Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants of Vitrectomized and Nonvitrectomized Eyes in a Real-World Study

Anterior chamber bleeding due to intravitreal dexamethasone implant sclerotomy without vitreous hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Anterior Chamber bleeding without vitreous hemorrhage had been described after the removal of 23G vitrectomy cannulas. We report the case of an anterior chamber bleeding after an intravitreal Dexamethasone implant.

CASE REPORT

One patient with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion in a vitrectomized eye underwent an intravitreal Dexamethasone implant. After the injection the patient suffered from anterior chamber bleeding without signs of vitreous hemorrhage. The complication resolved with a conservative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Anterior Chamber bleeding is a possible complication of dexamethasone implant, that can be treated in a conservative way.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Given Either First-Line or Second-Line in Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the leading cause of severe visual impairment among the working-age population. Several therapeutic options are available for the management of DME, including intravitreal corticosteroids. They have been traditionally used as second-line treatment, due to the risk of intraocular pressure increase and cataract-related adverse events. However, attention has recently been focused on the primary or early use of intravitreal corticosteroids, due to growing evidence of the crucial role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME. Furthermore, intravitreal steroid implants offer the additional advantage of a longer duration of action compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGF). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, with a specific focus on clinical scenarios in which it might be considered or even preferred as first-line treatment option by adequate selection of patients, considering both advantages and possible adverse events. Patients with contraindications to anti-VEGF, DME with high inflammatory OCT biomarkers, pseudophakic patients and phakic patients' candidates to cataract surgery as well as vitrectomized eyes may all benefit from first-line DEX implant. Additionally, DME not responders to anti-VEGF should be considered for a switch to DEX implant and a combination therapy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF could be a valid option in severe and persistent DME.

Intravitreal DEX Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review of National Consensus

Diabetic macular edema (DME)'s therapeutic approach can frequently be challenging. The purpose of the review is to propose evidence-based recommendations on the employment of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) when approaching patients suffering from DME. Seven national consensuses redacted by different groups of retina specialists from Europe and Asia were examined and confronted. Each consensus was redacted utilizing a Delphi approach, in person meetings, or by reviewing the literature. DEX can be studied as a first-line strategy in individuals suffering from DME with inflammatory OCT biomarkers, in vitrectomized eyes, in patients with recent cardiovascular events, in pregnant women, in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery or with poor compliance. The other parameters considered were the indications to the DME treatment, when to switch to DEX, the definition of non-responder to anti-VEGFs agents and to the DEX implant, whether to combine DEX with laser photocoagulation, the association between glaucoma and DEX, and the management of DEX and the cataract. Although several years have passed since the introduction of DEX implants in the DME treatment, there is still not a unified agreement among retina specialists. This paper compares the approach in the DME treatment between countries from different continents and provides a broader and worldwide perspective of the topic.

Efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of the intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes.

Methods: We performed a literature search in four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) from inception to 22 May 2022. Studies comparing the efficacy of the DEX implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with DME with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. The main outcomes included comparison of the mean change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to different follow-up endpoints between the vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized groups. The secondary outcomes were the mean duration of action for the first DEX implantation and the number of required injections throughout the follow-up period. Safety data were collected and compared.

Results: The final analysis included 7 studies involving 582 eyes, 208 vitrectomized eyes and 374 nonvitrectomized eyes. The mean between-group differences in BCVA improvement were not significant at any endpoint, with averages difference of −0.07 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (p = 0.088) at 1 month, −0.03 logMAR (p = 0.472) 3 months, −0.07 logMAR (p = 0.066) 6 months, and −0.04 logMAR (p = 0.486) 12 months. The mean between-group differences in CMT reduction were not statistically significant, with mean differences of 7.17 μm (p = 0.685) at 1 month, 20.03 μm (p = 0.632) 3 months, −1.80 μm (p = 0.935) 6 months, and −25.65 μm (p = 0.542) 12 months. However, the vitrectomized group had a significantly shorter duration of action during the first DEX implantation than the nonvitrectomized group, with a mean difference of 0.8 months (p = 0.005). No significant between-group differences were detected for the number of required injections or safety profile.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed similar efficacy and safety of the sustained-release DEX intravitreal implant for vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with DME. The intravitreal DEX implant could be considered an effective choice for DME treatment in eyes with prior vitrectomy.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Chronic Diabetic Macular Edema Previously Treated in Real-Life Practice: The REALFAc Study

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the main cause of visual impairment in diabetic patients and a chronic disease requiring long-term treatments. The fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant has recently been approved to treat DME in patients considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies. This study evaluates the functional and anatomical efficacy of the FAc implant in real-life practice. A total of 62 eyes with chronic DME were included and followed for a mean of 13.9 (+7.5) months. Previous treatment included at least anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in 83.9% of eyes, dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) in 100% of eyes, vitrectomy in 29.0% of eyes, and laser photocoagulation (either panretinal or focal photocoagulation) in 75.8% of eyes. The mean baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 64.0 (+/−17.2) letters (median: 67.5 letters) with a mean DME duration of 60.3 (+/−30.6) months. The maximum BCVA gain occurred at 21 months with a mean gain of 5.0 (+/−12.7) letters. A total of 50.0% of eyes gained ≥5 letters during follow-up. Patients with lower BCVA at baseline had the lowest final BCVA (p < 0.001) but the highest BCVA gain (p = 0.02). The best overall improvement in mean central macular thickness (CMT) occurred at 18 months (p < 0.0001). The improvement in BCVA was inversely associated with the decrease in CMT and showed a decrease when CMT increased (DME recurrence). According to the history of vitrectomy, we did not find any significant difference in mean final BCVA (p = 0.1) and mean BCVA gain (p = 0.2) between eyes previously vitrectomized or not. A total of 23 eyes (37.1%) required additional treatment for DME, and 17.7% required an IOP-lowering procedure during follow-up. In conclusion, this real-life observational study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the FAc implant in patients with chronic DME already treated with other available therapies.

Fluocinolone acetonide implant in diabetic macular edema: International experts' panel consensus guidelines and treatment algorithm

Center-involving diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision impairment in working-age adults. While its management is particularly challenging in a poorly compliant population, continuous innovation and the advent of new molecules have improved its outcome. The control of glycemia and of systemic aggravating factors remain essential to slow down progression of disease complications including DME. The indications for macular laser photocoagulation has progressively been phased out as a standard of care and replaced by local intraocular anti-VEGFs biologics and glucocorticoids (GCs). Intravitreal GCs in controlled-release drug delivery systems have allowed to reduce injection frequency and treatment burden. The non biodegradable Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) implant allows a long-lasting stabilization of both functional and anatomic improvements. However, adequate patient selection and monitoring through regular follow-up are essential for optimal results. Based on their experience and the latest literature, the aim of the present review is to provide international expert panel consensus on the place of the FAc implant in the treatment algorithm of DME, as well as its safety profile and how to manage it.

Comparison of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab in Vitrectomized Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a single institution.

Methods

Pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve center-involved DME were enrolled, with one eye in each patient. They were divided into two groups: one group receiving IDI every 3 to 4 months and another group receiving IVR using 3 monthly plus treat-and-extend injections, all with monthly follow-up for 6 months. Switch of intravitreal drugs or deferred macular laser was not allowed. Primary outcome measures included change in central foveal thickness (CFT) in 1 mm by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at Month 6.

Results

Twenty-two eyes were included in the IDI group and 26 eyes in the IVR group. The baseline demographics, glycosylated hemoglobin level, intraocular pressure (IOP), BCVA, and CFT did not significantly differ (p > 0.05). Compared to baseline data, CFT decreased and BCVA improved significantly after either IDI or IVR at Month 6 (p < 0.05). Significantly better mean final BCVA (0.38 logMAR vs. 0.62 logMAR, p=0.04), more mean visual gain (−0.30 logMAR vs. −0.15 logMAR, p=0.02), lower mean final CFT (310.9 μm vs. 384.2 μm, p=0.04), and larger mean CFT decrease (−150.0 μm vs. −60.1 μm, p=0.03) were found in the IDI group compared to those in the IVR group. A smaller mean treatment number (2.6 vs. 5.6, p < 0.001) and higher rate of postinjection ocular hypertension requiring topical hypotensive agent therapy (27.3% vs. 0%, p=0.0002) were demonstrated in the IDI group than those in the IVR group.

Conclusion

We concluded that IDI and IVR can both effectively treat vitrectomized eyes with DME. Dexamethasone implants had significantly better visual/anatomical improvement, smaller treatment number, and higher rate of elevated IOP after injection than IVR in pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with DME in a 6-month period.

TRENDS IN INTRAVITREAL CORTICOSTEROID AGENT USE BY US OPHTHALMOLOGISTS IN MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES AND ASSOCIATION WITH PHYSICIAN-INDUSTRY INTERACTIONS

PURPOSE

To report trends of intravitreal corticosteroid use and explore the relationship between career experience, reported industry payments, and prescribing habits.

METHODS

A retrospective review of ophthalmologists who administered intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) and triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injections between August 2013 and December 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 1,070 US ophthalmologists were reimbursed by Medicare for 522,804 DEX injections and 2.6 million TA injections. There was a significant positive trend in the number of DEX (P = 0.01), but not TA, injections per year. Mid-career and late-career physicians performed significantly greater total injections on average compared with early-career physicians (both P < 0.001). Early-career physicians performed a greater proportion of DEX injections than late-career physicians (P = 0.006). Industry payments were positively associated with the proportion of DEX used and inversely correlated with the proportion of TA administered (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, years in practice, number of payments, and total value of payments were significantly associated with the number of DEX injections administered (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

From 2013 to 2017, the use of DEX increased, whereas TA use remained stable. There was a positive association between DEX use and physician-industry interactions, which may be explained by seniority and experience. This study does not define a causal relationship.

Diabetic Macular Edema Management in Asian Population: Expert Panel Consensus Guidelines

PURPOSE

The aim of this consensus article was to provide comprehensive recommendations in the management of diabetic macular edema (DME) by reviewing recent clinical evidence.

DESIGN

A questionnaire containing 47 questions was developed which encompassed clinical scenarios such as treatment response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and steroid, treatment side effects, as well as cost and compliance/reimbursement in the management of DME using a Dephi questionnaire as guide.

METHODS

An expert panel of 12 retinal specialists from Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, India and Vietnam responded to this questionnaire on two separate occasions. The first round responses were compiled, analyzed and discussed in a round table discussion where a consensus was sought through voting. Consensus was considered achieved, when 9 of the 12 panellists (75%) agreed on a recommendation.

RESULTS

The DME patients were initially profiled based on their response to treatment, and the terms target response, adequate response, nonresponse, and inadequate response were defined. The panellists arrived at a consensus on various aspects of DME treatment such as need for classification of patients before treatment, first-line treatment options, appropriate time to switch between treatment modalities, and steroid-related side effects based on which recommendations were derived, and a treatment algorithm was developed.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus article provides comprehensive, evidence-based treatment guidelines in the management of DME in Asian population. In addition, it also provides recommendations on other aspects of DME management such as steroid treatment for stable glaucoma patients, management of intraocular pressure rise, and recommendations for cataract development.

Effect of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes of Taiwanese patients with treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Vitrectomy may affect intravitreal drug clearance and efficacy for treating diabetic macular edema (DME). This study aimed to evaluate functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve DME in Taiwanese patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center study, we reviewed treatment-naïve patients who received DEX implant monotherapy for center-involved DME from January 2015 to May 2017. Retreatments were provided at least 4 months apart as needed. The primary outcomes included changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) at Month 6. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven eyes in 27 patients had prior vitrectomy and 43 eyes in 41 patients without vitrectomy. Baseline data were comparable. Overall, the improvements in BCVA and CFT were significant by 1 month post-treatment and sustained throughout the study (all p < 0.05). At Month 6, BCVA improved by 16.5 and 12.1 letters, and CFT reduced by 138.0 and 121.9 μm in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes, respectively, with a mean of 1.5 DEX implant injection. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were seen between the two groups (all p > 0.05). DEX implant injection was well tolerated. About 30% of patients had post-injection intraocular pressure value > 20 mmHg, and all were manageable with topical hypotensive agents, and no serious ocular complication was observed.

CONCLUSION

In this 6-month retrospective study, intravitreal DEX implant was effective in Taiwanese patients with treatment-naïve DME regardless of vitrectomy status.

[Clinical Decision Making for Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema with DEX Implant: a Consensus Paper]

BACKGROUND

Currently two intravitreally applied corticosteroids (dexamethasone and fluocinolone) are licensed in Germany for treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). The use of DEX implant for DME in daily clinical practice has not been defined in detail. Following a Delphi panel survey, a group of retina experts set out to come up with a consensus for use of the DEX implant in DME.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

International and national treatment recommendations were identified from the literature. A steering group generated a catalogue of 72 statements on the aetiology and pathogenesis of DME, therapy with DEX implant, use of DEX implant in patients previously treated with VEGF-inhibitors, use of DEX implant in combination therapy, safety of DME therapies as well as patients' burden of treatment. Twenty-two ophthalmologists from private practice and 6 hospital ophthalmologists participated in the Delphi panel via Survey Monkey. Consensus was reached if at least 75% of participants agreed or disagreed with a statement. Statements for which consensus was not reached were discussed once more during the expert consensus meeting and a vote was taken. Based on these results a treatment algorithm for foveal DME was proposed.

RESULTS

If a patient does not show sufficient response after 3 - 6 months of anti-VEGF treatment (visual acuity gain of < 5 ETDRS letters or reduction of central retinal thickness ≤ 20%), a switch to DEX implant should take place. DEX implant is also suitable in eyes with longer presentation of DME, showing e.g. massive lipid exudates. DEX implant is suitable as first-line therapy especially in pseudophakic patients, patients unwilling or able to comply with tight anti-VEGF injection intervals or patients with known vascular diseases. With fixed control visits every 4 - 8 weeks, use of DEX implant is flexible and individual. Decision parameters for repeated use should be visual acuity, retinal thickness and intraocular pressure. Treatment of both eyes on the same day should not take place.

CONCLUSION

The algorithm presented reflects survey as well as expert discussion results and may differ from recommendations issued by the German professional society. The consensus recommendations for the treatment of DME generated during the survey and meeting of retina experts are intended to guide use of DEX implant in daily practice.

First-line treatment algorithm and guidelines in center-involving diabetic macular edema

Management of center-involving diabetic macular edema represents a real therapeutic challenge. Diabetic macular edema is the leading cause of visual acuity impairment in diabetic patients. Since the advent of intravitreal drugs, management of diabetic macular edema has significantly evolved. The historical grid laser photocoagulation is no longer recommended as first-line treatment of diabetic macular edema owing to the findings of the pivotal randomized controlled trials, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy has emerged as first-line therapy. Steroids also represent a valid treatment option in the management of naïve diabetic macular edema and their efficacy has also been confirmed in several studies. The optimal treatment for diabetic macular edema should consider both general and ophthalmological comorbidities. Patient compliance and motivation should also be carefully evaluated as some treatments require monthly follow-up. Based on recent literature evidence, the present review provides clinicians with a first-line treatment algorithm for center-involving diabetic macular edema tailored to the patient’s individual characteristics.