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

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.

The Treatment of Diabetic Retinal Edema with Intravitreal Steroids: How and When

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus and a leading cause of visual impairment worldwide. It is defined as the diabetes-related accumulation of fluid, proteins, and lipids, with retinal thickening, within the macular area. DME affects a significant proportion of individuals with diabetes, with the prevalence increasing with disease duration and severity. It is estimated that approximately 25-30% of diabetic patients will develop DME during their lifetime. Poor glycemic control, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes duration, and genetic predisposition are recognized as risk factors for the development and progression of DME. Although the exact pathophysiology is still not completely understood, it has been demonstrated that chronic hyperglycemia triggers a cascade of biochemical processes, including increased oxidative stress, inflammation, activation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), cellular dysfunction, and apoptosis, with breakdown of the blood-retinal barriers and fluid accumulation within the macular area. Early diagnosis and appropriate management of DME are crucial for improving visual outcomes. Although the control of systemic risk factors still remains the most important strategy in DME treatment, intravitreal pharmacotherapy with anti-VEGF molecules or steroids is currently considered the first-line approach in DME patients, whereas macular laser photocoagulation and pars plana vitrectomy may be useful in selected cases. Available intravitreal steroids, including triamcinolone acetonide injections and dexamethasone and fluocinolone acetonide implants, exert their therapeutic effect by reducing inflammation, inhibiting VEGF expression, stabilizing the blood-retinal barrier and thus reducing vascular permeability. They have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing macular edema and improving visual outcomes in DME patients but are associated with a high risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract development, so their use requires an accurate patient selection. This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the pathology, epidemiology, risk factors, physiopathology, clinical features, treatment mechanisms of actions, treatment options, prognosis, and ongoing clinical studies related to the treatment of DME, with particular consideration of intravitreal steroids therapy.

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.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factors: the AUSSIEDEX study

AIM

To evaluate effectiveness of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) monotherapy in the AUSSIEDEX study non-responder subgroup, defined by diabetic macular oedema (DME) refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, observational, real-world study included pseudophakic and phakic (scheduled for cataract surgery) eyes that did not achieve a ≥5-letter best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain and/or clinically significant central subfield retinal thickness (CRT) improvement after 3-6 anti-VEGF injections for DME (N=143 eyes), regardless of baseline BCVA and CRT. After an initial DEX injection (baseline visit), reinjection was permitted at ≥16-week intervals.

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

changes in mean BCVA and CRT from baseline to week 52. Safety assessments included adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 143 eyes, 53 (37.1%) and 89 (62.2%) switched to DEX after 3-6 (early) and >6 (late) anti-VEGF injections, respectively; 1 (0.7%) had missing information. With 2.3 injections (mean) over 52 weeks, the change in mean BCVA from a baseline of 57.8 letters was not significant at week 52. Mean CRT improved significantly from a baseline of 417.8 μm at week 52 (mean change -60.9 μm; p<0.001). Outcomes were similar in eyes switched to DEX early and late. No unexpected adverse events were reported; no filtration surgeries were required.

CONCLUSION

To date, AUSSIEDEX is the largest prospective, real-world study of DEX monotherapy for treatment-naïve or anti-VEGF-refractory DME. Following early or late switch from anti-VEGF agents, DEX significantly improved anatomic outcomes at 52 weeks without new safety concerns, supporting use in anti-VEGF-refractory DME.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02731911.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of intravitreal VEGF inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi) have transformed the treatment of many retinal diseases, including diabetic maculopathy. Increasing evidence supports systemic absorption of intravitreal VEGFi and development of significant cardiorenal side effects.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020189037) of randomised controlled trials of intravitreal VEGFi treatments (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) for any eye disease. Outcomes of interest were cardiorenal side effects (hypertension, proteinuria, kidney function decline and heart failure). Fixed-effects meta-analyses were conducted where possible.

RESULTS

There were 78 trials (81 comparisons; 13 175 participants) that met criteria for inclusion: 47% were trials in diabetic eye disease. Hypertension (29 trials; 8570 participants) was equally common in VEGFi and control groups (7.3 versus 5.4%; RR 1.08 [0.91; 1.28]). New or worsening heart failure (10 trials; 3384 participants) had similar incidence in VEGFi and control groups (RR 1.03 [0.70; 1.51]). Proteinuria (5 trials; 1902 participants) was detectable in some VEGFi-treated participants (0.2%) but not controls (0.0%; RR 4.43 [0.49; 40.0]). Kidney function decline (9 trials; 3471 participants) was similar in VEGFi and control groups. In participants with diabetic eye disease, risk of all-cause mortality was higher in VEGFi-treated participants (RR 1.62 [1.04; 2.46]).

CONCLUSION

In trials of intravitreal VEGFi, we did not identify an increased risk of cardiorenal outcomes, though these outcomes were reported in only a minority of cases. There was an increased risk of death in VEGFi-treated participants with diabetic eye disease. Additional scrutiny of post-licensing observational data may improve recognition of safety concerns in VEGFi-treated patients.

Intravitreal steroids compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema: a meta-analysis

TOPIC

Diabetic macular edema (DME) can be treated with either intravitreal anti-VEGF injections or intravitreal corticosteroid injections.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We provide an updated meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy and safety of intravitreal steroids and anti-VEGF agents for DME.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials from January 2005 to November 2021. Inclusion criteria included published randomized clinical trial data comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal steroids versus anti-VEGF agents for DME. Nonrandomized, noncomparative, and non-English studies were excluded.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized clinical trials reporting on 827 eyes were included. Between these 2 treatments, our analysis revealed no significant difference in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes at 3 months (P = 0.11), 6 months (P = 0.21), 12 months (P = 0.24), and final follow-up (P = 0.91). Retinal thickness was significantly lower with steroid treatment at 3 months (P = 0.04), 6 months (P < 0.00001), and final follow-up (weighted mean difference = 39.99 μm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 14.58,65.41; P = 0.002); however, there was no significant difference at 12 months (P = 0.18). Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents were associated with a lower incidence of intraocular pressure-related adverse events (risk ratio = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.05, 0.34; P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference between comparators for other adverse events, including cataract-related adverse events (P = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, intravitreal steroid treatment for DME was associated with no significant differences in BCVA, a significantly lower retinal thickness, and a higher risk of intraocular pressure-related events. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate and the analysis was limited by heterogeneity. Our results reinforce the importance of a continual reevaluation of the role of intravitreal steroids in DME management.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Efficacy of single-dose intravitreal dexamethasone implantation for retinal vein occlusion patients with refractory macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To assess the functional and anatomical consequences of single-dose dexamethasone (DEX) implants for the treatment of refractory macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents.

Methods: A literature search of studies on switching therapy to DEX implants from anti-VEGF agents in refractory RVO patients was performed with five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) prior to January 2022. The main outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) changes at different follow-up endpoints from baseline. All analyses were performed using Stata version 15.0.

Results: The final analysis included four eligible studies with a total of 99 patients. After single-dose DEX implant application, BCVA improved significantly at 2, 3, and 6 months with an average gain of −0.23 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (p = 0.004), −0.20 logMAR (p = 0.027), and -0.09 logMAR (p = 0.021), respectively. Mean CMT reduction was also significant from baseline to 2 months (-241.89 μm, p &lt; 0.001), 3 months (−222.61 μm, p &lt; 0.001), and 6 months (−90.49 μm, p &lt; 0.001). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the included studies.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that RVO patients with refractory ME could benefit significantly from switching therapy to DEX implantation, with efficacy lasting 6 months after a single-dose application. Intravitreal DEX implantation is a safe and effective option for refractory cases.

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.

One-Month Outcomes of Intravitreal Anti-VEGF vs. Dexamethasone Implant in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema in Vitrectomized Eyes

Objectives

To compare short-term effect of intravitreal ranibizumab with dexamethasone implant for diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized eyes.

Methods

Single-center, prospective, randomized study of vitrectomized eyes with DME. Study eyes were divided into two groups, receiving ranibizumab (IVV group, n = 35 eyes) or dexamethasone implant (IVD group, n = 35 eyes) respectively. Patients were evaluated at baseline, Week 1 and Month 1. The main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and intraocular pressure (IOP).

Results

BCVA and CRT were similar in the two groups at baseline. At Week 1, the CRT improvement was significant in two groups (P = 0.041 in IVV group, P = 0.030 in IVD group), but at Month 1, only IVD group had significant improvement in CRT (P < 0.001). And BCVA gains were significant at Week 1 (P = 0.029) and Month 1 (P = 0.001) in IVD group, whereas IVV group did not show significant BCVA gains (P = 0.056 at Week1, P = 0.166 at Month 1). The changes of BCVA and CRT were significantly higher in IVD group than IVV group at Month1, but the changes were not significant at Week1.

Conclusions

Comparing to anti-VEGF therapy, DEX implant is more effect in improving BCVA and reducing CRT in vitrectomized eyes at 1 month, which indicated DEX implant is a better strategy.

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.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Suprachoroidal and Intravitreal Injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide in Refractory Diabetic Macular Edema due to Epiretinal Membrane

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of suprachoroidal and intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide in pseudophakic patients with refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) due to epiretinal membrane (ERM). Study Design. This study is a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Participants. Twenty-three nonvitrectomized pseudophakic eyes of 23 subjects (9 M and 14 F with mean age: 54.8 years) with refractory DME due to ERM.

Methods

The eyes were randomized to suprachoroidal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg/0.1 ml (SCTA) (n = 13 eyes) or intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide 4 mg/0.1 ml (IVTA) (n = 10 eyes) and were evaluated at baseline and 1 and 3 months after injection to assess outcome measures. Main Outcome Measures. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (primary outcome), central foveal thickness (CFT) by optical coherence tomography (OCT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement (secondary).

Results

Baseline median BCVA (logMAR) was 1.0 (range 0.8–1.0) in both groups, improved within the SCTA group to 0.8 on the 1^st and 3^rd months, while in the IVTA group, median BCVA changed to 0.8 and 0.9 on the 1^st and 3^rd months, respectively. No significant differences were noted between groups regarding BCVA at baseline (P=0.927), and 1^st (P=0.605) and 3^rd months (P=0.313). Regarding mean CFT, no significant differences were observed at baseline (P=0.353) and at the first month (P=0.214) between both groups, while at the third month, CFT was significantly higher in the IVTA group (385 um) than in the SCTA group (323 um) (P=0.028). Mean IOP was significantly higher in the IVTA group (15 mmHg) on 1^st month than in the SCTA group (12 mmHg) (P=0.011); after 3^rd month, IOP was significantly higher within the IVTA group (18 mmHg) than SCTA (14 mmHg) (P=0.028). No significant difference was noted between both groups at baseline IOP (P=0.435).

Conclusions

Both SCTA and IVTA are effective in reduction of CFT and improvement of patients' visual acuity, but with a higher recurrence rate and rise in IOP after IVTA when compared to SCTA. Both treatments have temporary effects with the possibility of recurrence of DME and the need for retreatment.

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.

Effect of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for refractory and treatment-naive diabetic macular edema in Taiwanese patients

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone (DEX) implant has been shown to improve visual and anatomic function in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of DEX implant between refractory and naive eyes with DME.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from pseudophakic patients with center-involved DME who received DEX implant (1 + as needed retreatment) from May 2015 to May 2017. Baseline clinical characteristics, changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-four eyes of 31 patients refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents and 41 eyes of 38 treatment-naive patients were reviewed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). In the refractory eyes, significant improvements in both BCVA and CFT were observed at 1 month post DEX implant and sustained throughout 6 months. Mean change from baseline in BCVA at 6 months was -0.17 ± 0.35 logMAR (7.29 ± 16.22 letters) and 155.44 ± 112.67 μm in CFT. Similar trends of improvement were seen in treatment-naive eyes; however, the visual improvement (-0.30 ± 0.29 logMAR [16.42 ± 14.38 letters]) was significantly better than the refractory group, with significantly less injections (1.54 ± 0.49 versus 1.82 ± 0.38, p = 0.007). Between-group changes in CFT were comparable. No serious ocular complications occurred, and about a quarter of the patients had elevated intraocular pressures that were manageable with topical medications.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this was the first study comparing DEX implant between treatment-naive and refractory Asian patients with DME. Intravitreal DEX implant can effectively treat refractory and treatment-naive patients with DME. In addition, superior visual outcomes were observed in the naive group comparing to the refractory group following DEX implant treatment in Taiwanese pseudophakic eyes with 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.

INVICTUS: Intravitreal anti-VEGF and dexamethasone implant comparison for the treatment of diabetic macular edema: A 12 months follow-up study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of intravitreal injections (IVI) of ranibizumab (Lucentis^®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland; RAN), aflibercept (Eylea^®, Bayer, Leverkusen, Germany; AFL) and dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex^®, Allergan, Irvine, California; DXI) in the treatment of naive diabetic macular oedema (DME) during a 12-month follow-up, in real life.

METHODS

Nineteen eyes treated with RAN, 20 with AFL and 21 with DXI were analysed from inclusion up to 12 months (M12) with intermediate analysis at M6. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), fundus and central retinal thickness (CRT) using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT; Spectralis/HRA, Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) were performed at inclusion, M3, M6 and M12.

RESULTS

BCVA improved until 67.9 letters ±13.3 SD (+5.5 letters) at M6 and 69.6 letters ±12 SD (+7.2 letters) at 12 months for RAN group (p = 0.036). For the AFL group it improved until 63.6 letters ±15.2 SD (+6.6 letters) at M6 and 67.5 letters ±12.2 SD (+8.5 letters) at 12 months (p = 0.014). Lastly DXI group improved by 66.9 letters ±15.1 SD (+7.9 letters) at M6 and 68.4 letters ±11.2 SD (+9.4 letters) at 12 months (p = 0.0023). CRT decreased by 124.4 µm at M6 and 99.3 µm at M12 in RAN group, 144.3 µm and 101.5 µm in AFL group and finally 95.6 µm and 162.7 µm in DXI group.

CONCLUSION

In summary, these three drugs provide an efficient treatment option with an acceptable benefit-risk ratio for the treatment of naive patients with DME, whether on BCVA or CRT on the first year of treatment.

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.

Healthcare resource use and costs of diabetic macular oedema for patients with antivascular endothelial growth factor versus a dexamethasone intravitreal implant in Korea: a population-based study

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the costs and healthcare resources of patients with diabetic macular oedema (DME) who received intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents or a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX-implant) in Korea.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The Korean National Health Insurance claim data from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2017 were retrieved from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with DME who were diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy or DME and received ranibizumab, aflibercept or a DEX-implant in conjunction with intravitreal injection were included. Patients whose primary diagnoses were age-related macular degeneration or retinal vein occlusion were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Healthcare resource utilisation and costs related to DME in the 12-month postindex period.

RESULTS

During the study period, 182 patients and 414 patients were identified in the anti-VEGF and DEX-implant groups, respectively, and there was no significant difference in the demographic characteristics between the two groups. The outpatient eye care-related medical costs were US$3002.33 for the anti-VEGF group vs US$2250.35 for the DEX-implant group (p<0.0001). After adjusting the relevant covariates based on the generalised linear model, the estimated outpatient eye care-related medical costs were 33% higher in the anti-VEGF group than in the DEX-implant group (p<0.0001, 95% CI 22% to 45%). The utilisation pattern of the two groups showed no significant difference except for the number of intravitreal injections, which was higher in the anti-VEGF group (2.69±2.29) than in the DEX-implant group (2.09±1.37, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The average annual eye-related medical cost of the DEX-implant group was significantly lower than that of the anti-VEGF group during the study period, which was mainly due to decreased utilisation of eye care-related injections. Further long-term studies are needed.

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.

Comparison of the effect of ranibizumab and dexamethasone implant in diabetic macular edema with concurrent epiretinal membrane

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab (RZB) injections and intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant in diabetic macular edema (DME) with concurrent epiretinal membrane (ERM).

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, comparative study. Medical records of DME patients with concurrent ERM were retrospectively reviewed. Seventeen eyes of 16 patients treated with 3 consecutive monthly RZB injections (RZB group) and 22 eyes of 18 patients treated with a DEX implant (DEX group) were included. The groups were compared at baseline, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th months in terms of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP).

RESULTS

Eighteen of the 39 eyes (46.1%) were phakic at baseline, 9 (52.9%) of which were treated with RZB, whereas 9 (40.9%) were treated with DEX implant (P=0.528). Although CMT improved significantly in both the RZB and DEX groups (P<0.001); the trend was different (P=0.003). The mean change in CMT at 1month in the DEX group was greater (DEX: 188.2±142.7μm; RZB: 95.7±110.7μm; P=0.034); it was in favor of RZB group at the 3rd and 4th months (DEX: -52.7±86.9μm; RZB: 1.4±31.4μm; P=0.012. DEX: -63±67.3μm; RZB: -5.8±43.9μm; P=0.004, respectively). BCVA improved significantly in both groups (P<0.001). There was no statistical difference between the groups with regard to gain in BCVA or IOP change throughout the study period (P=0.572, P=0.064, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both RZB and DEX are effective in improving anatomical and visual outcomes in DME with concurrent ERM. The DEX group was associated with a prompt anatomic response, but with a gradual decrease from 3rd month.

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.

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.

Long-term efficacy and safety profile of multiple injections of intravitreal dexamethasone implant to manage diabetic macular edema: A systematic review of real-world studies

INTRODUCTION

Systematic review of real-world studies about repeated dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi) 0.7 mg in diabetic macular edema management, in order to identify the effective window of time occurring between injections, the critical evaluation of efficacy of the treatment, and the relative long-term safety in the real life setting.

METHODS

Literature databases such as PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE were used to identify reports including DEX implant injections.

RESULTS

Twenty-one peer-reviewed publications were identified. DEX implants retreatment was considered on a pro re nata (PRN) basis at any time or starting from month three or four. About 1/3 of the eyes were retreated before six months from first injection (range 0-86.7%). Mean retreatment average time was 5.3 ± 0.9 months, with an estimated average of 1.3 injections each six months. There was no statistical correlation between average retreatment time and incidence of adverse events or other variables investigated. Limited safety issues related to implants number have been found, suggesting an overall good tolerance of long-term DEXi.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive evaluation of real-world data suggests an average DEXi duration close to five months, following a PRN treatment strategy, including about 1/3 of patients. Repeated DEXi administration revealed an acceptable long-term efficacy/safety ratio.

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.

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.

Intravitreal aflibercept versus intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with moderate visual loss.

Patients and methods

This study is a randomized prospective study. Seventy eyes with DME were divided into two groups (each containing 35 eyes). Eyes in group I were treated with intravitreal injection of 2 mg/0.05 mL aflibercept and eyes in group II were treated with intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg/0.1 mL ranibizumab. All the eyes had three successive injections as a loading dose (with 1 month interval), and then the patients were followed up monthly for 12 months. The outcomes of the study were visual acuity, central macular thickness (CMT), and the number of re-injections of the drug.

Results

Mean age of the patients in group I was 55.05±4.7 years and in group II was 56.64±5.8 years (P=0.17). The mean baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of eyes treated with aflibercept was 0.17±0.05 and with ranibizumab was 0.18±0.04 (P=0.9). BCVA was improved in both the groups at the end of the follow-up period and was found to be 0.42±0.28 and 0.37±0.23, respectively (P=0.27). The mean baseline CMT of eyes in group I was 465.29±33.7 µm and in group II was 471.5±34.4 µm (P=0.65). CMT decreased in both the groups to 360.8±85.7 µm and 387.3±87.8 µm, respectively (P=0.2). The mean number of drug re-injection was 2.62±0.68 and 3.03±0.95 in both the groups, respectively (P=0.02).

Conclusion

Aflibercept and ranibizumab have the same efficacy in the treatment of DME in eyes with moderate visual loss but with less number of drug re-injection and less treatment burden with aflibercept (2.62±0.68 versus 3.03±0.95).