results

A total of 221 eyes from 179 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 13.4 (± 12.5, range 2.4–33.5) months. Overall, 194 eyes (88.2%) had received an intravitreal dexamethasone injection before the FAc intravitreal implant. For 25 eyes (11.3%) there was a history of glaucoma, and 52 eyes (23.5%) had previous IOP-lowering treatment. Mean IOP before injection was 14.7 (3.4) mmHg and increased to 16.9 (3.7) mmHg 12 months after injection (P < 0.0001). During follow-up, 55 eyes (24.9%) required the addition or initiation of topical IOP-lowering medication, only one patient (0.5%) had laser trabeculoplasty and one patient (0.5%) a minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, and no patient required incisional IOP-lowering surgery.

Conclusion

The FAc intravitreal implant led to substantial IOP elevation. This elevation was monitored most of the time with addition or initiation of topical IOP-lowering medication.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40123-022-00504-z.

Diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema pathways and management: UK Consensus Working Group

The management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) has evolved considerably over the past decade, with the availability of new technologies (diagnostic and therapeutic). As such, the existing Royal College of Ophthalmologists DR Guidelines (2013) are outdated, and to the best of our knowledge are not under revision at present. Furthermore, there are no other UK guidelines covering all available treatments, and there seems to be significant variation around the UK in the management of diabetic macular oedema (DMO). This manuscript provides a summary of reviews the pathogenesis of DR and DMO, including role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and non-VEGF cytokines, clinical grading/classification of DMO vis a vis current terminology (of centre-involving [CI-DMO], or non-centre involving [nCI-DMO], systemic risks and their management). The excellent UK DR Screening (DRS) service has continued to evolve and remains world-leading. However, challenges remain, as there are significant variations in equipment used, and reproducible standards of DMO screening nationally. The interphase between DRS and the hospital eye service can only be strengthened with further improvements. The role of modern technology including optical coherence tomography (OCT) and wide-field imaging, and working practices including virtual clinics and their potential in increasing clinic capacity and improving patient experiences and outcomes are discussed. Similarly, potential roles of home monitoring in diabetic eyes in the future are explored. The role of pharmacological (intravitreal injections [IVT] of anti-VEGFs and steroids) and laser therapies are summarised. Generally, IVT anti-VEGF are offered as first line pharmacologic therapy. As requirements of diabetic patients in particular patient groups may vary, including pregnant women, children, and persons with learning difficulties, it is important that DR management is personalised in such particular patient groups. First choice therapy needs to be individualised in these cases and may be intravitreal steroids rather than the standard choice of anti-VEGF agents. Some of these, but not all, are discussed in this document.

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.

Clinical-Decision Criteria to Identify Recurrent Diabetic Macular Edema Patients Suitable for Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Therapy (ILUVIEN®) and Follow-Up Considerations/Recommendations

Current management of diabetic macular edema (DME) predominantly involves treatment with short-acting intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs) and/or corticosteroids; however, short-acting therapies (lasting between 1 and 6 months) require frequent injections to maintain efficacy, meaning a considerable treatment burden for diabetic patients with multiple comorbidities. Continuous injections needed in some cases are an economic burden for patients/healthcare system, so real-life clinical practice tends to adopt a reactive approach, ie, watch and wait for worsening symptoms, which consequently increases the risk of undertreatment and edema recurrence. On March 7th 2019, a group of experts in retinal medicine and surgery held a roundtable meeting in Madrid, Spain to discuss how to (1) optimize clinical outcomes through earlier use of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant (ILUVIEN^®) in patients with persistent or recurrent DME despite therapy; and, (2) to provide guidance to assist physicians in deciding which patients should be treated with ILUVIEN. In this regard, a 36-month follow-up consensus protocol is presented. In conclusion, patients that achieve a complete or partial anatomical, and preferably functional, response following one or two intravitreal dexamethasone implants, but with recurrence of edema after 3-4 months, are deemed by the authors most likely to benefit from ILUVIEN, and the switch to FAc implant should not be delayed more than 12 months after the initiation of at least the first dexamethasone implant.

The Outcomes of Switching from Short- to Long-Term Intravitreal Corticosteroid Implant Therapy in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

BACKGROUND

First-line treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) is usually with antivascular endothelial growth factor agents, followed by intravitreal corticosteroids as a second-line treatment option. Long-term corticosteroids may offer quality of life and effectiveness benefits over short-term implants.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes of patients with persistent or recurrent DME who switched from a short-term (dexamethasone) to a long-term (fluocinolone acetonide, FAc) corticosteroid intravitreal implant in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study in 9 Portuguese centers. An FAc intravitreal implant was administered according to product labeling. Effectiveness outcomes were mean change in visual acuity (VA; ETDRS letters), central retinal thickness (CRT; µm), and macular volume (MV; mm3). The safety outcome was mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP; mm Hg). All were analyzed at months 1 and 3, and then quarterly until month 24 after implantation.

RESULTS

Forty-four eyes from 36 patients were analyzed. Mean duration of DME was 3.3 ± 1.9 years, and mean follow-up was 8 months. From baseline following FAc implantation, VA increased significantly at months 1 and 6 (mean +6.82 and +13.02 letters, respectively; p = 0.005), and last observation carried forward (LOCF; mean +8.3 letters; p = 0.002). CRT improved significantly at months 1 and 6 (mean -71.81 and -170.77 µm, respectively; p = 0.001), and LOCF (mean -121.46 µm; p = 0.001). MV was consistently, but not significantly, decreased from baseline to LOCF (mean -0.69 mm3; p = 0.062). The mean change in IOP was -0.25 and +0.88 mm Hg at months 1 and 6, respectively (p = 0.268), and +1.86 mm Hg at LOCF (p = 0.036). Increases were controlled with topical medication in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The FAc intravitreal implant is effective in patients previously treated with short-term corticosteroid implants. Thus, after a suboptimal response to antiangiogenics or a short-term corticosteroid, a single FAc implant may be considered an effective and tolerable treatment that can improve long-term outcomes for patients with sight-threatening DME.

Comparison of data characterizing the clinical effectiveness of the fluocinolone intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN) in patients with diabetic macular edema from the real world, non-interventional ICE-UK study and the FAME randomized controlled trials

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant between the observational Iluvien Clinical Evidence study in the United Kingdom (ICE-UK) and the Fluocinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with diabetic macular edema (DME). Clinical Trials Registration: NCT00344968. Methods: This study selected patients randomized to receive 0.2 µg/day FAc insert (FAc treated eyes) or sham injection (control eyes) from the FAME RCTs, and patients' first FAc treated eye and non-FAc treated fellow (control) eye from the ICE-UK study. Outcomes included change in visual acuity (VA), central foveal thickness (CFT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). Results: After 12 months follow-up, mean change in VA was 5.0 letters improvement (p < .001) and 1.6 letters improvement (p = .003) in FAME FAc treated and control eyes, and 3.8 letters (p = .012) and -2.1 letters (p = .056) in ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes, respectively. Mean change in CFT was -144 µm (p < .001) vs -72 µm (p < .001) in FAME FAc treated and control eyes and -113 µm (p < .001) vs -13 µm (p < .001) in ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes. For eyes with a follow-up of 12 months, 77 (22.3%) and 15 (8.6%) FAME FAc treated and control eyes and 25 (18.7%) and six (4.3%) ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes required emergent IOP-lowering therapy. Conclusions: Statistically significant improvements in VA 12 months after FAc implantation were observed in both the real-world study and in the RCTs. The improvement in VA and CFT in the RCTs was marginally greater than in the real-world study; however, recruits in the real-world study had more severe visual morbidity at baseline. Whilst there were many changes in the care of people with DME over this time, these data all support the value of treatment with FAc intravitreal implant.

Advanced implantable drug delivery technologies: transforming the clinical landscape of therapeutics for chronic diseases

Chronic diseases account for the majority of all deaths worldwide, and their prevalence is expected to escalate in the next 10 years. Because chronic disorders require long-term therapy, the healthcare system must address the needs of an increasing number of patients. The use of new drug administration routes, specifically implantable drug delivery devices, has the potential to reduce treatment-monitoring clinical visits and follow-ups with healthcare providers. Also, implantable drug delivery devices can be designed to maintain drug concentrations in the therapeutic window to achieve controlled, continuous release of therapeutics over extended periods, eliminating the risk of patient non-compliance to oral treatment. A higher local drug concentration can be achieved if the device is implanted in the affected tissue, reducing systemic adverse side effects and decreasing the challenges and discomfort of parenteral treatment. Although implantable drug delivery devices have existed for some time, interest in their therapeutic potential is growing, with a global market expected to reach over $12 billion USD by 2018. This review discusses implantable drug delivery technologies in an advanced stage of development or in clinical use and focuses on the state-of-the-art of reservoir-based implants including pumps, electromechanical systems, and polymers, sites of implantation and side effects, and deployment in developing countries.

Cataract in diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic systemic disease that has increases in prevalence over time. DM can affect all ocular structures, with cataract being the most common ocular complication. Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Due to several mechanisms, there is an increased incidence of cataract formation in the diabetic population. Advancements in technology have now made cataract surgery a common and safe procedure. However, the diabetic population is still at risk of vision-threatening complications, such as diabetic macular edema (ME), postoperative ME, diabetic retinopathy progression, and posterior capsular opacification.

When and How to Incorporate Steroids for Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema: A Discussion of Real-World Treatment Optimization Strategies

In the United States, diabetic macular edema (DME) is the leading cause of vision loss among people with diabetic retinopathy. Despite the availability of different therapies for DME, up to half of patients with DME show some persistent edema after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment alone, leaving these patients at high risk for vision loss. However, dosing in a similar fashion to that of pivotal anti-VEGF trials is difficult because of real-life challenges faced in clinical practice. This is particularly true for DME, in that the frequency and burden of anti-VEGF injections are a major challenge to patient care. Research evaluating anti-VEGF therapies has shaped the treatment paradigms for patients with DME, and similar benefits have also been noted in clinical trials evaluating the use of intravitreal steroids. Treatment with a long-term intravitreal corticosteroid, which requires fewer injections than treatment with most short-acting therapies, has been found to reduce inflammation and improve vision in a percentage of patients. This roundtable discussion, which took place during the 2018 annual meeting of the Vit-Buckle Society, reviews the current treatment paradigms for DME and evaluates how to customize and optimize treatment strategies geared toward individualized patient care. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:S5-S15.].

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN®) for diabetic macular oedema: a literature review

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy and may lead to severe visual loss. In this review, we describe the pathophysiology of DMO and review current therapeutic options such as macular laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, and steroid implants with a focus on the new fluocinolone acetonide implant, ILUVIEN®. The results of the Fluocinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) studies are also presented together with the results of real-world studies to support the clinical use of ILUVIEN® in achieving efficient resolution of DMO and improving vision and macular anatomy in this challenging group of patients.

Cataract surgery in diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

India is considered the diabetes capital of the world, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing cataract surgery are diabetic. Considering this, we reviewed the principles and guidelines of managing cataract in patients with diabetes. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors are of paramount importance in the management of diabetic cataract patients. Particularly, the early recognition and treatment of diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy before cataract surgery influence the final visual outcome and play a major role in perioperative decision-making. Better understanding of various factors responsible for favorable outcome of cataract surgery in diabetic patients may guide us in better overalll management of these patients and optimizing the results.

Iluvien™ (Fluocinolone Acetonide 0.19 mg Intravitreal Implant) in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review

Diabetic macular edema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in the working age population. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy provided a major advance in treatment of DMO for many patients, there is a significant proportion of patients who maintain persistent DMO and have minimal response to anti-VEGF treatment. Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg [FAc]) is an important additional treatment option for DMO. In this review we describe the clinical context and the evidence for the use of the FAc implant in treating DMO, from pilot to randomized controlled studies, to later phase real world data. These studies indicate that the FAc implant is effective, well tolerated and a cost-effective option in the treatment of insufficiently responsive DMO.

Visual Acuity Outcomes in Diabetic Macular Edema With Fluocinolone Acetonide 0.2 μg/Day Versus Ranibizumab Plus Deferred Laser (DRCR Protocol I)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Visual outcomes of the FAME study (0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide [FAc]) and Protocol I (0.5 mg ranibizumab plus deferred laser) were compared using the area under the curve (AUC) analysis method.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) data collected during a period of 3 years of follow-up for patients enrolled in FAME or Protocol I were used to calculate AUC of the change in BCVA over a time curve.

RESULTS

In the overall population, there was a greater treatment effect for ranibizumab plus deferred laser compared with FAc. However, for subgroups of pseudophakic eyes, eyes with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME), and pseudophakic eyes with chronic DME, ranibizumab plus deferred laser and FAc were not found to be significantly different. The ranibizumab group received a median of 14 injections during a 36-month period compared with a mean of 1.3 injections in the FAc group.

CONCLUSION

In pseudophakic and chronic DME subgroups, FAc was comparable to ranibizumab plus deferred laser with fewer injections. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:698-706.].

ILUVIEN® technology in the treatment of center-involving diabetic macular edema: a review of the literature

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is one of the major causes of blindness, caused primarily by hyperglycemia and results from multiple pathological processes mostly secondary to increased levels of VEGF and other inflammatory cytokines. DME management includes control of systemic risk factors together with laser photocoagulation, frequent intraocular injections of anti-VEGF agents and steroids implants. Recent adoption of novel alternative drug delivery options has led to the development of sustained release ocular implants with longer duration of action with less injection frequency. This article will review the pharmacology and clinical data in terms of efficacy, safety and benefits of the sustained release steroid implants in treatment of DME with special emphasis on the fluocinolone acetonide ILUVIEN^® implant.

Patterns of retinal thickness prior to and following treatment with fluocinolone acetonide 190 µg intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema

OBJECTIVES

To compare retinal thickness before and after treatment with the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) 190 µg intravitreal implant in people with diabetic macular edema (DME) using data from the Iluvien Clinical Evidence study in the UK (ICE-UK).

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study, data on people attending any one of 13 participating ophthalmology departments and treated with FAc intravitreal implant between April 1, 2013 and April 15, 2015 were collected for 12 months prior to and at least 12 months after implantation. Cross-sectional and longitudinal patterns of central foveal thickness (CFT) were compared before and after FAc implant.

RESULTS

There were 208 people who contributed data from 233 individual eyes treated with the FAc implant. Mean age was 68.1 years and 62% were male. Median (interquartile range) CFT decreased from 462 µm (354-603 µm) at time of implant to 309 µm (222-433 µm) at 12 months post-implant (p < .001). Over the same period, a reduction of ≥10%, ≥25%, and ≥50% in CFT was observed in 113 (65%), 87 (50%), and 37 (21%) treated eyes, respectively. Eyes with a CFT of ≥400 µm at the time of implant were significantly more likely to achieve a reduction in CFT of ≥10%, ≥25%, and ≥50% at 12 months (all p < .001) compared with eyes with a CFT of <400 µm at implant. Both retinal thickness and changes in retinal thickness were loosely correlated with visual acuity.

CONCLUSION

A marked reduction in retinal thickness was observed in people following FAc intravitreal implant for DME. The response was related to the degree of retinal thickness prior to treatment.

Health-economic evaluation of fluocinolone acetonide 190 µg implant in people with diabetic macular edema

OBJECTIVES

To assess healthcare resource use and costs of treating people with clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) with fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) 190 µg intravitreal implant in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

The retrospective Iluvien Clinical Evidence (ICE-UK) study collected data on people prescribed the FAc implant in any one of 13 ophthalmology centers between April 1, 2013 and April 15, 2015. Data were collected for 12 months before and after implantation. Standard UK costs were attributed to healthcare resource use.

RESULTS

In total, 208 people contributing 233 FAc-treated eyes were selected. Mean age was 68.1 years and 62% were male. The mean (standard deviation, SD) number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections per FAc treated eye in the 12 months prior to implant was 2.8 (2.5), decreasing to 0.6 (1.4) for the same period after implant (p < .001). The corresponding figures for other steroid injections (dexamethasone and triamcinolone) were 0.14 (0.4) before and 0.08 (0.4) after implant (p = .016). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of laser therapies required in the 12 months before and after FAc implant (mean = 0.12 vs 0.11, respectively; p = .626). Overall, mean (SD) healthcare costs were £2,691 (£1,850) before and £1,239 (£1,203) after FAc implant (p < .001). The unit drug and administration cost per FAc implant was £5,680.

CONCLUSIONS

Excluding the cost of the FAc implant, healthcare costs were significantly reduced in the 12 months post-implant. FAc implant has a duration of 3 years. This needs to be considered when interpreting the cost associated with the FAc implant.

Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant 0.19 mg (ILUVIEN®): A Review in Diabetic Macular Edema

Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.19 mg (ILUVIEN^®) is a nonbiodegradable, injectable, corticosteroid implant that is approved in several countries, including the USA, for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). ILUVIEN^® releases fluocinolone acetonide at an initial rate of 0.25 µg/day (average rate 0.2 µg/day) and lasts 36 months. In the two pooled pivotal FAME trials in patients with DME previously treated with macular laser photocoagulation, fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.2 µg/day was significantly more effective than sham injection with respect to the proportion of patients with an improvement from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity of ≥15 letters at 24 months (primary endpoint). This therapeutic effect was maintained at 36 months. The implant also significantly decreased foveal thickness at 24 months. FAME study results are broadly supported by real-world studies in patients with chronic DME considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies. Consistent with corticosteroid class-specific adverse events, cataract and elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) were the most common adverse events with the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant. Raised IOP was treated with medications in most patients, with <5% requiring incisional IOP-lowering surgery. In the USA, fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant should be used only in patients who have been previously treated with a course of corticosteroids and did not have a clinically significant increase in IOP. Available data indicate that fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.19 mg is a useful option for the treatment of DME in these patients.

Clinical utility of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (Iluvien®) implant in the management of patients with chronic diabetic macular edema: a review of the current literature

The first-line therapy for patients with center-involving diabetic macular edema (DME) is with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, with or without adjunctive macular laser treatment. However, a significant proportion of patients have persistent and recurrent edema despite repeated anti-VEGF injections. The fluocinolone acetonide (FA) 190 μg intravitreal implant has been shown in pivotal clinical trials to be efficacious for the treatment of DME and has been approved in many countries for use in patients who have not responded to first-line therapy. In this report, we have collated the latest data from the increasing number of studies to illustrate the pattern of usage of the Iluvien FA implant for DME during the current anti-VEGF era. We have shown that there is now a wealth of published evidence from real-world studies to support the clinical utility of the FA implant in achieving further resolution of edema and improving visual acuity outcomes in this challenging group of patients.

Fluocinolone acetonide for the treatment of diabetic macular edema

In addition to VEGF inhibitors such as ranibizumab, aflibercept or bevacizumab, clinical and experimental investigations have revealed the great potential of steroids in the treatment of DME. At present two intravitreal steroid inserts are approved for the treatment of DME containing either dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetat (FA) as a pharmacological compound. The non degradable intravitreal FA insert releases 0.2 µg FA per day (Iluvien, Alimera Sciences). Clinical phase III studies have demonstrated the beneficial effect of the FA insert to last up to three years, especially in patients with a prolonged history of DME of at least three years at the initiation of therapy. While the treatment appears to be well tolerated over all, side effects such as cataract formation in nearly all treated phakic patients and raise of intraocular pressure need to be discussed with the patients as potential complications of the treatment.

Diabetic Macular Edema Pathophysiology: Vasogenic versus Inflammatory

Diabetic macular edema (DME) can cause blindness in diabetic patients suffering from diabetic retinopathy (DR). DM parameters controls (glycemia, arterial tension, and lipids) are the gold standard for preventing DR and DME. Although the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is known to play a role in the development of DME, the pathological processes leading to the onset of this disease are highly complex and the exact sequence in which they occur is still not completely understood. Angiogenesis and inflammation have been shown to be involved in the pathogenesis of this disease. However, it still remains to be clarified whether angiogenesis following VEGF overexpression is a cause or a consequence of inflammation. This paper provides a review of the data currently available, focusing on VEGF, angiogenesis, and inflammation. Our analysis suggests that angiogenesis and inflammation act interdependently during the development of DME. Knowledge of DME etiology seems to be important in treatments with anti-VEGF or anti-inflammatory drugs. Current diagnostic techniques do not permit us to differentiate between both etiologies. In the future, diagnosing the physiopathology of each patient with DME will help us to select the most effective drug.