A 12-month, single-masked, randomized controlled study of eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema after multiple anti-VEGF injections to assess the efficacy of the dexamethasone-delayed delivery system as an adjunct to bevacizumab compared with continued bevacizumab monotherapy. Retina. 2015;35:1604-1614. [PMID: 25829346 DOI: 10.1097/iae.0000000000000533]

Anti-VEGF Monotherapy vs Anti-VEGF and Steroid Combination Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Meta-analysis

Introduction: To compare the safety and efficacy of antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monotherapy vs anti-VEGF and steroid combination therapy in treatment-naïve and treatment-resistant patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted from January 2005 to December 2022. Sixteen randomized control trials (RCTs) published in English that reported the efficacy or safety of monotherapy and combination therapy in patients with DME were included. Results: The 16 RCTs included 1166 eyes. Monotherapy was associated with a significantly better best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the final follow-up (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.04 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.02; P = .002; I 2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed in the change in BCVA between groups at the final observation. Monotherapy was associated with a significantly smaller change in retinal thickness at the final follow-up (WMD, 37.63 μm; 95% CI, 11.67-63.60; P = .005; I 2 = 78%) and with a significantly lower risk for intraocular pressure-related adverse events (AEs) (risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.46; P ≤ .001; I 2 = 0%). The risk for cataract-related AEs was not significantly different between groups (P = .06). The results in treatment-naïve patients were similar. In treatment-resistant patients, the change in retinal thickness at the final follow-up was similar between groups (P = .14) but the risk for cataract-related AEs was significantly lower in the monotherapy group in 2 RCTs (risk ratio, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66; P = .02; I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: The changes in BCVA were similar despite combination therapy being associated with greater changes in retinal thickness. However, increased complications were seen with combination therapy. Most results in treatment-naïve patients and treatment-resistant patients were similar.

Does dexamethasone implant combination with aflibercept monotherapy affect one-year outcomes in treatment-naive diabetic macular edema with inflammatory biomarkers?

PURPOSE

To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of the combination of aflibercept and dexamethasone implant (CT) against aflibercept monotherapy (AM) in treatment-naive diabetic macular edema (DME) patients with serous macular detachment and hyperreflective foci.

METHODS

This study included 82 eyes of 82 patients with treatment-naive DME who completed the follow-up period of 12 months. All patients had optical coherence tomography biomarkers of an inflammatory DME phenotype. Patients were consecutively selected and classified into two groups: The CT group consisted of 39 eyes treated with aflibercept therapy and initially combined with a single-dose dexamethasone implant. The AM group consisted of 43 eyes treated with aflibercept alone. The primary outcome measures of the study were the mean reduction of the central macular thickness (CMT) and total macular volume parameters (TMV) and improvement in best-corrected visual acuity.

RESULTS

In both groups, the patient characteristics, including age, gender, duration of diabetes, HbA1c levels, phakic percentage, and diabetic retinopathy status were similar (P > 0.05). The mean reduction in CMT and TMV was significantly higher in the CT group compared to the AM group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). In contrast, mean letter gains were not significantly higher (P = 0.240) at the end of the study. In the CT group, 20.5% of patients showed a transient IOP increase, and 18% developed cataracts. In subgroup analysis, the mean letter gain in pseudophakic eyes was significantly higher (12.5 in the CT vs. 9.3 in the AM group, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

The CT, where inflammation is prominent, can provide faster recovery. The pseudophakic eyes seem to be the ideal patient group for CT.

Anti-VEGF combined with ocular corticosteroids therapy versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for diabetic macular edema focusing on drugs injection times and confounding factors of pseudophakic eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of combining intravitreal endothelial growth factor inhibitor (anti-VEGF) and ocular corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Articles concentrating on the efficacy and safety of combining anti-VEGF and ocular corticosteroids therapy for DME versus anti-VEGF monotherapy was screened systematically. Meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of a protocol registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023408338) and performed on the extracted continuous variables and dichotomous variables. The outcome was expressed as weighted mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR).

RESULTS

Add up to 21 studies including 1468 eyes were enrolled in this study. The MD for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement at 1/3/6/12-month between the combination therapy group and monotherapy group were 2.56 (95% CI [0.43, 4.70]), 2.46 (95% CI [-0.40, 5.32]), - 1.76 (95% CI [-3.18, -0.34]), - 1.94 (95% CI [-3.87, 0.00]), respectively. The MD for central retinal thickness (CMT) reduction at 1/3/6/12-month between two groups were - 66.27 (95% CI [-101.08, -31.47]), - 33.62 (95% CI [-57.55, -9.70]), - 4.54 (95% CI [-16.84, 7.76]), - 26.67 (95% CI [-41.52, -11.82]), respectively. Additionally, the combination group had higher relative risk of high intraocular pressure and cataract progression events.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF combined with ocular corticosteroids had a significant advantage over anti-VEGF monotherapy within 3 months of DME treatment, which reached the maximum with increasing anti-VEGF injection times to 3. However, with the prolongation of the treatment cycle, the effect of combined therapy after 6 months was no better than monotherapy, and the side effects of combined therapy were more severe.

Efficacy and safety profile of intravitreal dexamethasone implant versus antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment in diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To better understand the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) versus antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). A systematic review and meta-analysis. The study included randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-randomized control trials (Non-RCTs) before December 2021 that compare the efficacy of Ozurdex-related therapyand anti-VEGF therapy. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The quality of the included studies was assessed carefully. 30 studies were included. Regarding BCVA change, the overall result revealed no significant differences between Ozurdex and anti-VEGF therapies in patients with nonresistant DME, but Ozurdex group had significantly more VA improvement than anti-VEGF therapies in patients with resistant DME (MD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.21). In terms of central retinal thickness (CRT) decrease, there was a significant difference between Ozurdex therapy and anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nonresistant DME (MD 48.10, 95% CI 19.06-77.13) and resistant DME (MD 65.37, 95% CI 3.62-127.13). Overall, Ozurdex therapy resulted in significantly greater VA improvement and CRT decrease than anti-VEGF therapy in resistant DME patients. Ozurdex therapy was not inferior to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nonresistant DME.

Persistent diabetic macular edema: Definition, incidence, biomarkers, and treatment methods

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment has drastically improved the visual and anatomical outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME); however, success is not always guaranteed, and a proportion of these eyes demonstrate persistent DME (pDME) despite intensive treatment. While standardized criteria to define these treatment-resistant eyes have not yet been established, many studies refer to eyes with no clinical response or an unsatisfactory partial response as having pDME. A patient is considered to have pDME if the retinal thickness improves less than 10-25% after 6 months of treatment. A range of treatment options have been recommended for eyes with pDME, including switching anti-VEGF agents, using corticosteroids and/or antioxidant drugs in adjunct with anti-VEGF therapy, and vitrectomy. In addition, multimodal imaging of DME eyes may be advantageous in predicting the responsiveness to treatment; this is beneficial when initiating alternative therapies. We explore the literature on persistent DME regarding its defining criteria, incidence, the baseline biological markers that may be useful in anticipating the response to treatment, and the available treatment options.

The Efficacy and Safety of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema and Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) with retinal vein occlusion secondary to macular edema (RVO-ME).

Materials and Methods

Relevant databases were searched to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DEX for DME and RVO-ME. The search was conducted until March 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.4.1 software after screening the literature by inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting information, and evaluating the methodological quality of the included studies.

Results

The study showed that DEX treatment of RVO-ME was associated with an improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (MD = −9.08, 95% CI: −10.89–7.27, P < 0.00001) and central retinal thickness (CRT) (MD = 93.47, 95% CI: 28.55–159.39, P=0.005). DEX treatment of DME was significantly better than anti-VEGF treatment in terms of CRT reduction (MD = −72.35, 95% CI: −115.0–29.69, P=0.0009). The safety study showed that the risk of cataract from RVO-ME (OR = 5.06, 95% CI: 1.96 to 13.06, P=0.0008) and the incidence of high intraocular pressure (OR = 6.67, 95% CI: 3.46 to 12.86, P < 0.00001) were significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy. The risk of cataract from DME (OR = 4.70, 95% CI: 2.10 to 10.54, P=0.00022) was significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy (OR = 4.70, 95% CI: 2.10 to 10.54, P=0.0002). The incidence of high IOP (OR = 13.77, 95% CI: 4.96 to 38.18, P < 0.00001) was significantly higher with DEX than with anti-VEGF therapy.

Conclusions

In patients with DME and RVO-ME, DEX was more efficacious but slightly less safe than anti-VEGF therapy.

Current and Novel Therapeutic Approaches for Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a major ocular complication of diabetes mellitus (DM), leading to significant visual impairment. DME's pathogenesis is multifactorial. Focal edema tends to occur when primary metabolic abnormalities lead to a persistent hyperglycemic state, causing the development of microaneurysms, often with extravascular lipoprotein in a circinate pattern around the focal leakage. On the other hand, diffusion edema is due to a generalized breakdown of the inner blood-retinal barrier, leading to profuse early leakage from the entire capillary bed of the posterior pole with the subsequent extravasation of fluid into the extracellular space. The pathogenesis of DME occurs through the interaction of multiple molecular mediators, including the overexpression of several growth factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), insulin-like growth factor-1, angiopoietin-1, and -2, stromal-derived factor-1, fibroblast growth factor-2, and tumor necrosis factor. Synergistically, these growth factors mediate angiogenesis, protease production, endothelial cell proliferation, and migration. Treatment for DME generally involves primary management of DM, laser photocoagulation, and pharmacotherapeutics targeting mediators, namely, the anti-VEGF pathway. The emergence of anti-VEGF therapies has resulted in significant clinical improvements compared to laser therapy alone. However, multiple factors influencing the visual outcome after anti-VEGF treatment and the presence of anti-VEGF non-responders have necessitated the development of new pharmacotherapies. In this review, we explore the pathophysiology of DME and current management strategies. In addition, we provide a comprehensive analysis of emerging therapeutic approaches to the treatment of DME.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Macular Edema and Uveitis: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Purpose

The purpose of this review article is to provide a comprehensive review of the current applications of intravitreal DEX implant (Ozurdex^®, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA) for a variety of ophthalmic conditions – ranging from FDA approved indications to off-label uses. We have attempted to provide relevant evidence from the literature to help a reader develop an understanding of the biological and pharmacokinetic properties of DEX implant, its uses, and potential side effects.

Methods

PubMed searches were performed using the terms “Ozurdex”, or “intravitreal DEX implant”, AND “retinal vein occlusion”, or “diabetic macular edema”, or “uveitis”. The search was performed in July of 2021, with an additional search in October 2021. All original English language articles were considered for this review.

Results

DEX implant has evidence of efficacy in a variety of clinical situations including macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion, diabetes, uveitis, and others. Safety concerns include cataract formation and progression, intraocular pressure elevation, complications related to intravitreal injection, and opportunistic infections secondary to steroid-induced immune suppression.

Conclusion

DEX implant is a useful tool in the management of several retinal disorders. Further studies are needed for head-to-head comparison with other treatment modalities and to determine its precise place in clinical practice.

Therapeutic effect of simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone and aflibercept on diabetic macular edema

AIMS

To report the effect of simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) and aflibercept for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of an open-label, multicenter, consecutive case series included 102 eyes of 81 patients with DME. Patients were selected into two groups. The control group consisted of 50 eyes treated with aflibercept alone, and the combination group consisted of 52 eyes treated with simultaneous DEX implant and aflibercept injection. The primary endpoints were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to month 6. The secondary endpoint was the interval of retreatment.

RESULTS

Baseline BCVA increased and CRT decreased at 6 months in both groups. Pseudophakic eyes in the combination group exhibited significantly greater BCVA improvement compared with phakic eyes (p = 0.031). Fewer intravitreal treatments were required for eyes treated with combination therapy than for those treated with aflibercept alone (1.56 ± 0.54 vs. 4.04 ± 1.26, p < .0001), with a mean retreatment interval of 3.66 ± 0.69 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous intravitreal DEX and aflibercept achieved non-inferior improvement of visual and anatomic outcomes compared with aflibercept alone for DME, but exhibited a significantly longer treatment interval and superior visual outcome in pseudophakic eyes. This therapeutic approach is considered a valid strategy for treating DME in the era of COVID-19.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in Patients Who Did Not Complete Anti-VEGF Loading Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Retrospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To compare the functional and anatomic outcomes between eyes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who underwent a complete anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) loading dose with aflibercept and those who were switched to dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant after an incomplete anti-VEGF treatment regimen during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

This was a retrospective and comparative study conducted on patients with DME. Main outcome measures were mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to month 4.

RESULTS

Forty-three eyes (23 eyes in the anti-VEGF group and 20 eyes in the DEX group) were included. Mean BCVA significantly improved from 37.7 ± 25.3 and 35.7 ± 22.0 letters at baseline to 45.4 (23.9) (mean adjusted BCVA improvement 7.6 ± 20.8 letters, p = 0.033) and 46.1 ± 26.0 (mean adjusted BCVA improvement 10.6 ± 15.9 letters, p = 0.049) at month 4 in the anti-VEGF and DEX groups, respectively, with no significant differences between study groups (mean adjusted BCVA difference 2.8 letters, 95% CI - 9.4 to 14.9 letters, p = 0.648). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of eyes that achieved a BCVA improvement of ≥ 5, ≥ 10, and ≥ 15 letters between groups. CRT was significantly reduced from baseline to month 4 in both DEX (mean adjusted CRT reduction 167.3 ± 148.2 µm, p = 0.012) and anti-VEGF groups (mean adjusted CRT reduction 109.9 ± 181.9 µm, p < 0.001), with no differences between them (mean adjusted CRT difference 56.1 µm, 95% CI - 46.0 to 158.2 µm, p = 0.273). Of 20 eyes in the DEX group, 16 (80.0%) and 9 (45.0%) eyes achieved a CRT reduction of ≥ 20% from baseline at 2 months and at 4 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results seem to suggest that DEX implant can significantly improve both functional and anatomic clinical outcomes in patients who were unable to complete anti-VEGF loading dose during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical efficacy of intravitreal corticoid as an adjunctive therapy to anti-VEGF treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a Meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal corticoid as an adjunctive therapy to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD).

METHODS

Four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the clinicaltrials.gov were comprehensively searched for studies comparing intravitreal corticoid plus anti-VEGF (IVC/IVA) vs anti-VEGF monotherapy (IVA) in patients with nvAMD. GRADE profiler was used to assess the quality of outcomes. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and adverse events including the occurrence of severe elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the progress of cataract were extracted from the eligible studies. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

There was no statistic difference of mean change in BCVA at 6 and 12mo between IVC/IVA and IVA group [95% confidence interval (CI): -2.28 to 4.24, P=0.55; 95%CI: -3.01 to 8.70, P=0.34]. No statistic difference was found in the change of CMT between two groups at 6mo time point (95%CI: -17.98 to 16.42, P=0.93) while the CMT reduction in IVC/IVA group was significantly more obvious than IVA group at 12mo time point [mean difference (MD)=-44.08, 95%CI: -80.52 to -7.63, P=0.02]. The risk of occurrence of severe elevation of IOP in the IVC/IVA group was higher than that in the IVA group (95%CI: 1.92 to 9.48; P=0.0004). Cataract progression risk was calculated no statistic difference between two groups (95%CI: 0.74 to 4.66; P=0.18).

CONCLUSION

No visual or anatomical benefits are observed in IVC/IVA group at 6mo. At 12mo, the CMT of the IVC/IVA group is significantly lower than that of the IVA group. Risk of severe elevation of IOP is significantly higher when treated by IVC/IVA.

Early effect of simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone and bevacizumab combination treatment in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

To report the early effect of simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone and bevacizumab combination treatment in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

In this single-center prospective non-randomized study, 65 eyes of 59 patients with persistent DME were included. In the combined group (Group 1), we treated 35 eyes of 29 persistent DME patients with a simultaneous combination of intravitreal dexamethasone and bevacizumab, and in the control group (Group 2), we treated 30 eyes of 30 patients with intravitreal bevacizumab. Changes in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA), Central Macular Thickness (CMT) and Intraocular Pressure (IOP) from the initial visit to each subsequent follow-up visit (1st, 2nd and 3rd months) were recorded.

RESULTS

In Group 1, the mean baseline Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy (ETDRS) BCVA letter score was 44.1±19.3 (range 20-51), improving significantly to 58.8±18.2 (range 42-73) in the first month (P<0.05), 57±19.2 (range 40-72) in the second month (P<0.05) and 55.4±18.4 (range 34-71) in the third month (P<0.05). In Group 2, the mean pre-injection BCVA ETDRS letter score was 43.3±18.8 (range 20-56) and did not improve significantly; the letter score was 44.3±18.1 (range 20-49) in the third month. In Group 1, the mean BCVA change from baseline to the 3rd month was 11.3 ETDRS letters. In Group 2, the mean BCVA change from baseline to the 3rd month was 1 ETDRS letter. In Group 1, the mean reduction in CMT from baseline was -142.25μm. In Group 2, the mean reduction in CMT from baseline was -17.30μm. In Group 1 at the third month, 12 (34.2%) eyes with a CMT>300μm needed an additional injection. No serious ocular or systemic side effects occurred in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone and bevacizumab combination treatment is effective and can be used safely in persistent DME.

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.

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I² = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant as a Sustained Release Drug Delivery Device for the Treatment of Ocular Diseases: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Drug delivery into the vitreous chamber remains a great challenge in the pharmaceutical industry due to the complex anatomy and physiology of the eye. Intravitreal injection is the mainstream route of drug administration to the posterior segment of the eye. The purpose of this review is to assess the current literature about the widening use of the intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (Dex) implant, and to provide a comprehensive collection of all the ocular disorders that benefit from Dex administration. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth-factors (VEGFs) have been largely indicated as a first-choice level, the Dex implant represents an important treatment option, especially in selected cases, such as vitrectomized eyes or patients in whom anti-VEGF failed or are contraindicated. In this article, the safety profile as well as the list of the possible complications related to intravitreal Dex injection are also discussed.

[Treatment switch in diabetic macular edema: Literature review and management algorithm]

Initial management of diabetic macular edema (DME) is well-defined, but there is a lack of national or international consensus for patients who do not respond or respond only partially to these treatments. Several studies, mostly retrospective, have assessed medication switches, but currently, the literature contains no randomized studies. The goal of this article is to present an algorithm for switching medications, which can be proposed to DME patients treated with anti-VEGF agents, as defined by a group of French retina experts, supported by the existing literature on the subject. After initiation of an anti-VEGF treatment for DME, the response is usually assessed after 5 monthly injections. A partial anatomical response (reduction of central retinal thickness between 10 and 20%), seen in 30 to 40% of patients, is associated with a favorable visual prognosis according to randomized studies. Continuation of the anti-VEGF injections after the induction phase is thus possible. If the response remains incomplete after 3 additional anti-VEGF injections, a complete ophthalmologic examination should be performed, and a switch to another therapeutic class (corticosteroids) may be proposed in the absence of contraindications. If a complete non-response is seen initially (reduction of central retinal thickness<10%), the switch is proposed immediately after the induction phase.

Visual and anatomic outcomes of sustained single agent anti-VEGF treatment versus double anti-VEGF switching in the treatment of persistent diabetic macular edema

Background

To compare the anatomical and visual outcomes in eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) after initial anti-VEGF therapy that were retreated continuously with the same anti-VEGF drug versus those that underwent two successive cycles of medication change in anti-VEGF drugs (double anti-VEGF switch).

Methods

Retrospective review of eyes with persistent DME after 3 initial consecutive monthly anti-VEGF injections. This cohort was divided into two groups: Group 1 continued to receive the same initial anti-VEGF drug for at least 18 months while group 2 eyes were switched to different anti-VEGF medications twice. Group 1 was further subdivided into: Group 1A composed of eyes with less than 20% reduction in central subfield thickness (CRT) at month 3; and group 1B eyes with greater than or equal to 20% reduction in CRT. The percentage of eyes that achieved greater than 10 letters visual acuity (VA) gain or loss was recorded as the primary end point (through month 18 in group 1 and month 6 after 2nd switch in group 2).

Results

Group 1A, 1B and group 2 were composed of 24, 18, and 14 eyes respectively. 34.7%, 56.2% and 36.3% of eyes achieved > 10 letters gain, while 4.3%, 6.2% and 27.2% of eyes lost > 10 letters in groups 1A, 1B, and 2, respectively. Analysis of the visual acuity (VA) letter change in this time interval revealed no significant difference between all groups (p = 0.11). Mean VA and CRT measurements at the primary endpoint in all groups were 0.5, 0.39, and 0.47 logMAR (p = 0.44), and 369.7, 279.9, 321 µm, (p = 0.01) respectively.

Conclusions

There was no difference in the visual outcomes between the two treatment strategies in eyes with persistent DME after 3 consecutive anti-VEGF injections. This may indicate that anti-VEGF switching—even if it is done twice—may have comparable clinical outcomes to sustained treatment with one agent.

Results of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) in diabetic macular edema patients: Early versus late switch

PURPOSE

To assess the functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex® in eyes with diabetic macular edema that did not adequately respond to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.

METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective, and real-life case series study conducted on consecutive diabetic macular edema patients who underwent treatment with one or more dexamethasone implant injections and were followed up for a minimum of 12 months. Subjects were divided into three groups: I-naïve patients, II-previously treated eyes that received three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections before the study (early switch), and III-previously treated eyes that received >3 intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections before the study (late switch). Primary endpoints were best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness at month 12.

RESULTS

A total of 129 eyes (21 naïve and 108 previously treated, Group II: 32 and Group III: 76) were included. At month 12, best-corrected visual acuity significantly improved from 0.27 ± 0.23 and 0.31 ± 0.22 at baseline to 0.36 ± 0.25 and 0.37 ± 0.23 at month 12 in naïve and previously treated eyes, respectively, and p = 0.0063 and 0.0060, respectively. Central retinal thickness, in naïve and previously treated eyes, was significantly reduced from 483.0 ± 143.4 and 431.3 ± 115.5 µm, at baseline, to 278.8 ± 72.1 and 269.3 ± 66.2 µm, at month 12, respectively, and p < 0.0001 each, respectively. Best-corrected visual acuity improvement was significantly greater in both absolute and percentage values, p = 0.0393 and 0.0118, respectively, in Group II than in Group III.

CONCLUSION

In eyes with insufficient response to antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, switching to dexamethasone at the time to 3-monthly antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections provided better functional outcomes than those that received >3 antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections.

microRNA Expression Profile in the Vitreous of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Patients and Differences from Patients Treated with Anti-VEGF Therapy

Purpose

microRNAs (miRNAs) mediate the pathological mechanisms of diabetic retinopathy. In this study, we compared miRNA expression profiles in the vitreous between patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and patients with a macular hole as non-diabetic controls, and between PDR patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and untreated PDR patients.

Methods

Vitreous samples of non-diabetic and PDR patients were screened for miRNAs with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) panels. miRNA candidates were validated in vitreous samples of a second, independent cohort. In addition, the effect of anti-VEGF therapy was investigated in the vitreous of a third study population consisting of PDR patients who had not received anti-VEGF therapy and PDR patients who had received preoperative anti-VEGF therapy.

Results

During screening, seven miRNAs were found to be significantly higher in the vitreous of PDR patients, whereas two miRNAs were found to be significantly lower compared with non-diabetic controls. Validating the expression of these miRNAs in a second cohort resulted in the identification of six miRNAs that were expressed at significantly higher rates in the vitreous of PDR patients: hsa-miR-20a-5p, hsa-miR-23b-3p, hsa-miR-142-3p, hsa-miR-185-5p, hsa-miR-326, and hsa-miR-362-5p. Among these six miRNAs, hsa-miR-23b-3p levels were lower in the anti-VEGF-treated group of PDR patients compared with untreated PDR patients.

Conclusions

In this study, we identified six miRNAs that are expressed more highly in PDR patients and one miRNA that is expressed at a lower levels in anti-VEGF-treated PDR patients.

Translational Relevance

miRNAs identified in the vitreous of PDR patients may improve our understanding of the mechanisms leading to PDR.

Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a chronic condition with a multifactorial pathogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and several inflammatory mediators are upregulated in eyes with DME. VEGF inhibitors and corticosteroids have all been used successfully in the management of DME. Currently available corticosteroids include triamcinolone acetonide (TA), the dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, and the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant. The response to treatment can vary substantially with each treatment modality. Some cases of DME are VEGF driven, and in others, inflammation plays a key role. Chronicity appears to favor corticosteroid treatment. There are no clear guidelines to guide switching from an anti-VEGF to a corticosteroid. Combination therapy of an anti-VEGF drug and a corticosteroid does not appear to provide additional benefit over monotherapy with either drug. The main advantage of corticosteroids over VEGF inhibitors is their longer duration of action. Vitrectomy does not affect the pharmacokinetics of the corticosteroid implants. Common adverse events of corticosteroids include cataract formation, cataract progression, and ocular hypertension. TA may cause a sterile endophthalmitis and pseudoendophthalmitis. Migration of the intravitreal DEX and FA implants into the anterior chamber can be problematic. Because of their less favorable safety profile, corticosteroids are generally used as a second-line treatment for DME. Advantages of using an intravitreal corticosteroid implant include the reduction of treatment burden and predictable pharmacokinetics even in vitrectomized eyes. Pseudophakic eyes, previously vitrectomized eyes and eyes with long-standing DME, particularly of patients who have difficulty in maintaining a monthly appointment, may benefit from primary treatment with a corticosteroid intravitreal implant.

Impact of Intravitreal Ranibizumab Therapy on Vision Outcomes in Diabetic Macular Edema Patients: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evaluation of the impact of the injection frequency of ranibizumab on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies was performed to quantify the effect of ranibizumab treatment on BCVA and central foveal thickness (CFT) in DME as well as the relationship between the number of injections and the change in BCVA/CFT.

RESULTS

All combined sources (29 RCTs and 11 real-life studies) showed a significant increase in BCVA from baseline following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment (8.2, 9.4, and 10.3 ETDRS letters gained after 12, 24, and 36 months of ranibizumab treatment, respectively). The largest changes in BCVA were observed in RCTs and the smallest in real-life studies at 12 months. A significant relationship was found between the number of injections and change in BCVA at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior vision outcomes were observed in clinical practice compared with RCTs and might be partly attributable to administration of fewer anti-VEGF injections. Physicians should be aware that early and appropriate anti-VEGF treatment regimens are necessary to obtain the results reported in RCTs and help prevent irreversible vision loss in DME patients.

Effect of Adding Dexamethasone to Continued Ranibizumab Treatment in Patients With Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema: A DRCR Network Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Some eyes have persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for DME. Subsequently adding intravitreous corticosteroids to the treatment regimen might result in better outcomes than continued anti-VEGF therapy alone.

Objective

To compare continued intravitreous ranibizumab alone with ranibizumab plus intravitreous dexamethasone implant in eyes with persistent DME.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Phase 2 multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 40 US sites in 129 eyes from 116 adults with diabetes between February 2014 and December 2016. Eyes had persistent DME, with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 after at least 3 anti-VEGF injections before a run-in phase, which included an additional 3 monthly 0.3-mg ranibizumab injections. Data analysis was according to intent to treat.

Interventions

Following the run-in phase, study eyes that had persistent DME and were otherwise eligible were randomly assigned to receive 700 μg of dexamethasone (combination group, 65 eyes) or sham treatment (ranibizumab group, 64 eyes) in addition to continued 0.3-mg ranibizumab in both treatment arms as often as every 4 weeks based on a structured re-treatment protocol.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was change in mean visual acuity letter score at 24 weeks as measured by the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS). The principal secondary outcome was change in mean central subfield thickness as measured with the use of optical coherence tomography.

Results

Of the 116 randomized patients, median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58-71 years); 50.9% were female and 60.3% were white. Mean (SD) improvement in visual acuity from randomization was 2.7 (9.8) letters in the combination group and 3.0 (7.1) letters in the ranibizumab group, with the adjusted treatment group difference (combination minus ranibizumab) of -0.5 letters (95% CI, -3.6 to 2.5; 2-sided P = .73). Mean (SD) change in central subfield thickness in the combination group was -110 (86) μm compared with -62 (97) μm for the ranibizumab group (adjusted difference, -52; 95% CI, -82 to -22; 2-sided P < .001). Nineteen eyes (29%) in the combination group experienced increased intraocular pressure or initiated treatment with antihypertensive eyedrops compared with 0 in the ranibizumab group (2-sided P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Although its use is more likely to reduce retinal thickness and increase intraocular pressure, the addition of intravitreous dexamethasone to continued ranibizumab therapy does not improve visual acuity at 24 weeks more than continued ranibizumab therapy alone among eyes with persistent DME following anti-VEGF therapy.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01945866.

Early versus late switch: How long should we extend the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in unresponsive diabetic macular edema patients?

PURPOSE

To compare the results of early versus late switch to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant Ozurdex^® in patients with diabetic macular edema who had a poor response to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.

METHODS

Retrospective and single-center study conducted, in a real setting, on consecutive diabetic macular edema patients who were switch to an intravitreal dexamethasone implant after a poor response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Study sample was divided into two groups: (1) early-switch group, included those eyes who received three anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections before switch and (2) late-switch group, included those eyes that received six or more anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections before switch. The primary end-point was the difference in mean change in best-corrected visual acuity and in central subfoveal thickness.

RESULTS

A total of 69 (31 early-switch group and 38 late-switch group) eyes were included. In the early-switch group, median (25-75 quartile range) best-corrected visual acuity significantly increase from 0.2 (0.2-0.5) at baseline to 0.4 (0.3 -0.7) at month 24 (p = 0.0043). Whereas, in the late-switch group, best-corrected visual acuity did not increase (p = 0.8602). Central subfoveal thickness was significantly reduced in both early- and late-switch groups, p = 0.0002 and 0.0038, respectively. The proportion of eyes obtaining a central subfoveal thickness reduction ⩾ 10% was significantly greater in the early-switch group than in the late-switch group (71.0% vs 47.4%, respectively, p = 0.0498). Three (9.7%) and 10 (26.3%) eyes have developed ocular hypertension during the study in the early- and late-switch groups, respectively, p = 0.0816.

CONCLUSION

Early switch to Ozurdex in patients who did not adequately respond to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy provided better functional and anatomical outcomes.

Corticosteroids and Anti-Complement Therapy in Retinal Diseases

Corticosteroids are unique in that they are the one class of agents that acts upon most of the multiple processes in the pathophysiology of macular edema. Corticosteroids are capable of inhibiting prostaglandin and leukotriene synthesis as well as interfering with intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), interleukin-6, VEGF-A, and stromal cell derived factor-1 pathways. Triamcinolone, dexamethasone, and fluocinolone have been extensively used in the treatment of retinal and choroidal vascular diseases. Sustained release implants of steroids have reduced the burden of repeated intravitreal injections necessary in most of the retinal diseases. Complement factors play an important role in the pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Inhibitors of complement could provide a breakthrough in the treatment of dry AMD. Complement factor inhibitors, such as POT-4, lampalizumab, and eculizumab, have been tested in clinical trials for dry AMD with promising results. However, results of phase 3 trials are awaited.

Switching to Aflibercept in Diabetic Macular Edema after Unsatisfactory Response to Other Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of switching to aflibercept in diabetic macular edema (DME) with suboptimal response to previous anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections.

METHODS

A prospective interventional case series study recruited patients from a single center diagnosed with DME with suboptimal response to anti-VEGF injections. Three consecutive monthly injections of aflibercept were performed. The primary outcome measure was mean change in visual acuity after switching to aflibercept.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (42 eyes) were included. Baseline logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity was 0.87 ± 0.23 and improved significantly to 0.62 ± 0.29, 0.56 ± 0.34, and 0.46 ± 0.35 at 1, 2, and 3 months, respectively, after the first injection. Mean baseline retinal thickness was 451.57 ± 107.09 μm and decreased significantly at 1, 2, and 3 months after switching to aflibercept (346.52 ± 79.03, 328.24 ± 81.98, and 313.71 ± 85.79 μm, respectively). Both visual improvement and mean change in retinal thickness were significant in patients with pre-aflibercept best-corrected visual acuity less than 1.0 logMAR but were not significant in patients with best-corrected visual acuity more than 1.0 logMAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to aflibercept in DME patients with an unsatisfactory response to previous anti-VEGF injections provided acceptable short-term visual and retinal architectural improvement.

Dexamethasone Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema Resistant to Anti-VEGF Therapy

Objectives:

To investigate the efficacy of single dose intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) resistant to anti-VEGF therapy.

Materials and Methods:

Twenty eyes of 14 patients (8 male, 6 female; mean age, 65±5.7 years) with DME resistant to intravitreal ranibizumab injections were studied. A single intravitreal dexamethasone implant was injected into each eye and patients were followed up for 6 months. Response to therapy was assessed monthly by measuring intraocular pressure (IOP), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central foveal thickness (CFT).

Results:

Baseline (before injection) IOP was 14.9±2.7 mmHg and did not change significantly in the six months following injection. Baseline BCVA was 1.04±0.35 LogMAR and improved to 0.86±0.31 at month 1 without statistical significance (p=0.056). CFT was significantly lower in all monthly measurements compared to its baseline value of 682.2±229.2 μm. During the follow-up period, endophthalmitis, significant cataract, or rhegmatogenous retinal detachment were not detected.

Conclusion:

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection is associated with significant CFT reduction for up to six months without causing any complications. Although BCVA did not improve in parallel with the CFT reduction, intravitreal dexamethasone implant should be considered as an effective and safe treatment option in the management of DME patients resistant to anti-VEGF injections.

Combination therapy and co-delivery strategies to optimize treatment of posterior segment neurodegenerative diseases

Neurodegenerative diseases affecting the posterior segment of the eye are one of the major causes of irreversible blindness worldwide. The pathogenesis of these retinal pathologies is characterized by a multifactorial etiology, involving the complex interaction of different apoptotic mechanisms, suggesting that effective treatments will require a multimodal approach. Thus, combination therapy based on the potential synergistic activities of drugs with different mechanisms of action is currently receiving considerable attention. Here, we summarize several kinds of strategy for the co-administration of different drugs to the posterior segment of the eye, highlighting those that involve co-delivery from multiloaded drug delivery systems.

Shall we stay, or shall we switch? Continued anti-VEGF therapy versus early switch to dexamethasone implant in refractory diabetic macular edema

AIMS

To compare functional and anatomical outcomes of continued anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy versus dexamethasone (DEX) implant in eyes with refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) after three initial anti-VEGF injections in a real-world setting.

METHODS

To be included in this retrospective multicenter, case-control study, eyes were required: (1) to present with early refractory DME, as defined by visual acuity (VA) gain ≤ 5 letters or reduction in central subfield thickness (CST) ≤ 20%, after a loading phase of anti-VEGF therapy (three monthly injections) and (2) to treat further with (a) anti-VEGF therapy or (b) DEX implant. Main outcome measures were change in visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) at 12 months. Due to imbalanced baseline characteristics, a matched anti-VEGF group was formed by only keeping eyes with similar baseline characteristics as those in the DEX group.

RESULTS

A total of 110 eyes from 105 patients were included (anti-VEGF group: 72 eyes, DEX group: 38 eyes). Mean change in VA at 12 months was - 0.4 ± 10.8 letters (anti-VEGF group), and + 6.1 ± 10.6 letters (DEX group) (P = 0.004). Over the same period, mean change in CST was + 18.3 ± 145.9 µm (anti-VEGF group) and - 92.8 ± 173.6 µm (DEX group) (P < 0.001). Eyes in the DEX group were more likely to gain ≥ 10 letters (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.19-11.61, P = 0.024) at month 12.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, eyes with DME considered refractory to anti-VEGF therapy after three monthly injections which were switched to DEX implant and had better visual and anatomical outcomes at 12 months than those that continued treatment with anti-VEGF therapy.

A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov website and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing DEX implant with anti-VEGF in patients with DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 for Mac was used to analyze the data and GRADE profiler were used to access the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Based on four randomized clinical trials assessing a total of 521 eyes, the DEX implant can achieve visual acuity improvement for DME at rates similar to those achieved via anti-VEGF treatment (mean difference [MD] = - 0.43, P = 0.35), with superior anatomic outcomes at 6 months (MD = - 86.71 μm, P = 0.02), while requiring fewer injections, in comparison to anti-VEGF treatment. Although the mean reduction in CST did not showed significant difference at 12 months (MD = - 33.77 μm, P = 0.21), the significant in BCVA from baseline to 12 months supported the anti-VEGF treatment (MD = - 3.26, P < 0.00001). No statistically significant differences in terms of the serious adverse events. However, use of the DEX implant has higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract than anti-VEGF treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with anti-VEGF, DEX implant improved anatomical outcomes significantly. However, this did not translate to improved visual acuity, which may be due to the progression of cataract. Therefore, the DEX implant may be recommended as a first chioce for select cases, such as for pseudophakic eyes, anti-VEGF-resistant eyes, or patients reluctant to receive intravitreal injections frequently.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract.

MAIN RESULTS

There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.

Treatment outcomes and predicting factors for diabetic macular edema treated with ranibizumab - One-year real-life results in Taiwan

PURPOSE

To report the one-year outcomes of diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with ranibizumab under a real-life setting in Taiwan, and to identify the prognostic factors.

METHODS

Between July 2013 and January 2015, 119 eyes receiving intravitreal ranibizumab for DME were retrospectively recruited. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) measured with optical coherence tomography were collected at baseline and at Month 3, 6, and 12. Linear regression was used to identify the predicting factors for changes in BCVA and CFT at Month 12.

RESULTS

The average number of ranibizumab given within one year was 4.36 ± 1.87. The BCVA (logMAR) improved from 0.74 ± 0.30 at baseline to 0.64 ± 0.37 at Month 12 (p = 0.002). A better improvement in BCVA at Month 3 was significantly correlated with a better visual improvement at Month 12 (p < 0.001). The existence of subretinal fluid at baseline (p = 0.02) and a greater reduction in CFT at Month 3 (p < 0.001) were both correlated with a greater reduction in CFT at Month 12. Previous subtenon injection of triamcinolone acetonide was associated with fewer additional IVR after Month 3 (odds ratio = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.14-0.89).

CONCLUSION

Compared with existing prospective studies, the one-year real-life data in Taiwan showed fewer ranibizumab injections for DME and a less prominent yet still significant visual improvement. Both visual and anatomical improvements at Month 3 were correlated with the level of improvements at Month 12. Previous subtenon steroid injection might reduce the need of additional ranibizumab injections.

Diabetic Macular Edema: Current Understanding, Pharmacologic Treatment Options, and Developing Therapies

Diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema comprise a major source of visual disability throughout the developed world. The etiology and pathogenesis of macular edema is intricate and multifactorial, in which the hyperglycemic state in diabetes induces a microangiopathy. Through several inflammatory and vasogenic mediators, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) upregulation and inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, pathologic changes are induced in the vascular endothelium triggering breakdown of the blood retinal barrier, causing extravasation of fluid into the extracellular space and manifesting clinically as macular edema, resulting in visual loss. The advent of medications targeting the VEGF pathway has led to great clinical improvements compared with the previous standard of care of laser therapy alone, as shown in studies such as RISE, RIDE, VIVID, VISTA, and DRCR. However, analyses have shown that many patients have inadequate response or are nonresponders to anti-VEGF therapy, demonstrating the need for additional therapies to more comprehensively treat this disease. Although corticosteroid treatments and implants have demonstrated some efficacy in adjunctive and supplemental treatment, the need to more adequately treat macular edema remains. Our knowledge of diabetic macular edema continues to grow, leading to new currently available and emerging pharmacotherapies to further enhance our treatment and restore vision in those affected by diabetic macular edema. This review will discuss the pathogenesis of diabetic macular edema and the pharmacologic therapies available for its treatment, including anti-VEGF, steroids, and newer therapies still in development, such as angiopoietin antagonists, Tie2 agonists, kallikrein inhibitors, interleukin inhibitors, and others.

Combined Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant And Micropulse Yellow Laser For Treatment Of Anti-VEGF Resistant Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose:

To report the efficacy and safety of combined intravitreal dexamethasone implant and micropulse laser for anti-VEGF resistant diabetic macular edema.

Patients and Methods:

Prospective, non-controlled study that was conducted for twenty eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema not responding to anti-VEGF therapy. Ozurdex intravitreal implant was injected to all eyes with subsequent micropulse yellow laser one month after the injection. All eyes were followed up after one, three, four, six, nine and twelve months. The primary outcome measure is the change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after one year and secondary outcome measures are central macular thickness (CMT) change and safety of both dexamethasone implant and micropulse laser. Reinjection was done for those eyes with recurrent edema.

Results:

The mean age was 58.8 ±7.94 years. The mean BCVA was 0.6± 0.14, 0.57 ±0.12, 0.51±0.15, 0.59±0.12, 0.6± 0.12 and 0.59±0.14 after one, three, four, six, nine and twelve months in comparison to 0.45± 0.14 as initial BCVA [SS,P<0.05]. The CMT was 302.5±30.01, 330.6±20.24, 357.6±32.15, 285.4±19.95, 292.9±25.07 and 285.2±14.99 after one ,three, four ,six , nine and twelve months µm in comparison to initial CMT of 420.7 ±38.74µm [HS, P<0.01]. Cataract occurred in 6 eyes from 14 phakic eyes (42.8%). Transient ocular hypertension occurred in 6 eyes (30%). Reinjection was done for eight eyes (40%).

Conclusion:

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant and micropulse laser are both effective and safe treatment options for anti-VEGF resistant diabetic macular edema.

Therapeutic Options in Refractory Diabetic Macular Oedema

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) results from alterations of several biochemical pathways in diabetic eyes. Centre-involving DMO is an important cause of visual loss in diabetes. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents are now the mainstay of centre-involving DMO treatment. Oedema that does not achieve optimal response to these agents occurs in a sizeable proportion of eyes and is called refractory or persistent DMO. Management of refractory DMO is challenging. In this paper, the pathophysiology of DMO, and the definitions used in various studies are summarised. Therapeutic options for refractory DMO management including corticosteroids, laser, combination therapies, and surgery are explored. Novel agents on the horizon for DMO control that are being investigated at present are discussed as well. A literature review was performed and a summary of the research studies for each of the agents is provided in order to guide the reader regarding the existing evidence for their application in DMO. Importance of early recognition of disease and prompt treatment to achieve best visual outcome is discussed. Utility of optical coherence tomography to guide disease diagnosis and monitoring is highlighted. An algorithmic approach for DMO management is described. Finally, the impact that personalized medicine and genetics might have on DMO management is assessed.

New Drugs and New Posterior Delivery Methods in CME

PURPOSE

To discuss the characteristics, indications and adverse events (AEs) of sustained-release corticosteroid devices for the treatment of cystoid macular edema (CME).

RECENT FINDINGS

Ozurdex® is approved for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion related-CME and noninfectious posterior uveitis (NIPU). It releases dexamethasone over a maximum period of 6 months making repeated intravitreal injections necessary for recurrent CME. Iluvien® releases fluocinolone for up to 36 months and is effective for the treatment of chronic DME. Retisert® (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) also releases fluocinolone, and is approved for chronic NIPU. Both Iluvien® and Retisert® are non-biodegradable devices and are highly associated with cataract and glaucoma.

SUMMARY

Long-acting intraocular corticosteroid formulations offer a more predictable drug-release profile and reduced dosing frequency in comparison to conventional formulations of the same compounds but the risk-benefit ratio must be taken into consideration previous to the implantation of those devices.

PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED SUBJECT-MASKED STUDY OF INTRAVITREAL BEVACIZUMAB MONOTHERAPY VERSUS DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT MONOTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF PERSISTENT DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA

PURPOSE

To compare intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy with intravitreal dexamethasone delayed delivery system monotherapy for persistent diabetic macular edema.

METHODS

Single-center, randomized, subject-masked study of eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema, defined as central subfield thickness (CST) >340 μm despite ≥3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factors injections within 5 months. The intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy (n = 23 eyes) and delayed delivery system monotherapy (n = 27 eyes) groups received treatments q1month and q3months, respectively.

RESULTS

Baseline best-corrected visual acuity and CST were similar in the two groups. At Month 7, the mean final best-corrected visual acuity (mean ± SD) was 65 ± 16 letters (mean Snellen visual acuity 20/50) and 64 ± 11 letters (20/50) (P = 0.619), the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity was +5.6 ± 6.1 and +5.8 ± 7.6 letters (P = 0.785), the mean final CST was 471 ± 157 and 336 ± 89 μm (P = 0.001), and the mean change in CST was -13 ± 105 and -122 ± 120 μm (P = 0.005) in the intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy and delayed delivery system monotherapy groups, respectively. The number of injections was 7.0 ± 0.2 and 2.7 ± 0.5 (P < 0.001) in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The two groups had similar best-corrected visual acuity gains. The delayed delivery system monotherapy group achieved a significantly greater reduction of CST compared with the intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy group, with a q3month interval of treatment, and had no recurrent edema at any visit.

Treatment of diabetic retinopathy: Recent advances and unresolved challenges

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of blindness in industrialized countries. Remarkable advances in the diagnosis and treatment of DR have been made during the past 30 years, but several important management questions and treatment deficiencies remain unanswered. The global diabetes epidemic threatens to overwhelm resources and increase the incidence of blindness, necessitating the development of innovative programs to diagnose and treat patients. The introduction and rapid adoption of intravitreal pharmacologic agents, particularly drugs that block the actions of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and corticosteroids, have changed the goal of DR treatment from stabilization of vision to improvement. Anti-VEGF injections improve visual acuity in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) from 8-12 letters and improvements with corticosteroids are only slightly less. Unfortunately, a third of patients have an incomplete response to anti-VEGF therapy, but the best second-line therapy remains unknown. Current first-line therapy requires monthly visits and injections; longer acting therapies are needed to free up healthcare resources and improve patient compliance. VEGF suppression may be as effective as panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but more studies are needed before PRP is abandoned. For over 30 years laser was the mainstay for the treatment of DME, but recent studies question its role in the pharmacologic era. Aggressive treatment improves vision in most patients, but many still do not achieve reading and driving vision. New drugs are needed to add to gains achieved with available therapies.

Diabetic macular oedema: pathophysiology, management challenges and treatment resistance

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is the leading cause of vision loss in patients living with diabetes. DMO results from hyperglycaemia-induced activation of pathways that lead to oxidative stress and release of cytokines, impairing the inner and outer blood-retinal barriers. Improved understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms leading to DMO have led to the development of effective therapies, including vitreoretinal surgery, laser photocoagulation, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs and corticosteroids. Advances in imaging, including fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography, have also enhanced diagnosis and management of the condition. Despite these advances, there remain patients who do not respond completely to therapy, reflecting the complex pathophysiology of DMO. These patients may be considered treatment-resistant. In this review, we summarise the pathophysiology of DMO, as well as the available treatments and their mechanism of action. Additionally, we focus on treatment-resistant disease and review the literature on potential options for managing this complication of diabetes.

Diabetic macular edema: it is more than just VEGF

Diabetic macular edema is a serious visual complication of diabetic retinopathy. This article reviews the history of previous and current therapies, including laser therapy, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, and corticosteroids, that have been used to treat this condition. In addition, it proposes new ways to use them in combination in order to decrease treatment burden and potentially address other causes besides vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular edema.

Treatment strategies for refractory diabetic macular edema: switching anti-VEGF treatments, adopting corticosteroid-based treatments, and combination therapy

INTRODUCTION

The pathophysiology of diabetic macular edema (DME) is complex, involving vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other inflammatory mediators. DME is currently treated first-line with intravitreal anti-VEGF treatments, though some cases are refractory to multiple anti-VEGF treatments.

AREAS COVERED

This article examines the evolution of treatment practices for DME, with discussion of the recent studies that guide treatment for refractory cases of DME. A literature search was performed using the following terms: anti-VEGF, DME, aflibercept, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, refractory macular edema, and VEGF.

EXPERT OPINION

Focal extrafoveal DME may be treated first-line with laser. In patients with center-involving DME and only mild vision loss, consider starting treatment with bevacizumab, especially when cost is an issue, whereas aflibercept may be considered more strongly in patients with moderate visual loss or worse. There are no standard protocols that define 'treatment failure,' but several studies have reported that switching from bevacizumab to either ranibizumab or aflibercept will result in further reduction of CSFT and improvement in BCVA. Further study with prospective randomized trials is warranted to validate these findings. Switching to intravitreal corticosteroids may be of particular benefit to pseudophakic patients. Anti-VEGF combination with sustained-release corticosteroids also appears promising for refractory DME.

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.

Sustained-release steroids for the treatment of diabetic macular edema

Glucocorticoids have been used for decades in the treatment of ocular disorders via topical, periocular, and more recently intravitreal routes. However, their exact mechanisms of action on ocular tissues remain imperfectly understood. Fortunately, two recently approved intravitreal sustained-release drug delivery systems have opened new perspectives for these very potent drugs. To date, among other retinal conditions, their label includes diabetic macular edema, for which a long-lasting therapeutic effect has been demonstrated both morphologically and functionally in several randomized clinical trials. The rate of ocular complications of intravitreal sustained-release steroids, mainly cataract formation and intraocular pressure elevation, is higher than with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Yet, a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying these adverse effects and the search for the minimal efficient dose should help optimize their therapeutic window.