Which quadrant is less painful for intravitreal injection? A prospective study

COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF EIGHT DIFFERENT TOPICAL NONSTEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS ON REDUCING INTRAVITREAL INJECTION-INDUCED PAIN

PURPOSE

To compare topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) efficacy on intravitreal injection-induced pain reduction and determine the most efficient topical NSAID.

METHODS

This randomized-controlled study included 662 eyes of 662 patients. Based on the types of NSAID administered before intravitreal injection, eight subgroups were formed. In the control group, a sterile saline solution was applied instead of NSAIDs. The visual analog scale was used to assess pain scores after intravitreal injection. The visual analog scale scores were noted immediately and 6 hours following injection (sixth hour).

RESULTS

Nepafenac 0.3%, nepafenac 0.1%, and bromfenac 0.09% had the lowest scores, immediately after and after 6 hours, with no significant differences. Diclofenac and ketorolac had higher visual analog scale scores than the first trio but lower scores than the control group. Flurbiprofen, pranoprofen, and indomethacin did not significantly affect immediate pain; however, at the sixth hour, the visual analog scale scores were significantly reduced.

CONCLUSION

Nepafenac 0.3%, nepafenac 0.1%, and bromfenac 0.09% were the most effective NSAIDs for pain reduction. Although some NSAIDs did not have a significant effect on immediate pain, they all provided significant benefits at the sixth hour.

Anxiety and pain perception using a speculum-free eyelid retraction technique for intravitreal injection

PURPOSE

This study compared pain and anxiety levels in individuals receiving intravitreal injections (IVIs) using a speculum-free injection technique, the lid splinting eyelid retraction technique, or using a speculum.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of individuals receiving IVI at a single tertiary care medical center who responded to a questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS) between December 2019 and January 2020. In one group, a speculum was used prior to injection, whereas in the other group, a speculum-free injection technique was used.

RESULTS

A total of 108 individuals were included in this study: 54 received IVI with the speculum-free lid splinting eyelid retraction technique and 54 received IVI with a speculum. A correlation between pain and anxiety was demonstrated in the control group (p-value < 0.01); however, in the speculum-free group, this correlation was lower and not significant. When comparing pain and anxiety between the study groups, lower median pain (Mood's: Z = 5.378, p-value < 0.001) and lower anxiety (Mood's: Z = 2.108, p-value = 0.035) scores were demonstrated in the speculum-free group than in the control group. The distribution of pain scores was significantly different between the study groups (Kolmogorov-Smirnov: D = 0.518, p-value < 0.001), and trending differences in anxiety between the groups were observed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov: D = 0.259, p-value = 0.053).

CONCLUSION

The lid splinting eyelid retraction technique, a speculum-free technique, was associated with less anxiety and pain in patients than the use of a speculum. As IVI often involves repeated treatment, identifying modifiable factors that may relieve anxiety and pain is of utmost importance.

REPLACEMENT OF LIDOCAINE GEL WITH TOPICAL PROPARACAINE ANESTHESIA FOR ROUTINE INTRAVITREAL INJECTIONS: A Comparative Study

PURPOSE

Lidocaine gel was suggested to be highly effective in providing anesthesia for intravitreal injections but adverse effects include a possibility of making sterilization of the conjunctiva difficult. Hence, we wished to determine the effect of using 0.5% proparacaine drops alone over the use of 3.5% lidocaine hydrochloride gel anesthesia during office-based intravitreal injections.

METHODOLOGY

This was a case-control study in patients who came routinely to the clinic for antivascular endothelial growth factor injections. Eyes were treated with one of two anesthesia modalities. A total of 216 injections in 120 patients were reviewed. One group (N = 107) underwent anesthesia with 0.5% proparacaine drops, and the control group (N = 109) received 3.5% lidocaine gel. The pain perceived after injection was graded using the numerical rating scale, and score was immediately recorded by the "masked" injecting physician.

RESULTS

The mean pain score (±SD) for the proparacaine-only group versus gel group was 1.97 (±1.17) versus 1.76 (±0.92), P value = 0.3174. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

3.5% lidocaine gel is not superior to 0.5% proparacaine drops as patients attained good pain control and excellent rates of overall satisfaction with proparacaine drops alone.

Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events in Gene Therapy Trials for Inherited Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Patient safety is a primary priority in the conduction of retinal gene therapy trials. An understanding of risk factors and mitigation strategies for post-procedure complications is crucial for the optimization of gene therapy clinical trial protocols. In this review, we synthesize the literature on ocular delivery methods, vector platforms, and treatment-emergent adverse effects in recent gene therapy clinical trials for inherited retinal diseases.

Systematic review: non-adherence and non-persistence in intravitreal treatment

Purpose

Intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors has become the standard of care for different macular diseases within the last years resulting in improved visual outcomes. Under real-life conditions, however, the necessity for frequent retreatments and reexaminations poses a burden for patients and treatment centers. Non-adherence and non-persistence to intravitreal treatment may lead to inferior clinical outcomes, and knowledge of contributing factors is crucial to improve adherence. This systematic review analyzes current literature for potential factors involved in non-adherence and non-persistence.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase including three different aspects of intravitreal injection therapy: (1) diseases with intravitreal injections as treatment, (2) intravitreal injection, and (3) aspects of therapy adherence or therapy persistence. Data from identified quantitative studies were further extracted and grouped according to WHO criteria (condition, socio-economy, therapy, patient, and health system). The methodological quality of identified studies was graded. Identified qualitative studies (i.e., interviews) were descriptively analyzed and their findings narratively reported.

Results

Twenty-four publications were included. In 16 of those publications, a quantitative data analysis was conducted, analyzing factors associated with non-adherence. Worse visual acuity at baseline and unfavorable development of visual acuity, higher age, and greater distance to the treatment center were associated with non-adherence, while there was inconsistent evidence for an association of comorbidity. In qualitative studies, high follow-up/treatment burden, fear and anxiety, disappointed patient expectations, and lack of motivation to continue treatment were reported as reasons for non-persistence.

Conclusions

Knowledge of potential barriers in IVT treatment may improve adherence and potentially clinical results. Improvements can be achieved particularly in the healthcare complex (organizational improvements) and the “patient” complex by establishing realistic expectations. Recurrent education of the patient may be necessary.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00417-020-04798-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of Anti-VEGF Drugs in Retinal Vein Occlusions

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

Real-World Trends in Intravitreal Injection Practices among American Retina Specialists

PURPOSE

To analyze practice patterns used for intravitreal injections (IVIs) by retinal specialists in the United States.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Retina specialists in the United States who responded to a web-based survey.

METHODS

Retinal specialists in the United States were contacted via e-mail to complete a web-based, anonymous, 24-question survey. Multivariate analysis was performed on a selected question of interest focused on choice of anesthetic used for IVI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Differences in IVI practices, such as antibiotic preferences, and different odds of anesthetic use by demographic variables with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 281 retinal specialists responded to the survey (17% response rate). Respondents' average age was 53 years, with an average of 20 years in practice. Respondents practiced in 42 states, with 90% practicing in an urban or suburban area. For anesthesia, 14% used a topical anesthetic with cotton swab compression, 27% used a subconjunctival anesthetic, and 31% used an anesthetic gel. Age, gender, geographic location, and practice setting did not seem to impact choice of anesthetic for IVI significantly. Sixty-six percent of respondents always use a lid speculum, 21% administer topical antibiotics before injection, 36% wear a mask, 73% wear gloves, and 45% always dilate the eyes before injection. Most respondents use a 30-gauge needle and inject in the inferior temporal quadrant (70%). Forty-five percent always perform bilateral injections the same day if indicated. After the injection, 14% administer post operative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 28% administer postoperative antibiotics, and 31% routinely check intraocular pressure after injection.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided real-world trends in practices for IVI among retina specialists in the United States. In addition, age, gender, practice type, and geographic location did not influence anesthetic choice for IVI.