A Comparison of the Dexamethasone Implant (Ozurdex®) and Inferior Fornix-Based Sub-Tenon Triamcinolone Acetonide for Treatment of Inflammatory Ocular Diseases

Efficacy of the efficacy between dexamethasone versus triamcinolone acetonide after cataract surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical effects between dexamethasone and triamcinolone acetonide (TA) after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation among cataract patients.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to August 2020. The primary outcome was intraocular pressure. The secondary outcomes were the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), anterior chamber cell, and anterior chamber flare. The pooled effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) of 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale criteria were used for the quality assessment of included studies.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, there was no significant difference between TA injection and dexamethasone in comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) (SMD = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.29, 0.73], P = .408; I² = 86.9%) in the first day after treatment and last day of assessment. For the secondary outcomes, the logMAR (WMD = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.08]) and the anterior chamber flare (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.18], P = .087; I² = 0%) showed no differences. However, the amount of anterior chamber cells (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.01], P = .044; I² = 0%) in the TA injection on the first day postoperative was higher than for dexamethasone. After treatment, there was no difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports that there were no differences in IOP, logMAR, and anterior chamber flare between TA injection and dexamethasone among cataract patients. TA injection treatment on the first day showed higher amounts of anterior chamber cells than with dexamethasone.

Steroidal nanoformulations for the treatment of uveitis: potential, promises and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

Intraocular inflammation, commonly referred to as uveitis, is a prevalent ocular disease. The categorization of uveitis may be based on the prevailing anatomical site, which includes anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveitis. There exists a significant body of evidence indicating that T cells play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of autoimmune uveitis. In addition to the presence of T cells, an elevation in levels of inflammatory cytokines and a reduction in regulatory cytokines were also noted. The primary pharmacological interventions for uveitis comprise of corticosteroids, methotrexate, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) antibodies, and sirolimus. These medications offer prompt alleviation for inflammation. Nevertheless, prolonged administration of corticosteroids invariably leads to unfavorable adverse reactions. The traditional topical corticosteroids exhibit certain limitations, including inadequate transcorneal permeation and low corneal retention, leading to reduced ocular bioavailability. Consequently, there is a growing inclination towards the creation of innovative steroid drug delivery systems with the aim of reducing the potential for adverse effects, while simultaneously enhancing the drug's corneal permeation and retention.

CONCLUSION

This review is an attempt to compile all the research work done so far in this field and provides a brief overview of the global efforts to develop innovative nanocarrier-based systems for corticosteroids.

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

Efficacy and safety of intravitreal and periocular injection of corticosteroids in non-infectious uveitis: a systematic review

Uveitis is among the leading causes of visual loss in the working age population. In non-infectious uveitis, corticosteroids are the first line therapy. We sought to review systematically the evidence regarding the regional corticosteroid delivery modalities in the treatment of non-infectious uveitis. A five-database search (Pubmed, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus) was performed from inception to February, 2021. Nineteen studies with a total of 1935 eyes of 1753 patients were selected from 8922 abstracts retrieved by the initial search. The most frequently compared regimens were intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection and orbital floor triamcinolone acetonide injection (2 studies), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection and posterior sub-Tenon triamcinolone acetonide injection (2 studies), and posterior sub-Tenon triamcinolone acetonide injection with the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (2 studies). Our results show that the intravitreal injection of corticosteroids is more effective, but is associated with more adverse events, than periocular injection. Some evidence supports the use of subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide over intravitreal/periocular triamcinolone acetonide. Moreover, the overall results of 0.59 mg dosage of the intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant were superior to those from the 2.1 mg dose. The evidence, however, is not robust and further studies with standardized outcomes are warranted.

Ocular hypertension following 40 mg sub-Tenon triamcinolone versus 0.7 mg dexamethasone implant versus 2 mg intravitreal triamcinolone

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of ocular hypertension (OHT) in eyes receiving 40 mg sub-Tenon triamcinolone (STT), 0.7 mg dexamethasone implant (DEX), and 2 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT).

METHODS

This study is a single-centre, retrospective case series. All patients receiving STT and DEX between 4/1/2014 and 3/1/2017 and IVT between 3/1/2012 and 3/1/2017 with a minimum of 3 months' follow-up were included. OHT was defined as an intraocular pressure (IOP) >24 mm Hg. Patients receiving any other form of topical, oral, or intravitreal steroid were excluded.

RESULTS

113 eyes from 104 patients in the STT group, 122 eyes from 109 patients in the DEX group, and 109 eyes from 103 patients in the IVT group were included. The mean number of injections for each eye was 1.7 in the STT group, 2.6 for the DEX group, and 2.8 for the IVT group (p < 0.001). Twenty eyes (17.7%) developed OHT in the STT group, 19 eyes (15.6%) developed OHT in the DEX group, and 14 eyes (12.8%) developed OHT in the IVT group (p = 0.60). IOP was controlled in all eyes with observation, topical IOP-lowering medication, or surgical intervention. The rate of incisional glaucoma surgery was 1.7% in the STT group, 1.6% in the DEX group, and 0% in the IVT group (p = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of OHT was similar across treatment groups. The proportion of OHT in patients with a history of glaucoma was no different from that in patients without a history of glaucoma. All cases were successfully managed with observation, medical treatment, or incisional surgery.

Ocular Disease Therapeutics: Design and Delivery of Drugs for Diseases of the Eye

The ocular drug discovery field has evidenced significant advancement in the past decade. The FDA approvals of Rhopressa, Vyzulta, and Roclatan for glaucoma, Brolucizumab for wet age-related macular degeneration (wet AMD), Luxturna for retinitis pigmentosa, Dextenza (0.4 mg dexamethasone intracanalicular insert) for ocular inflammation, ReSure sealant to seal corneal incisions, and Lifitegrast for dry eye represent some of the major developments in the field of ocular therapeutics. A literature survey also indicates that gene therapy, stem cell therapy, and target discovery through genomic research represent significant promise as potential strategies to achieve tissue repair or regeneration and to attain therapeutic benefits in ocular diseases. Overall, the emergence of new technologies coupled with first-in-class entries in ophthalmology are highly anticipated to restructure and boost the future trends in the field of ophthalmic drug discovery. This perspective focuses on various aspects of ocular drug discovery and the recent advances therein. Recent medicinal chemistry campaigns along with a brief overview of the structure-activity relationships of the diverse chemical classes and developments in ocular drug delivery (ODD) are presented.

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.