COMPARISON OF INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT AND AFLIBERCEPT IN PATIENTS WITH TREATMENT-NAIVE DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA WITH SEROUS RETINAL DETACHMENT

Impact of Aflibercept vs Dexamethasone Treatment on Epiretinal Membrane Formation in Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate the impact of aflibercept and dexamethasone (DEX) on the formation of epiretinal membrane (ERM) and their treatment outcomes in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, medical records of 124 eyes from 429 patients diagnosed with DME were reviewed between June 2017 and June 2019. Patients were categorized into two groups: the aflibercept group (67 eyes) and the DEX group (57 eyes). The primary endpoint was the secondary ERM incidence following intravitreal treatments and its correlation across different medications. Secondary endpoints included longitudinal changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT).

RESULTS

Over a 24-month follow-up, eyes treated with DEX had approximately a fourfold higher incidence of ERM development compared to aflibercept [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.97, p = 0.02]. These eyes also showed worse BCVA (p = 0.059) and increased CMT (p = 0.004), despite requiring fewer total injections (p = 0.000) in the survival analysis model. The cumulative probability of ERM formation was 13.7%. Additionally, DME eyes exhibited poor functional and anatomical outcomes after developing ERM, while age, A1c level, DR severity, initial BCVA and CMT, lens status, and previous laser treatment were not associated with an elevated incidence of ERM formation.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal DEX implantation in DME eyes resulted in a higher incidence of secondary ERM formation compared to aflibercept over a 2-year period. The therapeutic efficacy for DME was diminished following ERM development, leading to worse anatomical outcomes. New therapeutic approaches should be explored to prevent ERM formation while maintaining both anatomical and functional outcomes in DME treatment.

Dexamethasone Implant under a Proactive Treatment Regimen in a Clinical Setting: The ProDEX Study

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of switching intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX-implant) from pro re nata (PRN) treatment regimen to a proactive regimen in patients with macular edema of diverse etiologies.

DESIGN

An observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, multicenter, national case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-one eyes from 68 patients treated between October 2015 and June 2023 were included.

METHODS

This study included consecutive eyes treated with DEX-implant who were switched from a PRN regimen to a proactive regimen for diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), noninfectious uveitis macular edema (UME; including postsurgical macular edema), and radiation maculopathy (RM).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) at each visit.

RESULTS

According to the etiology, DME represented 49.4% of eyes, UME 24.3%, RVO 21.0%, and RM 6.2%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of follow-up under the PRN and proactive regimens was 20.6 (13.3) and 14.2 (10.3) months, respectively. Switching from a PRN to a proactive regimen significantly improved mean (SD) BCVA by 3.7 (12.9) ETDRS letters (P = 0.01) with a mean (SD) decrease in CMT of 108.0 (151.4) μm (P < 0.001). The proportion of visits with significant anatomic recurrence (> 50 μm) also decreased from 40.1% to 6.0% after switching to a proactive regimen (P < 0.001). The number of DEX-implant injections significantly increased during the proactive treatment period (P < 0.001), but the change in the number of visits was not significantly different (P = 0.2). The proactive treatment period was not associated with a significant increase in IOP (P = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to a proactive regimen in patients already treated with DEX-implant seems to significantly improve BCVA and CMT while maintaining stable IOP.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

One-Year Functional and Morphological Prognosis After Intravitreal Injection Treatments According to Different Morphological Patterns of Diabetic Macular Edema in Real-Life: MARMASIA Study Group Report No.13

PURPOSE

To evaluate the responses of different optical coherence tomography (OCT) patterns of diabetic macular edema (DME) to intravitreal injection therapy.

METHODS

In this retrospective, comparative, and multicenter study, patients who had previously untreated DME, who received intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) or aflibercept (IVA) and/or steroid treatment with the pro re nata (PRN) treatment regimen after a 3-month loading dose, and had a 12-month follow-up in the MARMASIA Study Group were included. Morphological patterns of DME were divided into four groups based on OCT features diffuse/spongious edema (Group 1), cystoid edema (Group 2), diffuse/spongious edema+subretinal fluid (SRF) (Group 3), and cystoid edema+SRF (Group 4). Changes in central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at months 3, 6, and 12, and the number of injections at month 12 were compared between the DME groups.

RESULTS

455 eyes of 299 patients were included in the study. The mean baseline BCVAs [Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR)] in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0.54 ± 0.24, 0.52 ± 0.25, 0.55 ± 0.23, and 0.57 ± 0.27, respectively. There was no significant difference between the baseline mean BCVAs between the groups (p = .35). The mean BCVAs were significantly improved to 0,47 ± 0,33 in group 1, 0,42 ± 0,33 in group 2, 0,47 ± 0,31 in group 3, and 0,45 ± 0,43 at month 12. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of BCVA change at month 12 (p = .71). The mean baseline CMTs in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 387,19 ± 128,19, 447,02 ± 132,39, 449,12 ± 109,24, and 544,19 ± 178,61, respectively. At baseline, the mean CMT was significantly higher in Group 4 than in the other groups (p = .000). The mean CMTs were significantly decreased to 325,16 ± 97,55, 334,94 ± 115,99, 324,33 ± 79,20, and 332,08 ± 150,40 in four groups at month 12 respectively (p > .05). The groups had no significant difference in mean CMT at month 12 (p = .835). The change in CMT was significantly higher in Group 4 than in the other groups at month 12 (p = .000). The mean number of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections at month 12 was 4.51 ± 1.57 in Group 1, 4.63 ± 1.54 in Group 2, 4.88 ± 1.38 in Group 3, and 5.07 ± 1.49 in Group 4. The mean number of anti-VEGF injections in Group 1 and Group 2 was significantly lower than in Group 4 (p = 0,014 and p = 0,017).

CONCLUSIONS

In real life, there was no significant difference between the DME groups in terms of visual improvement at month 12. However, better anatomical improvement was achieved in Group 4 than in the other DME groups.

Aflibercept vs. dexamethasone implant for recalcitrant diabetic macular edema in pseudophakic eyes - 1-year outcomes from a quazi-randomized study in India

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of intravitreal Aflibercept (IVA) versus dexamethasone (DEX) implant for treating recalcitrant diabetic macular edema (DME) in pseudophakic eyes at 1-year follow-up.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Data of all patients diagnosed with DME between January 2019 and December 2021, who underwent 4-monthly doses of intravitreal ranibizumab but had persistent DME [central macular thickness (CMT) within 10% of baseline value] were extracted from a computerized database. Of these, only pseudophakic eyes that underwent either IVA or DEX implant and had at least 1-year follow-up were included for analysis.

METHODS

DEX implant was preferred before December 2020 and IVA after this time point. In the IVA group, patients were followed up every month while DEX were followed at least every 3 months. Reinjections were considered when vision dropped by at least 1 Snellen's line or CMT increased by at least 10% from the previous visit in both groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of change in vision and CMT at 1-year follow-up in DEX versus IVA groups.

RESULTS

Eighty-four eyes of 84 patients aged 54.4 + 4.4 years were included, 39 (46%) received DEX and 45 (54%) received IVA. Groups were comparable for baseline vision and CMT. Vision improved equally in both groups from 0.83 + 0.15 logMAR to 0.52 + 0.10 logMAR at 3 months ( P < 0.01) and then stabilized till 1 year. However, eyes in the IVA group were 6.5 times more likely (Odds ratio = 6.45, 95% CI = 1.3 - 31.9) to achieve >3-line improvement in vision. The CMT reduction was also comparable between groups (-169 + 51 in DEX vs. -174 + 49 in IVA, P = 0.67). More eyes in the IVA group required >3 injections (91% vs. 69% in DEX, P = 0.01). The IOP was significantly higher at 6 and 9 months in the DEX group and 5 eyes (13%) required IOP lowering medications.

CONCLUSION

In pseudophakic eyes with recalcitrant DME not responding to ranibizumab, switching to IVA or DEX implant results in equal visual improvement and CMT reduction. Though >3-line improvement occurs more frequently with IVA, this comes at the expense of a greater number of injections and follow-up visits.

Comparing the efficacy of glucocorticoids and anti-VEGF in treating diabetic macular edema: systematic review and comprehensive analysis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), and to evaluate various clinical treatment regimens consisting of different therapeutic measures.

Methods

This study included randomized controlled trials up to February 2023 comparing the efficacy of corticosteroid-related therapy and anti-VEGF therapy. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched, and the quality of the studies was carefully assessed. Finally, 39 studies were included.

Results

Results at 3-month followup showed that intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) + triamcinolone acetonide (TA) was the most beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of macular edema in the center of the retina in patients with DME. Results at 6-month follow-up showed that intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) was the most effective in improving patients' bestcorrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of central macular edema.

Discussion

Overall, IVB+TA was beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing central macular edema thickness over a 3-month follow-up period, while DEX implants had a better therapeutic effect than anti-VEGF agents at 6 months, especially the patients with severe macular edema and visual acuity impaired.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=397100, identifier CRD42023397100.

Intravitreal Injection of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors Combined with Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and corticosteroid combination therapy for the management of treatment-naïve or recurrent/refractory macular edema caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in comparison with anti-VEGF monotherapy.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, the data from publications in the electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI and Scopus from January 1, 2007, through November 20, 2020, were compiled. Heterogeneity was statistically quantified by the I2 statistic, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four related studies were identified, including a total of 1280 eyes, which consisted of 685 and 507 patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), respectively. This study demonstrated a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the combination group compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy for both CRVO and BRVO cases at 6 months after initiating therapy. The improvement in vision was more notable in BRVO cases than in CRVO cases. However, the changes in central macular thickness (CMT) did not differ significantly between the different treatment approaches, and the results were inconclusive. Including all cases with RVO, there was no inferiority in terms of BCVA improvement and CMT reduction in the triamcinolone subgroup compared with the slow-release dexamethasone implant subgroup. A greater improvement was noticed in terms of BCVA in the sequentially treated subgroup compared to the simultaneous treatment subgroup, while there was a greater reduction in CMT in the simultaneous subgroup with the highest reduction recorded at 1 month after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that combination therapy with intravitreal anti-VEGF and corticosteroid (such as intravitreal or subtenon triamcinolone or dexamethasone implant) has a slightly better effect on improving BCVA in cases with BRVO or CRVO at 6 months compared to monotherapy.

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.

Comparative Efficacy, Durability and Safety of Faricimab in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to evaluate the comparative efficacy, durability and safety of faricimab, used in a Treat & Extend (T&E) regime with intervals up to every 16 weeks (Q16W), relative to other therapies currently in use for treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). Of particular interest were anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies applied in flexible dosing regimens such as Pro re nata (PRN) and T&E, which are the mainstay in clinical practice.

METHODS

An SLR identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published before August 2021 was conducted, followed by a Bayesian NMA comparing faricimab T&E treatment to aflibercept, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, dexamethasone and laser therapy. Outcomes included in the analysis were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), change in central subfield thickness (CST), injection frequency, ocular adverse events (AE) and all-cause discontinuation, all of which were evaluated at 12 months. Subgroup analyses including patients' naïve to anti-VEGF were conducted where feasible.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies identified in the SLR were included in the NMA. Most importantly for decision making in clinical practise, faricimab T&E was associated with a statistically greater (95% credible intervals exclude zero) and clinically meaningful decrease in retinal thickness compared to all other flexible dosing regimens (greater retinal drying by 55-125 microns). Anatomical outcomes determine treatment efficacy and retreatment of patients. The NMA also showed a statistically greater increase in mean change in BCVA for faricimab T&E vs. flexible regimens using ranibizumab and bevacizumab (increase of 4.4-4.8 letters) as well as a numerical improvement vs. aflibercept PRN (two letters, 95% credible intervals including zero). Accordingly, the injection frequency was numerically lower versus other treatments using flexible dosing regimens (decrease by 0.92-1.43 injections). The analyses also indicated that the safety profile of faricimab T&E was comparable to those of ranibizumab and aflibercept, which have well-established safety profiles, with similar results for the number of all-cause discontinuations.

CONCLUSION

Faricimab provides a new treatment option in DME with dual-pathway inhibition of VEGF and angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2). To the authors' knowledge, this is the first indirect comparison of faricimab T&E in DME. The analyses indicate that faricimab T&E is associated with superior retinal drying along with numerically fewer injections compared to all other treatments given in flexible dosing regimens. It also showed superior visual acuity outcomes compared to ranibizumab and bevacizumab.

Evaluation of changes in epivascular glia before and after intravitreal dexamethasone implant: An OCT pilot study

PURPOSE

To detect changes in epivascular glia (EVG) in diabetic retinopathy after intravitreal dexamethasone implant using en face optical coherence tomography (enface OCT) and OCT angiography (OCTA) and to correlate improvements in functional and structural features.

METHODS

A total of 38 eyes of 38 patients were enroled in this prospective study. They were divided into two different study groups: the first group including 20 eyes with diabetic retinopathy type 1 complicated by macular oedema and the control group including 18 eyes from 18 healthy age-matched patients. The main outcome measures were: (i) differences at baseline in the foveal avascuar zone (FAZ) area in the study group versus control; (ii) the presence of epivascular glia in the study group versus control, (iii) differences at baseline between foveal macular thickness versus control; (iv) changes in foveal macular thickness, FAZ and epivascular glia in the study group before and after intravitreal dexamethasone implant.

RESULTS

At baseline FAZ area detected at OCTA was larger in the study group than in the control group, and epivascular glia was only detected in the study group. Three months after intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant in the study group the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved and central macular tickness reduced (P<0.0001). No significant differences were found in FAZ area while epivascular glia disappeared in 80% of the patients after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Glia activation due to retinal inflammation in diabetic retinopathy (DR) can be detected on en face-OCT as epivascular glia. Intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant improves both the anatomical and functional condition in the presence of these signs.

Aflibercept for long-term treatment of diabetic macular edema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy: a meta-analysis

Purpose

This meta-analysis compared the long-term (12 months or 24 months) efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) for diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).

Methods

We selected 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed after 2015 that had a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months of treatment and conducted a meta-analysis with Review Manager version 5.3. Visual acuity (VA), central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events were the outcomes selected for evaluation from the eligible studies.

Results

Based on 16 RCTs, we evaluated a total of 7125 patients. For PDR and severe DME with poor baseline vision, after a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months of treatment, the aflibercept treatment group obtained better VA improvement than the focal/grid laser photocoagulation treatment group (MD=13.30; 95%CI: 13.01~13.58; P<0.001) or other treatments (ranibizumab, focal/grid laser photocoagulation, PRP, et al.) group (MD=1.10; 95%CI: 1.05~1.16; P<0.001). In addition, the aflibercept treatment group got higher CST reduction than the focal/grid laser photocoagulation treatment (MD=-33.76; 95%CI: -45.53 ~ -21.99; P<0.001) or other treatments (ranibizumab, focal/grid laser photocoagulation, et al.) group (MD=-33.76; 95%CI: -45.53 ~ -21.99; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of ocular and non-ocular adverse events in each treatment group.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis showed that the advantages of IAI are obvious in the management of DME and PDR with poor baseline vision for long-term observation (a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months) with both VA improvement and CST reduction. Applied IAI separately trended to be more effective than panretinal photocoagulation separately in VA improvement for PDR. More parameters should be required to assess functional and anatomic outcomes.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of aflibercept therapy for diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose:

To assess the real-world efficacy and safety of aflibercept for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods:

A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases. Articles were included if participants had DME and received aflibercept treatment for a minimum of 52 ± 4 weeks. Primary outcomes included changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). A risk of bias assessment of studies was completed, pooled estimates were obtained, and a meta-regression was performed. Information on adverse events was collected.

Results:

The search yielded 2112 articles, of which 30 were included. Aflibercept was more effective than laser photocoagulation functionally (12-month BCVA-weighted mean difference [WMD] = 10.77 letters, P < 0.001; 24 months = 8.12 letters, P < 0.001) and anatomically (12-month CMT WMD = –114.12 μm, P < 0.001; 24 months = –90.4 μm, P = 0.004). Compared to bevacizumab, aflibercept was noninferior at improving BCVA at 12 months (WMD = 1.71 letters, P = 0.34) and 24 months (WMD = 1.58 letters, P = 0.083). One study found that aflibercept was more effective than bevacizumab anatomically at 1 and 2 years (P < 0.001 at 12 and 24 months). Compared to ranibizumab, aflibercept rendered a greater improvement in BCVA at 1 year (WMD = 1.76 letters, P = 0.001), but not 2 years (WMD = 1.66 letters, P = 0.072). CMT was not significantly different between both therapies at 12 months (WMD = −14.30 μm, P = 0.282) and 24 months (P = 0.08). One study reported greater functional improvement with aflibercept compared with dexamethasone (P = 0.004), but inferiority in reducing CMT (P < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that dosing schedule was found to impact outcomes at 12 and 24 months, while study design and sample size did not impact outcomes at 12 months. There were minimal safety concerns using aflibercept therapy.

Conclusions:

Aflibercept is a safe and effective therapy option for DME in the clinical setting, performing superiorly to laser photocoagulation. Evidence regarding comparisons with bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and dexamethasone is mixed and limited.

Significance of Hyperreflective Foci as an Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarker in Retinal Diseases: Characterization and Clinical Implications

Hyperreflective foci (HRF) is a term coined to depict hyperreflective dots or roundish lesions within retinal layers visualized through optical coherence tomography (OCT). Histopathological correlates of HRF are not univocal, spacing from migrating retinal pigment epithelium cells, lipid-laden macrophages, microglial cells, and extravasated proteinaceous or lipid material. Despite this, HRF can be considered OCT biomarkers for disease progression, treatment response, and prognosis in several retinal diseases, including diabetic macular edema, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), retinal vascular occlusions, and inherited retinal dystrophies. The structural features and topographic location of HRF guide the interpretation of their significance in different pathological conditions. The presence of HRF less than 30 μm with reflectivity comparable to the retinal nerve fiber layer in the absence of posterior shadowing in diabetic macular edema indicates an inflammatory phenotype with a better response to steroidal treatment. In AMD, HRF overlying drusen are associated with the development of macular neovascularization, while parafoveal drusen and HRF predispose to macular atrophy. Thus, HRF can be considered a key biomarker in several common retinal diseases. Their recognition and critical interpretation via multimodal imaging are vital to support clinical strategies and management.

Saudi Arabia Guidelines for diabetic macular edema: A consensus of the Saudi Retina Group

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and its complications are major public health burdens in Saudi Arabia. The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) is 19.7% and the prevalence of diabetic macular edema (DME) is 5.7% in Saudi Arabia. Diabetic macular edema is a vision-threatening complication of DR and a major cause of vision loss worldwide. Ocular treatments include retinal laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, intravitreal corticosteroids, and vitreoretinal surgery when necessary. The present consensus was developed as a part of the Saudi Retina Group's efforts to generate Saudi guidelines and consensus for the management of DME, including recommendations for its diagnosis, treatment, and best practice. The experts' panel stipulates that the treatment algorithm should be categorized according to the presence of central macula involvement. In patients with no central macular involvement, laser photocoagulation is recommended as the first-line option. Patients with central macular involvement and no recent history of cardiovascular (CVS) or cerebrovascular disorders can be offered anti-VEGF agents as the first-line option. In the case of non-responders (defined as an improvement of <20% in optical coherence tomography or a gain of fewer than 5 letters in vision), switching to another anti-VEGF agent or steroids should be considered after 3 injections. Within the class of steroids, dexamethasone implants are recommended as the first choice. In patients with a recent history of CVS events, the use of anti-VEGF agents is not recommended, regardless of their lens status. The experts' panel recommends that a future study be conducted to provide a cut-off point for early switching to steroid implants in pseudo-phakic eyes.

Managing Diabetic Macular Edema in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Strategies and Treatment Options

Purpose

This meta-analysis aims to summarize 12-month best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and to identify factors affecting treatment response using evidence generated from meta-regression.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life/observational studies that reported 12-month changes in BCVA in patients with DME on anti-VEGF or dexamethasone implant treatment in monotherapy. Study factors that were analyzed are baseline patient characteristics, study type, drug employed, number of injections and 12-month change in BCVA. Data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis with BCVA change as the main outcome. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the impact of multiple covariates.

Results

One-hundred-five heterogeneous study populations (45,032 eyes) were identified and included in the analysis. The use of anti-VEGFs and dexamethasone implant induced an overall increase of +8.13 ETDRS letters in BCVA at 12 months of follow-up. Meta-regression provided evidence that mean BCVA change using anti-VEGFs was not statistically higher for RCTs (p=0.35) compared to observational studies. Dexamethasone implant showed a trend for better results in observational studies over RCTs. Populations following a fixed aflibercept regimen performed better than those following a reactive treatment regimen. Mean BCVA gain was higher in younger populations (p<0.001), with lower baseline BCVA (p<0.0001) and longer diabetes duration (p<0.0001), receiving a higher number of injections (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

Intravitreal therapy with anti-VEGFs or dexamethasone implant produces a significant improvement in BCVA at 12 months in patients with DME. Meta-regression identified the modifiable covariates that can be targeted in order to maximize functional results.

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.

Glucose-Regulated Protein 78 in the Aqueous Humor of Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

PURPOSE

We identified the associations between levels of aqueous glucose-regulated protein 78 (GRP78) and systemic or ocular factors in patients with center-involving diabetic macular edema (CIDME).

METHODS

We measured the aqueous concentrations of GRP78, interleukin- (IL-) 1β, IL-2, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-17, placental growth factor, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). We explored the associations between aqueous GRP78 levels and those of other aqueous factors, optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings, and systemic parameters in CIDME patients.

RESULTS

In multivariate regression analysis, aqueous GRP78 levels were associated with aqueous VEGF levels (p = 0.007), length of EZ disruption (p = 0.007), length of EZ disruption (p = 0.007), length of EZ disruption (p = 0.007), length of EZ disruption (.

CONCLUSIONS

Aqueous GRP78 levels correlated with VEGF levels in the aqueous humor and EZ disruption on OCT. However, GRP78 levels were not associated with those of inflammatory biomarkers in the aqueous humor or OCT findings. Additionally, GRP78 could not serve as a biomarker to predict short-term prognosis of anti-VEGF agent.