Intraocular pressure in patients with diabetic macular edema treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant in the 3-year mead study. Retina. 2016;36:1143-1152. [PMID: 26871523 DOI: 10.1097/iae.0000000000001004]

Management of ocular hypertension following intravitreal dexamethasone implant (ozurdex)

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of intravitreal dexamethasone implantation (Ozurdex) on ocular hypertension (OHT) development and characterize its management with non-invasive or minimally-invasive modalities.

Results

Chart review was performed for patients who received Ozurdex implantation between September 2016 to September 2023. Patients were excluded if they had ever been diagnosed with neovascular glaucoma or received a different intravitreal corticosteroid prior to Ozurdex injection or 6 months afterwards. The analysis included 171 Ozurdex implants (n = 61 patients, n = 74 eyes) for analysis. Patients were followed for an average of 326 ± 45 days. The rise in IOP was greatest 2- and 3-months post-injection. OHT occurred following 40 (23.3 %) Ozurdex implants. To lower IOP, medical drops were initiated after 17 (10.0 %) implants. Selective laser trabeculoplasty was performed in 2 (1.2 %) cases. Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) were utilized in 7 (4.1 %) cases. Patients >60 years old were at increased odds of developing OHT, whereas patients treated for retinal vein occlusion were less likely to develop OHT compared to patients treated for diabetic macular edema.

Conclusion

Patient-specific characteristics, including age and treatment indication, may confer different risk for developing OHT following Ozurdex implantation. Ozurdex-induced OHT can be safely and effectively managed using a combination of medical therapy, laser trabeculoplasty, and angle-based MIGS. This study supports an increasing range of alternative approaches for addressing elevated IOP or postponing surgeries linked with higher risks.

Use of a multifocal electroretinogram to evaluate the therapeutic effect of a single intravitreal dexamethasone implant, Ozurdex®, for refractory diabetic macular oedema

AIM

To evaluate the therapeutic effect of a single intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex®) in eyes with refractory diabetic macular oedema (DME) anatomically via optical coherence tomography (OCT) and functionally via best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG).

METHODS

This prospective interventional study included twenty eyes with refractory DME that were treated using six intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The central retinal thickness (CRT) was measured via OCT exceeding 300 μm. The eyes were treated with a single dexamethasone (DEX) implant four weeks after the last injection of anti-VEGF. The outcomes included changes in CRT, BCVA and p1 amplitude of ring 1 on mfERG and intraocular pressure (IOP) recorded before injection and two, four and six months after DEX injection.

RESULTS

The study included fifteen males (75%) and five females (25%). The mean age was 62.83 ± 6.34 years, with the mean duration of diabetes was 16.7 ± 2.21 years. During the two-month follow-up, there were statistically significant reductions in CRT and logMAR BCVA as well as an increase in p1 of ring 1 on mfERG (P = 0.046, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). At four months, these changes were not statistically significant (P = 0.99, P < 0.56&P < 0.58), whereas at six months, all the parameters nearly reached pre-DEX injection values (p = 0.93 P = 0.99 P = 0.81). The IOP values were not significantly increased at two, four or six months (p < 0.06, P = 0.35 and P = 1.0, respectively). There were significant negative correlations between the mfERG and OCT parameters before and six months after DEX injection (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

A single intravitreal injection of DEX in refractory DME patients induced significant anatomical and functional improvements, but these improvements only lasted for short periods of up to four months. This treatment exhibited an excellent safety profile. However, at six months, the therapeutic effect was null. The utility of mfERG as a sensitive biomarker of treatment efficacy was highlighted herein.

Assessment the real-world safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex): novel insights from a comprehensive pharmacovigilance analysis utilizing the FAERS database

OBJECTIVE

The intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Dex) is widely used for various ocular conditions, including diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and non-infectious uveitis. Despite its efficacy, concerns remain regarding its safety profile. This study aims to analyze the adverse events (AEs) associated with Dex reported in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from 2010 to 2024.

METHODS

Data were extracted from FAERS, focusing on cases where Dex was the primary suspect drug. The dataset was processed to eliminate duplicates and incomplete entries. Disproportionality analysis, including Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) and Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), was used to detect safety signals. AEs were categorized by system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT).

RESULTS

A total of 1,588 adverse event reports (AERs) were analyzed, revealing a significant upward trend. The Eye disorders was the most commonly reported SOC, with strong disproportionality signals (ROR: 45.11; PRR: 23.71). Key AEs identified at the PT level included Corneal decompensation, Choroidal hematoma, and Posterior capsule rupture, which were not listed on the drug label. Considering the reported numbers, the Endophthalmitis was the most common AE. Additionally, a significant proportion of AEs were observed within the first seven days post-administration, emphasizing the need for monitoring.

CONCLUSION

While Dex remains an effective treatment option for ocular conditions, its use is associated with significant risks, particularly regarding unexpected and severe complications such as corneal decompensation. Continuous pharmacovigilance and detailed patient monitoring are essential to mitigate these risks. Future studies should focus on prospective designs and comprehensive clinical data to better understand the safety profile of Dex.

Efficacy of Ozurdex implants as second-line therapy for non-responders to anti-VEGF in retinal vein occlusion-associated macular edema: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a prevalent retinal vascular disorder characterized by retinal haemorrhage, neovascularization, and macular edema This study aimed to assess the structural and functional effects of intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) treatment as a second-line for RVO-associated macular edema in patients who did not respond to first-line anti-VEGF therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using electronic health records of RVO patients at Salisbury District Hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria included patients diagnosed with central or branch RVO. Patients underwent ophthalmic evaluations at baseline, including central retinal thickness (CRT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) assessments. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, employing various tests to determine significance.

RESULTS

Sixteen eyes of 16 White British patients were evaluated. Most patients had branch RVO (52.95%), and 47.05% had central RVO. While anti-VEGF treatment significantly improved BCVA (p = 0.0061), Ozurdex did not result in additional gain (p = 0.747). Both treatments significantly reduced CRT (p = 0.0055 for anti-VEGF; p = 0.0079 for Ozurdex). No significant differences were observed between diabetic and non-diabetic BCVA patients receiving either treatment.

CONCLUSION

Ozurdex emerges as a safe and effective option for persistent macular edema in RVO patients unresponsive to anti-VEGF therapy. Although structural improvements in CRT were observed following Ozurdex treatment, they did not correlate with additional gain in BCVA. Despite this, the reduced treatment frequency of Ozurdex compared to anti-VEGF injections may be advantageous, particularly for frail non-responding patients minimizing treatment burden.

Short-Term Safety and Efficacy of PreserFlo™ Microshunt in Patients with Refractory Intraocular Pressure Elevation After Dexamethasone Implant Intravitreal Injection

Background: The PreserFlo™ MicroShunt (PFMS) is a bleb-forming device considered to be less invasive than traditional glaucoma surgery such as trabeculectomy. This study evaluates the 1-year success rates as well as safety profile of PFMS in patients having high intraocular pressure (IOP) and/or glaucoma refractory to drop therapy with a history of prior intravitreal dexamethasone therapy. Methods: A total of 16 eyes after PFMS implantation due to elevated IOP after intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) administration were included in this retrospective cohort study. Success rates and secondary outcomes were evaluated. Results: Qualified and complete success rates at 12 months, respectively, were 14/16 and 12/16 eyes for criterion A, 13/16 and 11/16 eyes for B, 13/16 and 11/16 eyes for C, and 6/16 and 6/16 eyes for D. The overall mean (range) preoperative IOP decreased from 27 (16-38) mmHg to 13 (10-17) mmHg at 12 months. BCVA was not significantly different up to 12 months (p = 0.63). The preoperative mean (range) number of medications decreased from 3.56 (2-4) to 0.31 (0-3) at 12 months. One eye underwent needling twice, and two eyes were revised surgically. One patient needed replacement of the PFMS. There were no hypotony-related complications. Conclusions: The PFMS is an effective surgical option for patients with steroid-induced IOP elevation. It demonstrates satisfactory short-term success rates, a reduced need for pressure-lowering eye drops, an excellent safety profile with minimal postoperative care, and a low complication rate. Additional interventions such as needling or revisions were infrequently necessary. However, PFMS may not be the ideal choice for cases requiring a low target pressure (≤12 mmHg).

Risk for Ocular Hypertension With Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants in Black and White Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose: To compare the effects of intravitreal (IVT) 0.7 mg dexamethasone implants on the intraocular pressure (IOP) in Black patients and White patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed of Black patients and White patients with DME who received dexamethasone implants with 12 or more months of follow-up. Results: The study included 145 eyes (69 Black; 76 White) with a mean (±SD) of 3.6 ± 3.9 dexamethasone implants and 58 ± 31 months of follow-up. Black patients had higher baseline rates of glaucoma (23% vs 8%; P = .010) but similar rates of ocular hypertension after receiving IVT dexamethasone (20% vs 16%; P = .52). By the last follow-up visit, the mean central subfield thickness had decreased from 387 ± 129 µm to 314 ± 104 µm (P < .001). Conclusions: IVT dexamethasone implants decreased macular thicknesses in patients with DME; however, there was no difference in the rate of ocular hypertension after IVT dexamethasone between Black patients and White patients.

Changes in intraocular pressure following intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with history of glaucoma filtration surgery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate changes in intraocular pressure following intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection, specifically in patients undergoing glaucoma filtration surgery.

METHODS

The degree of increase in intraocular pressure was compared retrospectively among three groups. Group 1 comprised patients who underwent prior glaucoma filtration surgery (54 eyes). Group 2 included patients with or suspected glaucoma without such surgical history (20 eyes). Group 3 included patients without glaucoma (33 eyes). Pressure measurements were taken before the injection and at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months post-injection. A subgroup analysis was performed for pressure > 35 mmHg, > 30 mmHg, > 25 mmHg, and a difference > 10 mmHg between the peak and baseline pressure.

RESULTS

Group 1 consistently displayed lower pressures compared with Group 2, with significant difference at both 1- and 6-month post-injections (15.09 mmHg vs. 18.10 mmHg, P = 0.042 and 13.91 mg vs. 17.25 mmHg, P = 0.040). The proportion of patients in Group 1 and Group 3 with pressures > 25 mmHg, > 30 mmHg, and a difference > 10 mmHg did not significantly differ (15.6% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.231; 3.1% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.867; and 17.1% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.231). Notably, Group 2 exhibited a significantly higher proportion within each category (> 25 mmHg, 24.0%; > 30 mmHg, 20.0%; > 10 mmHg difference, 28.0%).

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with a history of glaucoma filtration surgery compared with patients with suspected glaucoma; the risk was similar to those without glaucoma.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Switch after Anti-VEGF Treatment in Patients Affected by Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Review of the Literature

Nowadays, retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second most prevalent cause of vision loss associated with retinal vascular disease. Intravitreal injections are currently known as a major advancement in ophthalmology, particularly in the treatment of RVO and other retinal disorders. Particularly, the first line of therapy is usually anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs. Notably, for RVO eyes that have not responded to anti-VEGF therapy, an intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant 0.7 mg (Ozurdex®, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) is considered a suitable therapeutical substitute. Actually, investigations carried out in the real world and clinical trials have shown the safety and the efficacy of intravitreal DEX implants for treating this retinal disease. For this reason, choosing patients carefully may thus be essential to reduce the number of injections that clinics and hospitals have to do to manage RVO and its complications. The primary aim of this review is to summarize the pathophysiology of this retinal vascular disease, as well as the clinical and ocular imaging features that may support a switch from prior anti-VEGF treatment to intravitreal DEX implant, to provide the RVO patients with the best possible treatment to ensure maximum visual recovery.

Switching to an Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant after Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review

Among working-age people, diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema are currently considered the main causes of blindness. Nowadays, intravitreal injections are widely acknowledged as a significant milestone in ophthalmology, especially for the treatment of several retinal diseases, including diabetic macular edema. In particular, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are typically the first line of treatment; however, monthly injections are required, at least, during the loading dosage. Notably, an intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (DEX) implant (Ozurdex®, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) is considered a legitimate substitute treatment for diabetic eyes that have not responded to anti-VEGF treatment. In fact, clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of an intravitreal DEX implant in treating such conditions over a period of three to six months. For this reason, wisely selecting diabetic patients might be crucial to decreasing the load of injections in clinics and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to analyze the available scientific literature to highlight the benefits, efficacy, and clinical criteria for choosing whether to switch from intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy to an intravitreal DEX implant in diabetic macular edema.

Baseline intraocular pressure: an independent risk factor in severe steroid-induced ocular hypertension after intravitreal dexamethasone implant

PURPOSE

To evaluate the baseline intraocular pressure (IOP)-related risk of severe steroid-induced ocular hypertension (SIOH). We hypothesized that the incidence and severity of SIOH may differ according to baseline IOP in patients who received intravitreal dexamethasone implants.

METHODS

A total of 889 eyes treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implants and a baseline IOP of ≤ 23 mmHg were enrolled. Enrolled patients were divided into two groups: the steroid-responders (127 eyes) and the non-steroid-responders (762 eyes). The steroid-responders group was subdivided into post-injection IOP of ≥ 25, > 30, or > 35 mmHg or IOP elevation of ≥ 10 mmHg over the baseline value. The odds ratio of SIOH was calculated using univariable logistic regression analysis, and significant variables were analyzed with a multivariable model. IOP was measured before (baseline IOP) and after dexamethasone implant injection at 1 week and 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Although baseline IOP was significantly associated with the development of SIOH in logistic regression analysis, the results from the subgroup analysis differed. In the group with IOP elevation of ≥ 10 mmHg over the baseline, SIOH was not significantly associated with baseline IOP, but it was significantly related to higher baseline IOP in the severe SIOH group (IOP > 30 and > 35 mmHg).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher baseline IOP is a risk factor for severe SIOH. Clinicians should be aware of the risk of SIOH when administering steroids intravitreally to patients with high baseline IOP (IOP > 19 mmHg).

Outcomes of Eyes Lost to Follow-up After Treatment With Intraocular or Periocular Steroid Injections

Purpose: To evaluate the visual, intraocular pressure (IOP), and anatomic outcomes of eyes with loss to follow-up (LTFU) after intravitreal or periocular steroid injections. Methods: Patients receiving intraocular or periocular steroid injections and with LTFU for at least 180 days were included in this retrospective cohort study. Charts were reviewed for the visual acuity (VA), IOP, and central foveal thickness at the visit before LTFU, the first return visit, and 3, 6, and 12 months after return. Results: Fifty-three eyes of 47 patients were identified. The mean (±SD) age was 62.3 ± 14.9 years, the mean LTFU time was 295 ± 181.2 days (range, 182-1101), and the mean follow-up after return was 354 ± 339.3 days (range, 32-1141). The overall mean number of steroid injections was 5.2 ± 3.9 (range, 1-18). Compared with the mean logMAR VA at the visit before LTFU (0.59 [Snellen 20/77]), the mean VA remained stable at all timepoints after return as follows: return visit (0.62 [20/83]; P = .6), month 3 (0.55 [20/70]; P = .6), month 6 (0.55 [20/70]; P = .5), month 12 (0.64 [20/87]; P = .6), and final visit (0.69 [20/97]; P = .2). At the first return visit, 8 (15%) of 53 patients had an IOP of 21 mm Hg or higher (range, 21-31); 2 required treatment with a new antihypertensive medication (latanoprost and timolol, respectively). Conclusions: Patients with LTFU after receiving steroid injections maintained their VA. No patient required incisional glaucoma surgery. Compared with other etiologies, eyes with diabetic macular edema had a greater increase in IOP.

Long-Term Risk of Steroid-Induced Ocular Hypertension/Glaucoma With Topical Prednisolone Acetate 1% After Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term risk of steroid-induced ocular hypertension and the need for glaucoma treatment with long-term use of topical prednisolone acetate 1% in patients without preexisting glaucoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 211 patients without previous glaucoma, who underwent Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) and used topical prednisolone acetate long-term to prevent graft rejection. Dosing was 4 times daily for 4 months and tapered to once daily. The main outcomes were ocular hypertension (defined as intraocular pressure ≥24 mm Hg, or increase of ≥10 mm Hg over baseline) and initiation of glaucoma treatment.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 70 years (range: 34-94 years). The indications for DSEK were Fuchs dystrophy (88%), pseudophakic corneal edema (7%), failed DSEK (3%), and failed penetrating keratoplasty (2%). The median follow-up period was 7 years (range, 1-17 years). At 1, 5, and 10 years, the cumulative risks of steroid-induced ocular hypertension were 29%, 41%, and 49%, respectively, and the risks of requiring glaucoma treatment were 11%, 17%, and 25%, respectively. Among 35 eyes treated for glaucoma, 28 (80%) were managed medically and 7 (20%) had filtration surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term use of potent topical corticosteroids, such as prednisolone acetate 1%, entails substantial risk of developing steroid-induced ocular hypertension, so frequent monitoring of intraocular pressure is required. With corneal transplantation, the risk can be mitigated by using techniques with a low inherent risk of rejection, such as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, whenever possible, to allow earlier reduction of steroid potency.

Central Serous Chorioretinopathy. A Review

Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) is a disease characterized by serous detachment of the neuroretina, especially in the posterior pole of the eye. It is often accompanied by serous detachment of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and associated with the leakage of fluid into the subretinal space through the defective RPE. CSC most often affects men of working age. The exact pathophysiology of the disease is not completely known. Based on indocyanine green angiography (ICG), which revealed increased permeability of choroidal vessels, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) showing increased choroidal thickness, choroidal vasculopathy is assumed to be the primary cause of CSC. In most cases, CSC has a good prognosis with spontaneous resorption of the subretinal fluid (SRF) and improvement of visual functions. However, in a small percentage of patients the disease progresses to a chronic or recurrent course, and can lead to irreversible functional and anatomical changes of the retina with a final clinical picture of diffuse retinal pigment epitheliopathy (DRPE). The optimal treatment approach for patients with CSC remains controversial. In recent decades, myriad therapeutic approaches have been used in the treatment of chronic forms of CSC (cCSC); these included for example laser photocoagulation, pharmaceutical treatment, standard photodynamic therapy (PDT) or anti-VEGF. In recent years a less destructive method, specifically PDT in reduced dose regimens, either with a reduced dose of verteporfin or the laser beam energy used, has been preferred in the treatment of cCSC. Comparable efficacy and safety has been demonstrated using reduced-dose or reduced-fluence PDT regimens in patients with cCSC, with an improvement in best-corrected visual acuity and reduction of SRF.

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.

Incidence and treatment approach of intraocular pressure elevation after various types of local steroids for retinal diseases

PURPOSE

For the treatment of macular edema, in addition to the use of antivascular endothelial growth factors, steroids are also used intravitreally and sub-Tenon. Side effects include among others cataract formation and elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP). The aim of this retrospective study was to elicit the IOP elevation after administration of various steroidal medication, the time of onset, and the efficacy of the administered IOP-lowering therapies.

METHODS

We included 428 eyes with a postoperative (n = 136), diabetic (n = 148), uveitic macular edema (n = 61), and macular edema after retinal vein occlusion (n = 83). These patients were treated with one or more diverse steroidal agents once or multiple times. These drugs included: triamcinolone acetonide (TMC) as intravitreal injection (TMC IVI) or sub-Tenon (TMC ST), as well as dexamethasone (DXM) and fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreally. An increase of IOP of ≥ 25 mmHg was designated as pathological. A steroid response in anamnesis, the time of onset of IOP rise from the first administration, and the therapy administered were documented.

RESULTS

Of 428 eyes, 168 eyes (39.3%) had IOP elevation up to a mean of 29.7 (SD ± 5.6) mmHg, which occurred at a median of 5.5 months. Steroids most frequently leading to rise of IOP included DXM (39.1% of all eyes receiving that drug), TMC IVI (47.6%), TMC ST combined with DXM (51.5%), DXM with FA (56.8%), and TMC IVI with DXM (57.4%). A Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Log Rank test showed a significant difference (p < 0.001). IOP rise was treated as follows: 119 conservatively (70.8%), and 21 surgically (12.5%, cyclophotocoagulation 8.3%, filtering surgery 1.8%, in 4 the steroidal drug implant was removed 2.4%), and 28 eyes received no therapy (16.7%). Sufficient IOP regulation was achieved in 82 eyes (68.9%) with topical therapy. In 37 eyes (31.1%) with persistently elevated intraocular pressure, topical therapy had to be continued over the follow-up of 20 ± 7 months.

CONCLUSIONS

IOP increases after any type of steroid application are not rare. Results of our study let us suspect that especially therapy with intravitreal dexamethasone, either as a monotherapy or in combination with another steroid, tends to increase IOP more than other steroids. Regular IOP checks are necessary after each steroid administration, with possible initiation of long-term conservative and/or surgical therapy if necessary.

[Late steroid-induced ocular hypertension after intravitreal dexamethasone implants: A series of 20 cases]

INTRODUCTION

Steroid-induced ocular hypertension (OHT) occurs in approximately one third of cases after dexamethasone implant (DEXi) injection. Among these, more than one fifth occur after the third DEXi intravitreal injection (IVI). Our goal was to analyze the clinical profiles of these late responders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A real-life, retrospective, observational study was conducted to assess demographic characteristics and intraocular pressure (IOP) responses in late responders (IOP ≥ 21mmHg, n DEXi ≥ 4). The following parameters were analyzed: IOP 2 months after IVI and number of glaucoma medications needed. The IOP response compared to baseline was defined as low (< +6mmHg), moderate (≤ +15mmHg) or high (> 15mmHg).

RESULTS

Late steroid-induced OHT occurred in 20.8% of cases. Twenty eyes (18 patients) were included. The mean duration of follow-up was 3.8±1.9 years. They received a mean number of 9.5±4.2 IVI. The first OHT peak, measured at 25.3±3.2mmHg (21-31), occurred after 6.8±2.3 IVI. Approximately 65% of OHT spikes occurred between the fourth and sixth IVI; 35% occurred later. At maximum, 1.7±1.0 glaucoma medications and 0.75±0.79 SLT procedures were required to control the OHT, with no filtering surgery required. The ratio of "low," "moderate," and "high" responders was 5%, 85% and 10% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Late steroid-induced OHT occurs after at least 3 DEXi in one fifth of multi-injected patients, requiring long-term IOP monitoring. This case series identifies mostly moderate responder profiles, whose IOP rise often remains well-controlled with medical management or laser treatment (SLT).

Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema or Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusion Based on Repeated Injection of the Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis

Purpose

To assess the "real world" utility of repeated injection with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in routine practice.

Methods

This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive patients with diabetic macular edema, or macular edema following retinal vein occlusion, treated with DEX. None had received prior intravitreal steroid treatment. DEX was implanted as per the manufacturer's instructions.

Results

Seventy-eight individuals (95 eyes) were included (50.0% female; mean age: 68.1 ± 12.4 years; mean duration of macular edema: 13.2 ± 12.9 months). Thirty-three eyes (34.7%) had received previous treatment with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and/or laser. Thirty eyes (31.6%) underwent one round of DEX implantation; the remainder received 2-5 cycles (total: 225 cycles). Initial DEX treatment led to significant increases in visual acuity (VA) at 6 weeks (mean change: 4.6 letters; P=0.004). Greater VA improvements during the first treatment cycle were associated with inferior baseline VA (P=0.02), borderline associated with baseline central macular thickness (CMT; P=0.06), and independent of prior anti-VEGF treatment (P=0.39). In an analysis of all DEX injections, VA improvements were robust across cycles 1 and 2 but reduced in cycle 3 (P=0.03). CMT improvements did not differ based on injection number (P=0.20). Increases in intraocular pressure (IOP) were largest over the first 6 weeks (but rebounded towards baseline more rapidly) in cycle 1 versus cycles 2 and 3 (P<0.001). IOP rises were typically manageable with topical medications.

Conclusion

This analysis confirms the broad utility of DEX and may inform decision-making in routine practice.

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.

Ocular hypertension and intravitreal steroids injections, update in 2023. French guidelines of the French glaucoma society and the French ophthalmology society

These guidelines are a consensus of French glaucoma and retina experts on the management of ocular hypertension (OHT) observed in a third of the cases after corticosteroid implant intravitreal injections. They update the first guidelines published in 2017. Two implants are marketed in France: the dexamethasone implant (DEXi) and the fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci). It is essential to assess the pressure status before injecting a patient with a corticosteroid implant. A molecule-specific monitoring of the intraocular pressure is needed throughout the follow-up and at the time of reinjections. Real-life studies have allowed optimizing the management algorithm by significantly increasing the safety of these implants. Corticosteroid testing with DEXi should be performed before switching to FAci to optimize pressure tolerance of FAci. Beyond topical hypotensive treatments, selective laser trabeculoplasty may be considered in the therapeutic arsenal for the management of steroid-induced OHT and subsequent injections.

[Intraocular pressure elevation and intravitreal steroid implant injection: State of the art in 2023. Recommendations of the French Glaucoma Society and French Ophthalmology Society [French version]]

These are the recommendations of French glaucoma and retina experts on the management of ocular hypertension (OHT) observed in 1/3 of cases after intravitreal steroid implant injections. They are an update to the recommendations first published in 2017. There are two implants on the French market: the dexamethasone (DEXi) and fluocinolone acetonide (FAci) implants. It is important to know the pressure status before injecting a patient with a steroid implant. Monitoring of the IOP adapted to the specific drug is necessary throughout follow-up and reinjections. Real-life studies have made it possible to optimize the management algorithm by significantly increasing the safety of use of these implants. A corticosteroid test with DEXi is necessary before switching to FAci to optimize the pressure tolerance of the latter. In addition to topical glaucoma medications, SLT laser can be considered in the therapeutic arsenal for the management of steroid-induced OHT and future injections.

Visual and Anatomical Outcomes of a Single Intravitreal Dexamethasone in Diabetic Macular Edema: An 8 Year Real-World Study

IMPORTANCE

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a major cause of vision loss in patients with diabetes mellitus. Intravitreal dexamethasone is a treatment option for patients unsuitable for or non-responsive to anti-angiogenic agents.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify visual and anatomical outcomes from an initial intravitreal dexamethasone injection over the expected 6-month period of dexamethasone release by the implant. Design and enrolment: This is a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records of patients reviewed between 1 January 2012 and 1 April 2022.

SETTING

A tertiary eye-care center in London, United Kingdom; Moorfields Eye Hospital National Healthcare System Foundation Trust.

PARTICIPANTS

The cohort comprised 418 adult patients with DME who received an initial treatment of 700 µg intravitreal dexamethasone in the study period. Of these, 240 patients met the inclusion criteria of ≥2 hospital visits following initial injection (≥1 beyond 6 months) and no previous ocular corticosteroid treatment or missing assessment at baseline.

EXPOSURE(S)

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant (700 µg).

MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S)

Probability of a positive visual outcome, defined as ≥5 or ≥10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS)-letter gain after treatment when compared to baseline (Kaplan-Meier models).

RESULTS

From the initial intravitreal dexamethasone injection alone, we observed a >75% chance of gaining ≥5 ETDRS letters and >50% chance of gaining ≥10 ETDRS letters within 6 months. There was less than a 50% chance of sustaining either positive visual outcome beyond 4 months.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most patients can be expected to have a positive visual outcome following an initial injection of dexamethasone implants that subsides within 4 months. Real-world re-treatment was observed to be delayed until after visual benefits were lost in half of the cohort. Further research will be needed to study the effects of delays in re-treatment.

The Impact of Intraocular Treatment on Visual Acuity of Patients Diagnosed with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusions

Branch retinal vein occlusions are a significant cause of vision loss and present several ophthalmic and systemic risk factors, including age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and glaucoma. Retinal vein occlusion is the second-most-common retinal vascular disease. This study evaluated the effects of Ozurdex in contrast to a combination therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and cortisone in treatment-naive branch retinal vein occlusions-macular edema (BRVO-ME) cases, at 4-month and 6-month follow-ups. Thirty eyes were included in the study, which were divided into two groups. The first group consisted of 15 eyes, and each received 1 injection of dexamethasone intravitreal implant Ozurdex (DEX). The second group of 15 eyes received 3 intravitreal injections, the first and second with the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor aflibercept and the third one with 4 mg of triamcinolone acetonide (Vitreal S), spaced at one month. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) results suggested that the peak efficacy was at 4 months for both groups, with mean values of 0.5 LogMAR and 0.4 LogMAR. Regarding macular edema, there were no significant changes between the 4- and 6-month follow-up periods, with mean values of 361 μm and 390 μm. Six patients experienced transient raised intraocular pressure at one week after treatment. This study highlights the benefits to visual acuity of the combination of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and cortisone, which represents a viable solution with similar results to Ozurdex therapy.

Mid-term safety and effectiveness of macular peeling one month after intravitreal dexamethasone implant for tractional diabetic macular edema

Macular peeling combined or followed by intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX-i) was recommended as an efficacy approach for tractional diabetic macular edema (tDME). Knowing the synergistic effect of cataract surgery and DEX-i one month earlier in eyes with DME, we compared Epiretinal Membrane/Inner Limiting Membrane (ERM/ILM) peeling preceded by DEX-i one month before versus ERM/ILM peeling alone for the treatment of tDME. A retrospective study on patients affected by tDME who underwent ERM/ILM peeling one month after DEX-i (n = 11; Group A) or ERM/ILM peeling alone (n = 10; Group B) was performed. Longitudinal comparison of best-correct visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) between the time of surgery (T₀) and each time point (months 1,3,5,6) within and among the groups were assessed. To evaluate the repeated measurements of BCVA, CRT, and IOP, a linear mixed-effects model was used. In Group A, DEX-i significantly improved mean BCVA and CRT (P < 0.001) just after 1 month (T₀). After ERM/ILM peeling, mean BCVA and CRT significantly improved from month 1 in Group A and month 3 in Group B. Mixed model revealed a significant difference in BCVA (P ≤ 0.0001) and CRT (P ≤ 0.02) at different time-points among the groups with better results in Group A. Neither complications nor uncontrolled IOP increase was detected. ERM/ILM peeling confirmed its effectiveness in treating tDME. DEX-i performed one month before surgery seemed to be a safe approach and ensured a greater and faster recovery considering functional and tomographic parameters.

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.

Management of Diabetic Macular Edema: Guidelines from the Emirates Society of Ophthalmology

In the United Arab Emirates, retinopathy has been shown to be present in 19% of the diabetic population, with diabetes identified in up to 40% of individuals aged over 55 years. Despite the prevalence of diabetic retinal diseases, there are no unified national guidelines on the management of diabetic macular edema (DME). These published guidelines are based on evidence taken from the literature and published trials of therapies, and consensus opinion of a representative expert panel with an interest in this condition, convened by the Emirates Society of Ophthalmology. The aim is to provide evidence-based, clinical guidance for the best management of different aspects of DME, with a special focus on vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Treatment should be initiated in patients with best-corrected visual acuity 20/30 or worse, and/or features of DME as seen on optical coherence tomography (OCT) with central retinal thickness (CRT) of at least 300 μm or in symptomatic patients with vision better than 20/25, and/or CRT less than 300 μm where there are OCT features consistent with center-involving macular edema. The treatment of DME is effective irrespective of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, and treatment must not be denied or delayed in order to optimize systemic parameters. All ophthalmic treatment options should be discussed with the patient for better compliance and expectations. Non-center-involving DME can be initially observed until progression toward the center is documented. Macular laser no longer has a primary role in center-involving DME, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy should be considered as first-line treatment for all patients, unless contraindicated. If anti-VEGF is contraindicated, a steroid dexamethasone implant can be considered for first-line treatment. Recommendations for the treatment of DME in special circumstances and in relapsing and refractory DME are also discussed.

Intravitreal dexamethasone versus bevacizumab in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients with diabetic macular oedema: The OASIS study (a randomised control trial)

BACKGROUND

Frequent intravitreal anti-VEGF injections are impractical for many Aboriginal patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO). The longer acting intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX-implant) is approved for DMO but has not been assessed in an Aboriginal population.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, single-masked, non-inferiority clinical trial. Aboriginal adults from Western Australia with DMO were randomised to receive 3-monthly DEX-implant, or monthly intravitreal bevacizumab. The primary outcome was the change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 months.

RESULTS

The final endpoint was analysed for 24 DEX-implant and 28 bevacizumab injection eyes. Mean BCVA improved by 4.0 letters (-0.08 LogMAR) in the DEX-implant group and worsened by 5.5 letters (0.11 LogMAR) in the bevacizumab group. Before adjusting for cataract surgery, the upper bound of the two-sided 90% CI for the DEX-implant was 3.5 letters (0.07 LogMAR), which met non-inferiority criteria. The BCVA of remote participants who received the DEX-implant improved by 5.5 letters (0.11 LogMAR), compared to an 18.5 letter (0.37 LogMAR) decline for bevacizumab (p = 0.04). The incidence of steroid-induced ocular hypertension for the DEX-implant was 33.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Before adjusting for the effect of cataract surgery, the DEX-implant was non-inferior to bevacizumab for treating DMO in Aboriginal participants. In remote participants, the DEX-implant surpassed non-inferiority to achieve superior outcomes to bevacizumab. The incidence of steroid-induced hypertension was comparable to that reported in non-Aboriginal populations. We provide guidelines for the judicious use of DEX-implant among Aboriginal people, and a framework for performing ophthalmic clinical trials in Aboriginal communities.

Use of selective laser trabeculoplasty as an alternative in patients who developed ocular hypertension after intravitreal dexamethasone implants: a series of 35 eyes

PURPOSE

Steroid-induced ocular hypertension (OHT) occurs in about a third of cases after dexamethasone implant (DEXi) intravitreal injection (IVI), for which treatment discontinuation may be required. The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) in patients who developed transient OHT after DEXi injection to prevent subsequent steroid-induced OHT peaks during reinjections.

METHODS

A real-life, retrospective, and observational study was conducted to assess the intraocular pressure (IOP) after SLT in steroid responders after DEXi injection (IOP > 21 mmHg). Were analyzed: IOP 1 and 2 months after SLT, maximum IOP (IOP_max) after each new DEXi IVI, and the number of prophylactic hypotensive treatments needed at the time of DEXi reinjections.

RESULTS

Thirty-five eyes of 29 patients were included. The mean macular edema follow-up duration was 38.4 ± 28.4 months. SLT was performed after a mean number of 6.3 ± 4.7 DEXi IVIs. After SLT, the IOP_max measured after the first reinjection was lowered by 36.6 ± 14.7% (p < 0.0001). The mean number of hypotensive treatments was 2.1 ± 0.9 before versus 1.5 ± 0.8 after SLT. The post-reinjection lowering in OHT peak was maintained during the subsequent 3 DEXi IVIs: - 29.1 ± 25.5% (p = 0.0009), - 35.8 ± 13.1% (p = 0.0078), and - 45.4 ± 8.6% (p = 0.0312) after the second, third, and fourth DEXi reinjections. SLT allowed continuing injections in 88.6% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of 180° SLT in this indication could be an effective therapeutic alternative to control steroid-induced OHT and safely continue DEXi injections.

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 Corticosteroid Implantation in Diabetic Macular Edema: Updated European Consensus Guidance on Monitoring and Managing Intraocular Pressure

Intravitreal therapy for diabetic macular edema can, in susceptible patients, increase intraocular pressure (IOP). As uncontrolled IOP can potentially be sight threatening, monitoring is an essential component of patient management. It can be challenging for retina specialists to ensure that monitoring is rigorous enough to detect and resolve any potential problems at the earliest opportunity without it also being overburdensome for patients who have the lowest risk of developing an IOP rise. We have developed dynamic algorithms that: (1) tailor the frequency and extent of monitoring according to individual susceptibility and current IOP and (2) assist retina specialists in deciding when they should consider a referral to a glaucoma specialist. One algorithm is for patients with a relatively low susceptibility to developing an IOP rise (those whose baseline IOP is < 22 mmHg and who do not have a history of IOP events). Depending on their first post-implantation IOP check, the algorithm classifies them as: low risk if IOP remains < 22 mmHg; medium risk if IOP is 22-25 mmHg and any rise from baseline is < 10 mmHg; or high risk if IOP is > 25 mmHg or any rise from baseline is ≥ 10 mmHg. Thereafter, the algorithm guides on the frequency and extent of monitoring required in each of these groups and, if IOP rises or falls during treatment, patients may move up or down the risk groups accordingly. A different algorithm is provided for patients who are more susceptible to developing an IOP rise (those with a baseline IOP of ≥ 22 mmHg or a prior history of an IOP event). These patients need monitoring more closely so this algorithm has only medium- or high-risk classifications. These algorithms update the previous monitoring guidance by Goñi et al. (Goñi et al. in Ophthalmol Ther 5:47-61, 2016).

Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study of Plasma Kallikrein Inhibitor THR-149 for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of a single intravitreal injection of 3 dose levels of THR-149 in adults with center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

A phase 1, open-label, multicenter 3 + 3 dose-esclation study with 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) up to and including the Day 14 visit. Additional key endpoints included the incidence of (serious) adverse events ([S]AEs), mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST), and additional imaging parameters on widefield fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography.

Results

Twelve subjects were treated: 3 subjects received THR-149 0.005 mg, 3 received 0.022 mg and 6 received 0.13 mg. Baseline ocular characteristics were balanced between subjects at each dose level. There were no DLTs or ocular SAEs, and all subjects completed the study. Six subjects experienced a total of 10 AEs in the study eye; 1 case of mild anterior chamber inflammation was deemed related to THR-149 and/or the injection procedure. Mean change from Baseline in BCVA was +7.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters on Day 14, and +6.4 ETDRS letters by Month 3. CST was variable, and mean CST change from baseline was +30.0 µm at Month 3. There were no clinically meaningful changes in imaging parameters.

Conclusions

THR-149 was safe and well tolerated; preliminary efficacy in terms of BCVA improvement was observed.

Translational Relevance

This work bridges the gap between basic research and clinical care by providing first in human safety and preliminary efficacy data, supporting the further investigation of THR-149 as a potential treatment for DME.

Intraocular pressure fluctuation following intravitreal dexamethasone implant and incidence of secondary ocular hypertension: a Zambian perspective

Introduction

to evaluate the effect of dexamethasone biodegradable implant (DEX-I), on intraocular pressure (IOP), to determine the incidence of secondary ocular hypertension (OHT) and to analyze the IOP changes as per the treatment indication in Zambian cohort.

Methods

retrospective consecutive case series of patients receiving one DEX-I between January 2016 and September 2018 with a minimum follow-up of four months in a tertiary care centre in Zambia. The IOP was recorded before the injection and at 1^st week, 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th month after the injection. Ocular hypertension was defined as IOP ≥ 21 mmHg or an increase of ≥ 10 mmHg from baseline.

Results

the effects of 122 injections given to ninety - nine patients (65 male: 65%; mean age 57.3) were included. The main indications for treatment were diabetic macular edema (DME, 52%), retinal vein occlusion (18%), post-surgical macular edema (18%) and non-infectious posterior uveitis (10%). Mean IOP before the injection was was 14.7mmHg and at 1^st week, 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th months after the injection it was 14.4 (p=0.08), 16.1 (p=0.01), 17.5 (p<0.001), 15.7 (p=0.006) and 14.9 (p=0.06) mmHg, respectively. The incidence of secondary OHT was 30.32% in this cohort. Peak incidence of OHT was between 1 - 2 months, with majority of cases in DME group (75%) and 43% diabetic eyes followed by 23% non-infectious posterior uveitis cases developing OHT post injection. OHT was well managed with anti-glaucoma medications only.

Conclusion

DEX-I showed a good pressure tolerance in this cohort. Secondary ocular hypertension developed in one-third of patients receiving injection which was transient and successfully managed with topical anti-glaucoma medications only. Diabetic eyes are more prone to develop ocular hypertension and therefore needs close monitoring following injection.

Phase 1 Study of THR-687, a Novel, Highly Potent Integrin Antagonist for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of THR-687 in patients with center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME).

Design

Phase 1, open-label, multicenter, 3 + 3 dose-escalation study with 3-month follow-up.

Participants

Patients 18 years of age or older with visual impairment resulting from DME.

Methods

Single intravitreal injection of THR-687 (0.4 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.5 mg).

Main Outcome Measures

The primary outcome measure was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including the occurrence of laboratory abnormalities. Exploratory outcome measures included changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST), assessments of ischemia and leakage on fluorescein angiography, and THR-687 levels in plasma.

Results

Twelve patients were treated: 3 patients received 0.4 mg of THR-687, 3 patients received 1.0 mg of THR-687, and 6 patients received 2.5 mg of THR-687. Most patients were men (9/12 patients). Their mean age was 57.8 years. No DLTs or serious AEs were reported at any of the dose levels tested. Overall, 9 AEs in the study eye were reported for 5 of 12 patients. Of those, 4 AEs in 3 of 12 patients were deemed treatment related by the investigator, all of which were mild, started on the day of the injection, and had resolved within 28 days without treatment. Overall, mean gains from baseline in BCVA were observed at all study visits with a rapid onset (7.2 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters at day 7) and a durability up to the end of the study (8.3 ETDRS letters at month 3). A mean decrease in CST was observed up to month 1. Overall, the mean BCVA gains and CST decreases were highest at the highest THR-687 dose level tested. THR-687 was undetectable in plasma at 7 days after the injection.

Conclusions

At all dose levels tested, a single intravitreal injection of THR-687 was safe and well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy was observed by a rapid gain in BCVA with 3 months’ durability and a decrease in CST up to 1 month after the injection.

Place of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in the treatment armamentarium of diabetic macular edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a very important and well-known cause of visual loss in diabetics. Blood–retina barrier disruption and consequent intraretinal fluid accumulation may lead to retinal thickening at the posterior pole namely DME. Even though it is not clearly understood, current evidence suggests that chronic low-grade inflammation characterized with various cytokines has a major role in the occurrence of DME. Clinical trials are continuously shaping our treatment approaches for the eyes with DME. Today, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor and steroid administrations are the main alternatives in DME treatment. Dexamethasone (DEX) implant (Ozurdex^®; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, United States) was approved by the United States Food & Drug Administration in 2014 for DME treatment. The implant is made up of a biodegradable solid copolymer that is broken down by releasing its active ingredient into the vitreous cavity over time. Biphasic release feature of this sustained-release drug delivery system ensures its efficacy for up to 6 mo with an acceptable and manageable safety profile. DEX implant provides a favorable anatomical and functional outcome in DME as shown in several randomized-controlled studies but has a relatively higher ocular side-effect profile such as increased risk of cataract formation and raised intraocular pressure when compared to the gold standard anti-VEGF agents. Thus, DEX implant becomes the second-line treatment option demonstrating inadequate clinical response to anti-VEGF therapy. However, it can be preferred as the first-line treatment in vitrectomized and pseudophakic eyes. Even in some selected conditions DEX implant is favored over anti-VEGF agents where the use of VEGF-inhibitors is either inappropriate or contraindicated such as the patients with a recent history of a major cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event, pregnancy and noncompliant to frequent visits. This mini-review briefly overviews the efficacy, safety profile and complications of DEX implant and summarizes the outcome of DEX implant administration in major clinical studies on DME treatment.

Early treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implants in diabetic macular edema: Naïve versus refractory patients

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone 0.7 mg implants (DEX-I) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) either naïve to therapy or refractory to anti-VEGF treatment, in a single-center, real-world setting.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with DME and treated with DEX-I were retrospectively enrolled in the study and split in two groups: naïve (Group 1, n = 64) and refractory (Group 2, n = 64) to treatment. Patients were evaluated at baseline, at 1 month, and every 3 months after each DEX-I implant. Main outcome measures were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in BCVA were observed in treatment-naïve patients at 6 months following the first and second DEX-I injection (p = 0.0023 and p = 0.0063, respectively), with significant reductions in mean CMT at 6 months after all DEX implants. In treatment-refractory patients, mean CMT was significantly reduced from baseline to 6 months (p < 0.05) after all DEX-I injections, although no changes were observed in BCVA.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX-I improved visual acuity and macular edema mostly in treatment-naïve patients, suggesting DEX-I may be a viable first-line treatment option in DME.

Role of Oral Antioxidant Supplementation in the Current Management of Diabetic Retinopathy

Oxidative stress has been postulated as an underlying pathophysiologic mechanism of diabetic retinopathy (DR), the main cause of avoidable blindness in working-aged people. This review addressed the current daily clinical practice of DR and the role of antioxidants in this practice. A systematic review of the studies on antioxidant supplementation in DR patients was presented. Fifteen studies accomplished the inclusion criteria. The analysis of these studies concluded that antioxidant supplementation has a IIB level of recommendation in adult Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects without retinopathy or mild-to-moderate nonproliferative DR without diabetic macular oedema as a complementary therapy together with standard medical care.

Outcome of Single Dexamethasone Implant Injection in the Treatment of Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema After Anti-VEGF Treatment: Real-Life Data from a Tertiary Hospital in Jordan

Purpose

To analyze the real-life clinical outcome of a single dexamethasone implant (DEX) injection in the treatment of persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in a sample of the Jordanian population.

Methods

An observational case study design that involved a retrospective chart review analysis in a tertiary hospital in Amman, Jordan. Patients who showed persistent DME after receiving at least six doses of anti-VEGF agents for DME treatment were included.

Results

The study population consisted of 72 participants (29 females, 43 males) having an average age of 66 years. All patients had best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) less than 0.7 (6/9) and SD-OCT documented center-involved DME. The study results showed that the average baseline BCVA improved from 0.205±0.1 before DEX injection to 0.358±0.1 at 3 months post-injection (p<0.0001). The central mean thickness (CMT) showed significant improvement also (539.347±132.402 to 379.041±99.430, p<0.0001). There was a mean of 3 mmHg increase in intraocular pressure at 3 months post-injection (p<0.0001), however, only 4% of patients required medical treatment. Other inflammatory biomarkers in OCT, such as intraretinal hyper-reflective dots (HRD), showed significant improvement also (23.67±16 to 14.83±13, p<0.0001). No other significant safety concerns were noticed.

Conclusion

A single DEX injection showed significant clinical and anatomical improvement in DME cases that are persistent after anti-VEGF treatment in our sample, with an excellent safety profile. In case of supply shortage of intravitreal injections, which occurs frequently at our center, a single DEX injection may be utilized as an effective DME therapy. Further research is mandated to identify clinical response in a larger sample and more frequent injections.

Risk factors for repeated dexamethasone intravitreal implant therapy for macular edema due to treatment-naïve branch retinal vein occlusion

Background

This study evaluated the effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant on treatment-naïve branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO)-induced macular edema (ME), and the risk factors for earlier repeated treatment.

Methods

Patients treated from 2013 to 2016 were enrolled. The patients’ demographics, medical history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central retinal thickness (CRT) were recorded. Risk factors for repeated treatment were identified using a Cox proportional hazard model and logistic regression.

Results

29 patients (mean age: 58.64 ± 13.3 years) were included; 44.8% received only one injection, while 55.2% received two or more. The mean initial CRT was 457.8 ± 167.1 μm; the peak CRT and final CRT improved significantly to 248.9 ± 57.9 μm and 329.2 ± 115.1 μm, respectively. The peak BCVA improvement and final improvement were 29.5 ± 23.5 approximate ETDRS letters and 19.8 ± 24.4 letters, respectively, with 62.1% of patients improving by more than 15 letters. Older age, higher initial CRT, and diabetes were the risk factors for multiple injections.

Conclusion

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant results in significant peak CRT and BCVA improvements, while older age, higher initial CRT, and diabetes are risk factors for repeated injections. The optimal retreatment schedule for these patients should be further explored.

Predicting the safety zone for steroid-induced ocular hypertension induced by intravitreal dexamethasone implantation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to predict the possibility of steroid-induced ocular hypertension (OHT) after intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implantation and to identify a proper safety zone for such injections.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted and included 908 patient eyes that underwent DEX implant injection due to various retinal diseases. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured before injection, at 1 week, and at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months thereafter. Eyes of enrolled patients were divided into the OHT and normal IOP groups. Univariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess significant associations between steroid-induced OHT and covariates; significant and previously reported significant variables were analysed with a multivariable model, and predictive nomograms were developed.

RESULTS

Age, sex, axial length, glaucomatous eye, neovascular glaucoma, secondary glaucoma, uveitis history, hypertension, depression, diabetes mellitus and a history of previous laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis or laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy were significantly related to steroid-induced OHT (p<0.05). The calibration plot revealed good prediction under a predicted value of 0.4. Cut-off values for 80%, 86%, 91%, 95% and 98% sensitivity and specificity were offered for the safety zone after intravitreal DEX implantation.

CONCLUSION

We developed two nomograms to predict a safety zone for intravitreal DEX implantation. These can be used to identify individuals who may be safely prescribed steroid treatments and for whom extra caution should be exercised.

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.

Differential response to intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated diabetic macular edema eyes

Background

To identify different response patterns to intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI) in naïve and previously treated (PT) diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes in a real-life setting.

Methods

342 IDI injections (203 DME eyes) were included. Number of IDI injections, percentage (%) of eyes with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 injections, time to reinjections, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated for naïve and PT DME eyes over 24 months.

Results

Mean number of injections was significantly lower in naïve vs PT DME eyes (1.40 ± 0.9 vs 1.82 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The percentage of eyes receiving 1 injection was significantly higher in naïve vs PT DME eyes (76.1 vs 47.7), (p < 0.001). However, it was significantly lower for 2 (16.4 vs 29.4), or 3 injections (1.4 vs 17.6) (both p < 0.001), with no differences in eyes receiving ≥4 injections (5.9 vs 5.1 respectively, p = 0.80). Mean time to reinjection was not significantly different between both groups for the second, third and fourth injection (9.6 ± 4.0 vs 10.0 ± 5.5, p = 0.75, 13.2 ± 4.0 vs 16.0 ± 3.5, p = 0.21 and 21.7 ± 3.8 vs 19.7 ± 5.8, p = 0.55). VA scores were consistently better in naïve vs PT DME eyes at all studied timepoints, with no significant differences in CRT reduction or adverse effect rates.

Conclusion

Naïve DME eyes received lower number of IDI injections and showed better VA levels than PT DME eyes for 24 months in a real-world setting. This data supports the IDI use in early DME stages and provide further evidence of better IDI response when used as first-line therapy.

Initial Ten Years of Experience with the Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant: A Retrospective Chart Review

Purpose

To evaluate the initial ten years of results from the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) in patients treated for retinal vein occlusion (RVO), diabetic macular edema (DME) or uveitis.

Methods

Retrospective chart review of patients receiving DEX since its FDA approval. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography, intraocular pressure and cataract status were collected. Baseline data were collected from the initial DEX and post-treatment data at the visit at least four weeks after the last DEX.

Results

In total, 315 eyes received 1216 DEX over 63.9±4.6 weeks. In the branch RVO (n=90), central RVO (n=59) and DME (n=62) cohorts, BCVA improved significantly (p<0.05). The uveitis (n=154) cohort did not have a significant change in BCVA, 0.62±0.04 to 0.61±0.04 logMAR (p=0.34). Younger patients, vitrectomized eyes, and eyes without a history of glaucoma were associated with significantly better BCVA outcomes in the uveitis cohort (p<0.05). Overall, CMT decreased significantly from 376.6±6.8 to 322.7±5.0 µm (p<0.05). Intraocular pressure increased significantly (p<0.001) and the percentage of patients requiring anti-glaucoma medications increased from 33.0% to 67.6%. Of phakic eyes, 58.8% (n=63) had cataract progression or underwent surgery with those who underwent surgery experiencing a significant improvement in BCVA (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Repeated DEX over extended follow-up offers significant anatomic benefits to all cohorts. Visual benefits are only seen in RVO, DME and select uveitis demographics.

Comparison of Anatomical and Functional Outcomes of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant between Phakic and Pseudophakic Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants for the treatment of diabetic macular edema between phakic and pseudophakic eyes after a follow-up.

Methods

A total of 79 eyes in 79 patients with diabetic macular edema who were insufficiently responsive to the previous anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment and applied intravitreal DEX implant were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into two groups according to their type of lenses: pseudophakic (group 1) and phakic (group 2). Best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, and central macular thickness changes in the two groups were compared.

Results

Group 1 comprised 42 eyes in 42 patients with a mean age of 64.02 ± 3.79 years, while group 2 comprised 37 eyes in 37 patients with a mean age of 64.19 ± 5.08 years. In both groups, best-corrected visual acuity improved significantly with a significant decrease in central macular thickness (p < 0.001). In both lens types, the IOP values decreased significantly on the first day but subsequently increased significantly compared to baseline from one week to six months. Increases in IOP values were significantly higher in group 1 at the first week, 1st month, and 6th month compared with group 2. During follow-up, the inferior quadrant retinal nerve fiber layer showed a significant decrease in both groups.

Conclusions

In both phakic and pseudophakic eyes, intravitreal DEX implantation is an effective treatment method with low-risk complications. In our study, the pseudophakic group experienced a significantly earlier increase in IOP and at higher levels than did the phakic group. In light of these data, we suggest that in patients with pseudophakic eyes, follow-ups for IOP should be stricter and started earlier after intravitreal DEX treatment.

The Effect of Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty on Intraocular Pressure in Patients with Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant-Induced Elevated Intraocular Pressure

Introduction

To assess the safety and efficacy of selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) for ocular hypertension (OHT) induced by a dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant.

Materials and Methods

We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent an SLT procedure for ocular hypertension induced by injection of a DEX intravitreal implant. Patients had, at least, one injection of the DEX-implant for symptomatic macular edema. SLT was delivered to 360° of the trabecular meshwork in two sessions. The primary outcome was a decrease in IOP, evaluated at one, three, and six months after the SLT procedure.

Results

Twenty-six eyes of 22 patients were included. The mean intraocular pressure (IOP) measured after DEX-implant injection was 25.4 ± 5.4 mmHg, and the mean increase in IOP was 35.8 ± 14.6%. The mean follow-up after SLT was 18.3 ± 7.7 months. After SLT, the mean IOP dropped by 30.9% at one month (16.9 ± 4.5 mmHg, p=0.01), 33.6% at three months (16.0 ± 2.7 mmHg, p < 0.01), and 34.9% at six months (15.6 ± 2.1 mmHg, p < 0.01). Each patient had a minimum follow-up of 6 months after SLT. Eight eyes (31%) received a second DEX-implant injection after the SLT procedure without experiencing an increase in the IOP above 21 mmHg or >20%. No glaucoma surgery was required during the follow-up. The mean number of medications (1.65 ± 1.36) was significantly reduced at one (1.19 ± 1.20, p=0.04), three (0.96 ± 1.03, p < 0.01), and six months (0.77 ± 0.95, p < 0.01) after SLT.

Conclusion

SLT is an effective and safe procedure to control OHT following DEX-implant intravitreal injection.

Association between Early Anatomic Response and Intraocular Pressure Change after Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant: An Optical Coherence Tomography Study

Purpose: To investigate the associations between early anatomical responses and intraocular pressure (IOP) changes in macular edema (ME) due to retinal vascular diseases treated with an intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted involving ME patients who underwent intravitreal DEX implantation. The eyes were divided into increased IOP (IIOP) or non-IIOP (nIIOP) groups according to the presence or absence of significant IOP elevation. Significant IOP elevation was defined by both the absolute value of IOP elevation (5 mmHg or higher) and an elevation percentage of the baseline IOP (an increase equal to 30% of the pre-injection IOP or higher). We analyzed the difference in central subfield thickness (CST) change according to the IOP elevation after DEX implantation. Relationships between IOP change and CST reduction after intravitreal DEX implantation were analyzed by Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 49 eyes, 29 with diabetic ME and 20 with ME due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), were included in this study. Of the 49 eyes, 18 eyes (36.7%) were classified as IIOP group and 31 (63.3%) as nIIOP group. Significant differences in mean CST reductions over baseline one week after DEX implantation were observed between the groups. The degree of CST reduction from baseline to 1 week was significantly correlated with the degree of IOP change from baseline at 1 week and 1 month after intravitreal DEX implantation. Conclusions: In patients with ME due to retinal vascular diseases, we noted an early anatomical response significantly correlated with IOP change after intravitreal DEX implantation. Therefore, patients with favorable early anatomical responses to DEX implantation should be carefully monitored for IOP elevation.

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.

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

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