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

Retinal thickness fluctuations in patients receiving fluocinolone acetonide implant for diabetic macular edema

Objectives: To evaluate central foveal thickness (CFT) variability and accompanying changes in visual acuity (VA) 12 months before and after treatment with the 190 mcg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods: The Iluvien Clinical Evidence cohort study in the United Kingdom (ICE-UK) investigated the effectiveness of the FAc implant in people treated at 13 hospitals from April 2013 to April 2015. The following parameters were calculated for CFT for each patient: mean, standard deviation (SD), retinal thickness amplitude (RTA, the difference between maximum and minimum values), and coefficient of variation (CV).Results: In 149 eyes with ≥2 CFT observations both before and after FAc implantation, the median VA was 50 ETDRS letters at implantation. Mean CFT was 487 µm at implantation and 135 µm at 12 months post-implant. Before implantation, the mean CV and mean SD for CFT were 24.6% and 112 µm, respectively; the mean RTA was 254 µm. A statistically significant (p < .001) decrease in all three parameters was observed after implantation (18.3%, 68.2 μm and 146 μm, respectively). There was an association between CFT change between extremes and the corresponding change in VA (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r = -0.292, p < .001, prior to the implant; r = -0.379, p < .001, post-implant).Conclusions: After accounting for the reduction in CFT, retinal thickness stabilized following FAc implantation. There might be VA benefits in reducing variability in CFT over time. This merits further exploration but would require more frequent CFT observations in order to properly determine patterns of retinal thickness variability.

Discontinuous to continuous therapy for persistent diabetic macular edema leads to reduction in treatment frequency

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, in the setting of persistent diabetic macular edema, the impact that continuous fluocinolone acetonide delivery has on treatment burden, visual acuity, central retinal thickness, and intraocular pressure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective, cohort study of patients with persistent diabetic macular edema, previously treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections, dexamethasone implants, or focal laser, who were subsequently treated with fluocinolone acetonide was conducted. All retinal visits were analyzed prior to fluocinolone acetonide, until the most recent follow-up visit. Primary outcomes were pre- and post-fluocinolone acetonide changes in the best-corrected visual acuity and number of treatments required for diabetic macular edema. Secondary outcomes included changes in the central retinal thickness and intraocular pressure.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema were included and followed for a mean (SD) of 399.3 (222.9) days. Post-fluocinolone acetonide, the mean best-corrected visual acuity improved by 0.4 ETDRS letters for all eyes (p = 0.895) and the central retinal thickness decreased by 34.2 µm (p = 0.077). After fluocinolone acetonide, the number of treatments decreased from an average of one treatment every 2.7 months to one every 6 months (p = 0.009). Furthermore, post-fluocinolone acetonide, 10/19 eyes (52.6%) did not require additional treatment due to a dry macula, and those who did experienced a non-statistically significant reduction of treatments, from one every 2.6 months pre-fluocinolone acetonide, to one every 2.8 months post-fluocinolone acetonide (p = 0.622).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of persistent diabetic macular edema, fluocinolone acetonide significantly reduces the therapeutic burden, while maintaining best-corrected visual acuity and improving the central retinal thickness. In patient-centered discussions, judiciously employing fluocinolone acetonide should be performed to mitigate this therapeutic burden for patients.

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.