Treatment of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor-resistant diabetic macular edema with dexamethasone intravitreal implant

Clinical and optical coherence tomography biomarkers as prognostic factors in dexamethasone intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

Aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) 0.7 mg intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and serous retinal detachment (SRD), and to study the prognostic factors on a follow up of 12 months.

METHODS

Forty eyes of twenty- six patients with centre involving DME and SRD, who underwent DEX implant, were enrolled. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), Swept source OCT imaging and intraocular pressure were evaluated. Central macular thickness (CMT), vitreomacular adhesion (VMA), disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRILs), hyperreflective dots (HRD), SRD and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption were included in the analysis at baseline and 12 months after implant.

RESULTS

According to our parametric analysis, at 12 months, BVCA improvement from 48.6 ± 23.4 letters to 53.3 ± 24.5 letters was statistically significant (p = 0.04), CMT decreased from 460 ± 99.52 μm to 322.9 ± 117 μm. The presence at baseline of VMA (p = 0.01), EZ disruption (p = 0.03) and DRILs (p = 0.04), were associated with poor BCVA improvement at the end of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, OCT biomarkers can be considered significant prognostic factors for treatment outcome in patients with DME undergoing DEX intravitreal implant.

Optical coherence tomography angiography in diabetic retinopathy: A major review

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is characterized by retinal vasculopathy and is a leading cause of visual impairment. Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) is an innovative imaging technology that can detect various pathologies and quantifiable changes in retinal microvasculature. We briefly describe its functional principles and advantages over fluorescein angiography and perform a comprehensive review on its clinical applications in the screening or management of people with prediabetes, diabetes without clinical retinopathy (NDR), nonproliferative DR (NPDR), proliferative DR (PDR), and diabetic macular edema (DME). OCTA reveals early microvascular alterations in prediabetic and NDR eyes, which may coexist with sub-clinical neuroretinal dysfunction. Its applications in NPDR include measuring ischemia, detecting retinal neovascularization, and timing of early treatment through predicting the risk of retinopathy worsening or development of DME. In PDR, OCTA helps characterize the flow within neovascular complexes and evaluate their progression or regression in response to treatment. In eyes with DME, OCTA perfusion parameters may be of predictive value regarding the visual and anatomical gains associated with treatment. We further discussed the limitations of OCTA and the benefits of its incorporation into an updated DR severity scale.

Safety and effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with ocular toxocariasis

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant in patients with active uveitis due to ocular toxocariasis (OT).

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with OT were recruited in this retrospective study, including 51 patients in DEX group treated with intravitreal DEX implant and 27 patients in control group without intervention. The reduction of vitreous haze scores (VHS), the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, intraocular pressure (IOP) and cataract progression and formation were recorded at baseline (V0), 1 (V1), 3 (V3) and 6 months (V6) after treatment in DEX group, and V0 and V6 in control group.

RESULTS

There was no change in VHS and BCVA in control group between V0 and V6. Better VHS (p=0.001) and BCVA (p=0.022) was achieved in DEX group; the rate of VHS=0 was 0%, 67.4%, 42.9% and 44.9% at V0, V1, V3 and V6, respectively (p＜0.001), and the mean BCVA was improved from logMAR 1.5±0.9 to 1.2±0.9 at V1, 1.4±1.0 at V3 and 1.4±1.2 at V6. A favourable BCVA at V1 was associated with older age (p=0.038) and uninvolved macula (p=0.000) in DEX group. No significant difference in IOP elevation ≥10 mm Hg, cataract progression and formation between groups. More eyes needed retinal surgery in control group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to investigate use of intravitreal DEX implant in OT patients, which can efficiently reduce ocular inflammation and improve BCVA in macular uninvolved patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Naïve and Previously Treated Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

PURPOSE

To compare the direct costs associated with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX-i) in treatment-naïve and previously treated eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a real clinical setting.

METHODS

Retrospective and single-center study conducted in a real clinical scenario. Consecutive DME patients, either naïve or previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF), who received treatment with one or more DEX-i between May 2015 and December 2020, and who were followed-up for a minimum of 12 months, were included in the study. The cost analysis was performed from the perspective of the Andalusian Regional Healthcare Service. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the probability of achieving an improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≥ 15 ETDRS letters after 1 year of treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different improvements in BCVA was calculated.

RESULTS

Forty-nine eyes, twenty-eight (57.1%) eyes from the treatment-naïve group and twenty-one (42.9%) from the previously treated group, were included in the analysis. The total cost of one year of treatment was significantly lower in the treatment-naïve eyes than in the previously treated eyes [Hodges-Lehmann median difference: EUR 819.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): EUR 786.9 to EUR 1572.8; p < 0.0001]. The probability of achieving a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters at month 12 was significantly greater in the treatment-naïve group than in the previously treated group (rate difference: 0.321; 95% CI: 0.066 to 0.709; p = 0.0272). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio of achieving a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters at month 12 was 3.55 (95% CI: 1.09 to 11.58; p = 0.0309). In terms of ICER, the treatment-naïve group showed cost savings of EUR 7704.2 and EUR 5994.2 for achieving an improvement in BCVA ≥ 15 letters at month 12 and at any of the measured time points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX-i was found to be more cost-effective in treatment-naïve eyes than in those previously treated with anti-VEGF. Further studies are needed to determine the most cost-effective treatment based on patient profile.

Comparison of the efficacy of intravitreal Anti-VEGF versus intravitreal dexamethasone implant in treatment resistant diabetic Macular Edema

PURPOSE

Comparison of the efficacy of monthly anti-VEGF versus dexamethasone (DEX) implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) whose macular edema persists despite three doses of anti-VEGF therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 94 eyes of 94 patients with central macular thickness (CMT) > 300 μm despite previously receiving three doses of anti-VGEF (aflibercept or ranibizumab) injections between January 2014 and January 2019. The patients were divided into four groups. The first and second groups were the patients who received three more doses of initial anti-VGEF treatment after the initial anti-VGEF treatment. The third and fourth groups were patients switched to intravitreal dexamethasone implants. Patients were followed up every month for six months after the injection. The primary outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) at six months.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients included in the study was 64.64 ± 7; there were 58 men (61.7%) and 36 women (38.3%). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age, stage of retinopathy, and lens status. When CMT, BCVA, and IOP were assessed among the four groups at the end of the sixth month, no statistical difference between the groups was found. There was no need for medical intervention despite the statistically significant increase in IOP at the end of the sixth month compared to the third month in the dexamethasone implanted groups. In contrast to the decrease in CMT, which was statistically significant in all four groups at the end of the sixth month compared to the third month, the increase in BCVA was not statistically significant in any of the four groups at the end of the sixth month.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of our study, there is no superiority between continuing with existing anti-VEGF or switching to a dexamethasone implant after three doses of anti-VEGF.

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.

Effect of age on response to anti-VEGF agents in patients with center involving diabetic macular edema in a tertiary hospital

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study is to evaluate the effect of age as an independent factor for the response to two anti-VEGF agents, intravitreal ranibizumab and intravitreal aflibercept, among patients presented with central-involving DME in one tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

A total of 210 eyes of 121 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 61.2 ± 11.40 years, 50.4% were males. On characterizing groups based on age, the group of patients 60 years or younger are 48 patients (mean age 51.5 ± 9.92) and 52.1% of them are females. On the other hand, the group of patients older than 60 years are 73 patients (mean age 67.6 ± 6.85) and 52.1% of them are males. The two anti-VEGF agents used were aflibercept (88.1%) and ranibizumab (11.9%). The mean BCVA using ETDRS letter score improved after treatment (5.55238095 ± 15.9538695) and the mean change in CST decreased after treatment (- 106.91 ± 117.385 μm). Regarding age, we found that there is no significant difference in mean improvement of BCVA in patients according to their age (p = 0.5429), patients younger than 60 years old gained 5.64 ETDRS letter score and those older than 60 years old gained 5.49 improvement. Similarly, mean improvement in CST was different between patients younger than 60 years old (- 125.1 μm) and those who were older than 60 years old (- 94 μm) with a trend favoring younger patients but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Age is a clinically significant factor affecting the outcome of anti-VEGF injections. Patients' CST had a difference of > 30 μm on average between the two age groups favoring younger patients. However, it was not statistically significant, maybe a bigger sample size is needed to prove statistical significance.

Early-switch versus late-switch in patients with diabetic macular edema: a cost-effectiveness study

Background

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early- versus late-switch to the intravitreal-dexamethasone implant (DEX-i) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who did not adequately respond to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of a multicenter Clinical Data Registry. The registry included DME eyes who received 3 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (early-switch) or > 3 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (late-switch) before switching to DEX-i injections. The primary outcome was to estimate the incremental cost needed to obtain a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement ≥ 0.1 or a central-retinal thickness CRT ≤ 250 μm.

Results

The analysis included 108 eyes, 32 (29.6%) and 76 (70.4%) in the early- and late-switch groups, respectively. Early-switch strategy was associated with a cost saving of €3,057.8; 95% CI: €2,406.4–3,928.4, p < 0.0001). Regarding incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio, late-switch group was associated with an incremental cost of €25,735.2 and €13,533.2 for achieving a BCVA improvement ≥ 0.1 at month 12 and at any of the time-point measured, respectively. At month 12, 38 (35.2%) eyes achieved a BCVA improvement ≥ 0.1. At month 12, 52 (48.1) eyes had achieved a CRT ≤ 250 micron. As compared to baseline, the mean (95% CI) CRT reduction was − 163.1 (− 212.5 to − 113.7) µm and − 161.6 (− 183.8 to − 139.3) µm in the early-switch and late-switch groups, respectively, p = 0.9463.

Conclusions

In DME eyes, who did not adequately respond to anti-VEGF, switching to DEX-i at early stages (after the first 3-monthly injections) was found to be more cost-effective than extending the treatment to 6-monthly injections of anti-VEGF.

Evaluation of macular vascular density and foveal avascular zone changes by optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) after intravitreal dexamethasone implant in diabetic macular edema resistant to Anti-VEGF treatment

PURPOSE

Analysis of foveal avascular zone (FAZ) width and vascular density (VD) changes before and after intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) treatment in diabetic macular edema (DME) patients resistant to anti-VEGF treatment.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients who were regularly treated with at least 5 doses of intravitreal Anti-VEGF (bevacizumab, ranibizumab or aflibercept) for DME and whose DME continued were considered resistant to Anti-VEGF and were treated with IDI for the first time. Thirty-four eyes of 34 patients were included in the study. FAZ and VD values of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) scans at 0, 1 and 3 months were examined.

RESULTS

In OCT-A measurements, the pre-IDI superficial plexus FAZ (SFAZ) area (0.350 ± 0.120 mm²) was decreased at 1 (0.292 ± 0.132 mm², p < 0.001) and at 3 months (0.311 ± 0.153 mm², p = 0.017). Pre-IDI deep plexus FAZ (DFAZ) area (0.651 ± 0.313 mm²) was decreased at 1-month post-IDI (0.481 ± 0.247 mm², p < 0.001) while no significant change was observed at 3 months (0.575 ± 0.259 mm², p = 0.197). There was no significant change in the mean post-IDI total VD rate in both superficial (pre 39.2% ± 2.4; 1st month 39.2% ± 2.6%; 3rd month 39.5% ± 3.4%) and deep retinal plexus (pre 43.3% ± 2.6%; 1st month 43.5 ± 2.8%; 3rd month 43.6% ± 4.6%) (p = 0.408 and p = 0.607, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The study showed that IDI caused a significant decrease in the FAZ area without any change in VD in patients with DME resistant to the anti-VEGF agents. IDI might be related to a decrease in the macular ischemia secondary to diabetic retinopathy.

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.

Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Biomarkers Predict Anatomical Response to Bevacizumab in Diabetic Macular Edema

PURPOSE

To identify biomarkers that may predict an early anatomical response to the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) with intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) by means of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA).

METHODS

This study is a retrospective study of treatment-naïve patients with DME who underwent 6 × 6 mm OCTA imaging of the macula at baseline and after three monthly IVB injections. Thirty-six eyes of 23 patients were included. Eyes that demonstrated evidence of an early anatomical response, consisting of a >10% decrease in central macular thickness (CMT) (n = 18), were compared with those eyes that failed to show such an improvement (n = 18).

RESULTS

At baseline, early-response eyes had worse starting best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, LogMAR 0.84 ± 0.41 versus LogMAR 0.51 ± 0.15, p = 0.004) and a larger CMT (490 ± 135 µm versus 356 ± 33 µm, p = 0.001), but smaller foveal avascular zones (FAZ) (0.309 ± 0.098mm versus 0.413 ± 0.095 mm, p = 0.003) compared with eyes that proved refractory to three monthly injections of IVB. The vascular density (VD) in both the foveal superficial and deep capillary plexuses was significantly greater in eyes that showed an early-treatment response compared with eyes that were non-responders (24.86 ± 6.90% versus 19.98 ± 7.13%, p = 0.045 and 32.30 ± 4.88% versus 26.95 ± 7.25%, p = 0.028, respectively). Early-treatment response to IVB was predicted by starting CMT (r ²= 0.266, p = 0.001), FAZ size (r ²= 0.234, p = 0.003), and VD in the superficial parafovea (r ²= 0.217, p = 0.004) and deep fovea (r ²= 0.157, p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Projection-resolved OCTA may be useful in predicting an early anatomical response of DME to treatment with IVB.

Cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and triamcinolone for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema in Finland: A Markov-model

PURPOSE

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO), a complication of diabetes, causes vision loss and blindness. Corticosteroids are usually used as a second-line treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone implants compared to cheaper and more frequently applied triamcinolone injections.

METHODS

Markov-modelling, which incorporated both eyes, was used for economic evaluation. The model consisted of five health states based on visual acuity, illustrating the progression of DMO. A cycle length of five months was chosen for dexamethasone and four months for triamcinolone. Time horizons of two and five years were applied. Transition probabilities and health state utilities were sourced from previous studies. The perspective used in this analysis was the hospital perspective. The health care costs were acquired from Kuopio University Hospital in Finland.

RESULTS

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER with 3% discount rate was €56 591/QALY for a two-year follow-up and -€1 110 942/QALY for a five-year follow-up. In order to consider dexamethasone as cost-effective over a 2-year time horizon, the WTP needs to be around €55 000/QALY. Over the five-year follow-up, triamcinolone is clearly a dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses support the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone over a 2-year time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the sensitivity analyses support the results, dexamethasone would be a cost-effective treatment during the first two years with WTP threshold around €55 000/QALY, and triamcinolone would be a convenient treatment after that. This recommendation is in line with the guidelines of EURETINA.

Narrative review of artificial intelligence in diabetic macular edema: Diagnosis and predicting treatment response using optical coherence tomography

Diabetic macular edema (DME), being a frequent manifestation of DR, disrupts the retinal symmetry. This event is particularly triggered by vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF). Intravitreal injections of anti-VEGFs have been the most practiced treatment but an expensive option. A major challenge associated with this treatment is determining an optimal treatment regimen and differentiating patients who do not respond to anti-VEGF. As it has a significant burden for both the patient and the health care providers if the patient is not responding, any clinically acceptable method to predict the treatment outcomes holds huge value in the efficient management of DME. In such situations, artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML)-based algorithms come useful as they can analyze past clinical details of the patients and help clinicians to predict the patient's response to an anti-VEGF agent. The work presented here attempts to review the literature that is available from the peer research community to discuss solutions provided by AI/ML methodologies to tackle challenges in DME management. Lastly, a possibility for using two different types of data has been proposed, which is believed to be the key differentiators as compared to the similar and recent contributions from the peer research community.

Intravitreal corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different intravitreal corticosteroids for treating diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing different intravitreal corticosteroids for treating DME. The primary outcome was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) within 6 months after the first injection (short-term BCVA). Secondary outcomes were the change in BCVA over 1 year (long-term BCVA) and changes in central macular thickness (CMT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) within 6 months after the first injection. Network meta-analysis was performed to aggregate the results from the individual studies.

RESULTS

Nineteen trials involving 2839 eyes were included. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injections (≥ 8 mg and 4-8 mg), fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implants (0.5 µg/day) and dexamethasone (DEX) implants (700 µg) improved short-term BCVA (mean changes in logMAR [95% confidence interval] - 0.27 [- 0.40, - 0.15]; - 0.12 [- 0.18, - 0.06]; - 0.10 [- 0.21, - 0.01]; and - 0.06 [- 0.11, - 0.01]). Intravitreal TA injections (4 mg, multiple times), FA implants (0.5 µg/day and 0.2 µg/day), and DEX implants (350 µg) improved long-term BCVA (mean changes in logMAR [95% confidence interval] - 0.11 [- 0.21, - 0.02]; - 0.09 [- 0.15, - 0.03]; - 0.09 [- 0.14, - 0.02]; and - 0.04 [- 0.07, - 0.01]). All intravitreal corticosteroids reduced CMT, and different dosages of TA did not show significant differences in increasing IOP.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal corticosteroids effectively improved BCVA in DME patients, with higher dosages showing greater efficacies. TA was not inferior to FA or DEX and may be considered a low-cost alternative choice for DME patients. The long-term efficacy and safety of different corticosteroids deserve further investigation. Trial registration Prospectively registered: PROSPERO, CRD42020219870.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Significance of monitoring vascular endothelial growth factor, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and Interleukin-8 in diabetic macular edema towards early identification of nonresponders to ranibizumab therapy

Purpose:

Identification of nonresponders prior to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy would help in the judicious clinical management of diabetic macular edema (DME) patients. Thus, a systematic study was initiated to identify nonresponding DME patient population undergoing ranibizumab treatment to figure out additional inflammatory components that may contribute to their nonresponsiveness to anti-VEGF therapy.

Methods:

A total of 40 patients recruited to this investigator-initiated trial received intravitreal ranibizumab monthly for 3 months. The fourth- and fifth-month injections were according to PRN protocol and the sixth-month injection was mandatory. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and VEGF in aqueous humor were measured for all the patients. Patients were grouped into responders/nonresponders on the formulated criteria and the levels of key pro-inflammatory cytokines were also measured between the two groups at baseline, 2 month and 5 months using cytometric bead array (CBA).

Results:

Eleven patients were categorized (29.72%) as responders and 10 patients (27.02%) as nonresponders. Nonresponders showed poorer BCVA (P = 0.024, 0.045, and 0.048 for 4, 5, and 6 months) and higher CMT (P = 0.021, 0.0008 and <0.0001 for baseline, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months) compared to responders. The cytokines IL-8, MCP-1 were significantly up regulated (P = 0.0048 and 0.029 for MCP-1 and IL-8) in nonresponders.

Conclusion:

Elevated MCP-1 and IL-8 levels found in the nonresponders could be used as a prognostic marker to identify these groups of patients and can help in developing alternative treatment options along with anti-VEGF therapy.

Short-Term Outcomes of Refractory Diabetic Macular Edema Switch From Ranibizumab to Dexamethasone Implant and the Influential Factors: A Retrospective Real World Experience

Introduction: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implants in refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) treated by intravitreal ranibizumab.

Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed DME patients who received DEX implant treatment after being refractory to at least 3 monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injections. The main outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure (IOP).

Results: Twenty-nine eyes of 26 patients who had previously received an average of 8.1 ± 4.4 ranibizumab injections were included. Patients received between one and three DEX implants during 12.4 ± 7.4 months of follow-up. The mean final CRT significantly decreased from 384.4 ± 114.4 μm at baseline to 323.9 ± 77.7 μm (p = 0.0249). The mean final BCVA was 51.4 ± 21.3 letters, which was not significant compared to baseline (44.9 ± 30.2 letters, p = 0.1149). Mean IOP did not increase significantly. All patients tolerated the treatment well without serious adverse events. Higher baseline CRT and worse BCVA correlated with better therapeutic responses.

Conclusion: Switching to DEX implant is feasible and safe for treating patients of DME refractory to intravitreal ranibizumab in real world. Further larger-scale or multicenter studies would be conducted to explore different DEX treatment strategies for DME, such as first-line or early switch therapy, for better BCVA improvement.

Anti-VEGF-Resistant Retinal Diseases: A Review of the Latest Treatment Options

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy currently plays a central role in the treatment of numerous retinal diseases, most notably exudative age-related macular degeneration (eAMD), diabetic retinopathy and retinal vein occlusions. While offering significant functional and anatomic benefits in most patients, there exists a subset of 15–40% of eyes that fail to respond or only partially respond. For these cases, various treatment options have been explored with a range of outcomes. These options include steroid injections, laser treatment (both thermal therapy for retinal vascular diseases and photodynamic therapy for eAMD), abbreviated anti-VEGF treatment intervals, switching anti-VEGF agents and topical medications. In this article, we review the effectiveness of these treatment options along with a discussion of the current research into future directions for anti-VEGF-resistant eyes.

Association Between First- and Third-Month Responses to Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose:

This work examines the relationship between first- and third-month anatomical and visual response with antivascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular edema.

Methods:

We prospectively evaluated 58 eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema. Response was categorized upon the anatomical status after 3 monthly doses based on the reduction of central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline (≥20% or not). Correlation analysis between the anatomical response status, gained letters, optical coherence tomography morphological features, and other baseline characteristics were obtained.

Results:

Twenty-five eyes (43.1%) achieved an anatomical reduction of ≥20% at the third month. Those with a reduction of ≥20% of CMT had subretinal fluid ( P < .01), lower hemoglobin A1c values ( P < .01), lower proportion of intraretinal cysts ( P < .01), a greater anatomical reduction, and visual improvement at the first month of treatment. Multiple logistic regression analysis, showed that the change of CMT after the first injection was an independent predictor for the anatomical reduction of ≥20% after the loading phase ( P < .05). Best corrected visual acuity gain after the first dose showed a significant association with an improvement of ≥10 letters after the loading phase ( P < .05), but not for macular thickness reduction.

Conclusions:

First month anatomical reduction was associated with the anatomical response at 3 months ( P = .042) after monthly ranibizumab therapy. Visual improvement at the first month was predictive only for the visual outcome after the 3 monthly doses ( P = .032).

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.

Long-term results of a single injection of intravitreal dexamethasone as initial therapy in diabetic macular edema

Purpose:

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) as initial therapy.

Methods:

A hospital-based prospective, non-comparative case study of recently detected DME patients was conducted between July 2016 and December 2017, in which30 eyes of 30 patients were studied. Presenting vision, age, gender, duration of diabetes, general and ocular examination, intraocular pressure, indirect ophthalmoscopy, fundus fluorescein angiography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and blood sugar levels were noted. Patients with increased central macular thickness (CMT) received an intravitreal dexamethasone implant as initial therapy. All were followed up at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, and the findings were recorded and analyzed using SPSS software.

Results:

30 eyes of 30 patients were studied which included 22 males and 8 females. The mean age of presentation was 58.7 ± 4.45 years. The mean decrease in CMT following intravitreal dexamethasone was 269.27 ± 112.002, 253.5 ± 108.294, and 286.73 ± 143.395 μm at the end of 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, and the mean improvement in visual acuity (VA) was 2.27 ± 1.70 lines at 3 months, 2.27 ± 1.83 lines at 6 months, and 1.17 ± 2.00 lines at 12 months. Out of 30 cases, 4 had persistent DME and 6 had recurrence of DME at completion of 1 year of follow-up.

Conclusion:

Intravitreal dexamethasone as initial therapy in the treatment of DME is both safe and efficacious in the reduction of CMT and improvement of vision and can be considered as primary therapy for DME.

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

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

Implication of inflammatory cytokines in the aqueous humour for management of macular diseases

PURPOSE

To characterize profile of cytokines in aqueous humour of common macular diseases during intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy.

METHODS

Aqueous humour from eyes with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), diabetic macular oedema (DME), neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or pathologic myopia associated choroidal neovascularization (pmCNV) was sampled prior to 1st (n = 144) and 2nd (n = 48) intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy. Cytokines including vascular endothelium growth factor (VEGF), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) were quantitated and analysed along with retinal thickness data by optical coherence tomography (OCT) across two intravitreal injections and five macular disease types.

RESULTS

ICAM-1, IL-6 and VEGF are positively associated in the aqueous humour of naive eyes (r = 0.39-0.77, p = 0.018 to <0.0001). ICAM-1, VEGF and IL-6 were significantly higher in CRVO and DME while lowest in pmCNV (p < 0.0001). Reduction of central retinal thickness (CRT) as a favourable response to anti-VEGF therapy was in the order of CRVO, BRVO, DME and nAMD/pmCNV (p < 0.0001). The strongest predictor for favourable CRT reduction was baseline CRT (p < 0.0001) followed by baseline ICAM-1 (p = 0.04). After the 1st intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy, VEGF in aqueous humour lowered significantly but ICAM-1 and IL-6 levels remained unchanged. ICAM-1 was not predictive for CRT reduction following 2nd anti-VEGF therapy.

CONCLUSION

Rate of cytokine production is disease-dependent and higher in CRVO and DME. Anatomical response to intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy is disease-specific and best in RVO patients. A combination therapy using both anti-VEGF and anti-inflammatory therapeutics may be superior to single anti-VEGF therapy, at least for RVO and DME.

Real-world experience with pro re nata dosing of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for eyes with refractory diabetic macular edema

Aims: To evaluate treatment outcomes of pro re nata dosing of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in eyes with refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) amongst Indian subjects.

Methods and material: Retrospective, interventional case series. Medical records of 28 eyes of 23 patients with refractory DME who underwent intravitreal dexamethasone (700 µ) implant were reviewed.

Paired t-test was carried out to measure mean change in the parameters evaluated. Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact t-test were done to explore differences between groups receiving single or multiple injections.

Results: Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) at baseline were 0.85 (±0.44) and 612 µm (±123), respectively. Mean CMT over 6 months (measured monthly) following injection was 340±119 µm (p=0.001), 346±150 µm (p=0.02), 368±169 µm (p=0.02), 304±174 µm (p=0.001), 525±216 µm (p=0.94) and 532±201 µm (p=0.46), respectively. Mean BCVA at each month following injection was 0.68±0.36 (p=0.02), 0.75±0.45 (p=0.42), 0.55±0.40 (p=0.11), 0.63±0.40 (p=0.12), 0.78±0.30 (p=0.90) and 0.60±0.47 (p=0.92), respectively. Mean follow-up was 12 months (range: 6–33 months). Mean BCVA and CMT at mean 12 months were 0.72±0.46 (p=0.10) and 358 µm±189 (p=0.0001), respectively. Seven eyes had raised IOP; five eyes required cataract extraction.

Conclusions: Intravitreal dexamethasone implant is effective in treatment of refractory DME. However, its therapeutic effect lasts for about 4 months.

Deep learning-based single-shot prediction of differential effects of anti-VEGF treatment in patients with diabetic macular edema

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are widely regarded as the first line of therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME) but are not universally effective. An automatic method that can predict whether a patient is likely to respond to anti-VEGF therapy can avoid unnecessary trial and error treatment strategies and promote the selection of more effective first-line therapies. The objective of this study is to automatically predict the efficacy of anti-VEGF treatment of DME in individual patients based on optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. We performed a retrospective study of 127 subjects treated for DME with three consecutive injections of anti-VEGF agents. Patients' retinas were imaged using spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT) before and after anti-VEGF therapy, and the total retinal thicknesses before and after treatment were extracted from OCT B-scans. A novel deep convolutional neural network was designed and evaluated using pre-treatment OCT scans as input and differential retinal thickness as output, with 5-fold cross-validation. The group of patients responsive to anti-VEGF treatment was defined as those with at least a 10% reduction in retinal thickness following treatment. The predictive performance of the system was evaluated by calculating the precision, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The algorithm achieved an average AUC of 0.866 in discriminating responsive from non-responsive patients, with an average precision, sensitivity, and specificity of 85.5%, 80.1%, and 85.0%, respectively. Classification precision was significantly higher when differentiating between very responsive and very unresponsive patients. The proposed automatic algorithm accurately predicts the response to anti-VEGF treatment in DME patients based on OCT images. This pilot study is a critical step toward using non-invasive imaging and automated analysis to select the most effective therapy for a patient's specific disease condition.

Quantitative Analysis of Retinal Microvascular Perfusion and Novel Biomarkers of the Treatment Response in Diabetic Macular Edema

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the changes of retinal microvascular parameters using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) between diabetes macular edema (DME) and controls. We assessed the changes between the baseline microvascular parameters and final treatment response in patients with DME, initially treated with intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant followed by antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections on an as-needed basis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 90 DME patients and 24 healthy control subjects. All subjects had their best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) measured at baseline and after 12 months. Vessel density (VD) in the superficial capillary plexus (SCP) and deep capillary plexus (DCP) and the deep/superficial flow ratio at baseline were analyzed. A subgroup analysis was used to compare the treatment response. A poor-response group was defined by five or more retreatments at 12 months.

RESULTS

BCVA and CMT showed a significant improvement at 12 months (all p < 0.001). The VD in the whole and parafoveal areas of the DCP was significantly reduced in DME patients compared to that in controls (all p < 0.05). The DCP/SCP flow ratio was also significantly reduced in the DME group (1.08 ± 0.03 vs. 1.05 ± 0.02, p = 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the VD in the foveal and whole DCP areas was significantly lower in the poor-response group than that in the good-response group (p = 0.043 and p = 0.048, respectively). The DCP/SCP flow ratio was also significantly lower in the poor-response group (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

DME correlated with significant retinal microvascular impairment in the DCP. A decreased DCP/SCP flow ratio was observed in patients with DME that exhibited a poor treatment response. Retinal microvascular parameters could predict the treatment response in DME and help optimize clinical outcomes.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in patients not previously treated with any intravitreal drug: a prospective 12-month follow-up study

Objective: To evaluate the mid-long-term efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant (Ozurdex¹) in naïve patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods: Prospective and single-center study conducted on consecutive patients with a diagnosis of DME, who received a DEX implant and were followed up for at least 12 months. The main outcomes measurements were the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and in foveal thickness (FT) as compared to the baseline values.Results: Of the 84 screened patients 50 were included in the study. The BCVA significantly improved from 52.4 (20.4) letters at baseline to 62.6 (15.6), 61.2 (18.4), 61.6 (18.6), 60.6 (19.0), and 60.6 (18.8) at 2, 4, 6, 12 months and end of follow-up period, respectively (repeated measures ANOVA and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction; p = .0008). At the end of the follow-up period, a gain of BCVA of ≥5, ≥10, and ≥15 letters were observed in 26 (52.0%), 18 (36.0%), and 16 (32.0%) patients, respectively. The mean FT was significantly reduced from 446.0 (139.9) µm at baseline to 327.2 (103.6) at the end of follow-up (repeated measures ANOVA and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction; p = .0008). During the study follow-up, the patients receive a mean of 3.4 (2.9-3.9) implants. Of the 32 phakic eyes at baseline, 17 (53.1%) either developed new lens opacity or progression of an existing opacity.Conclusion: In eyes with DME not previously treated with intravitreal drugs, DEX implants provide meaningful functional and anatomical benefits, and these results are sustained mid-long-term.

Pro Re Nata Dexamethasone Implant for Treatment-Naive Phakic Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema: A Prospective Study

PURPOSE

To determine the utility and safety of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant as primary therapy (pro re nata [PRN]) in phakic eyes with early treatment-naive diabetic macular edema (DME).

DESIGN

Prospective, case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with diabetes mellitus whose eyes were phakic and had early treatment-naive clinically significant macular edema.

METHODS

Patients whose eyes were phakic with DME (<3 months) were included if the central subfield thickness (CST) was >300 μm and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) between 0.3 and 1.0 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution. A comprehensive ocular and systemic examination was performed and the implant injected PRN using a standardized technique. Patients had follow-up at least monthly for 2 years. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze categorical variables in terms of size and proportions. The repeated-measures analysis of variance test was used to determine the change in CDVA, CST, intraocular pressure, and hard exudate area over time.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the determination of the change in CDVA at month 24 from baseline. Secondary outcome measures included determining the change in CST, median number of injections, proportion gaining 15 letters, and complications, if any.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients (85 males) were included. At 2 years, mean CDVA improved from 0.62 to 0.4 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution, and median CST improved from 397 to 236 μm. The median number of injections was 1.6. Cataract developed in 3 patients with a clear lens, and 31 patients required topical antiglaucoma therapy. Proliferative disease developed in 4 patients, which was managed with panretinal photocoagulation. None of the study patients required rescue therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with treatment-naive phakic eyes who had DME, primary therapy with the intravitreal dexamethasone implant PRN (for 2 years) resulted in significantly improved mean CDVA. A fifth of the patients required control of intraocular pressure, and new-onset cataract developed in 3 of 153 patients.

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

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

Efficacy of vitrectomy combined with an intraoperative dexamethasone implant in refractory diabetic macular edema

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vitrectomy combined with an intraoperative dexamethasone (Ozurdex^®) implant in refractory diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed at our institution as having DME refractory to more than 6 months of non-surgical treatment and underwent intravitreal dexamethasone implantation combined with vitrectomy. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure at the initial visit and 1, 3, 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-two eyes (22 patients) were included in this study. The mean preoperative BCVA was 0.68 and the mean CMT was 470.80 µm. The total number of the previous injections was 5.1 ± 1.6. The mean BCVA was significantly improved at all visits, and the mean CMT was also significantly reduced (p < 0.05). Sixteen eyes (73%) did not need additional implantations during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Vitrectomy combined with an intraoperative dexamethasone (Ozurdex) implant was an effective and safe treatment option in patients with refractory DME.

Dexamethasone implant in the management of diabetic macular edema from clinician's perspective

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of characteristics and principles of use of dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). The condensed information about patient selection, dosing, and postinjection management is provided to make the clinician’s decisions easier in real-life practice. DME is a common complication of diabetes and the leading cause of visual loss in the working-age population. Inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis of DME. The breakdown of the blood–retinal barrier involves the expression of inflammatory cytokines and growth factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Steroids have proved to be effective in the treatment of DME by blocking the production of VEGF and other inflammatory cytokines, by inhibiting leukostasis, and by enhancing the barrier function of vascular endothelial cell tight junctions. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of DME resistant to anti-VEGF therapy and in vitrectomized eyes. Data from clinical trials suggest that dexamethasone implant can be considered as first-line treatment in pseudophakic eyes. Dexamethasone implant is also the first-line therapy in patients not suited for anti-VEGF therapy, pregnant women, and patients unable to return for frequent monitoring. It has been shown that the maximum effect of dexamethasone implant on visual gain and retinal thickness occurs approximately 2 months after injection. Various treatment regimens are used in real-life situations, and reported reinjection intervals were usually <6 months. The number of retreatments needed decreased over time. Treatment algorithms should be personalized. Postinjection management and follow-up should consider potential adverse events such as intraocular pressure elevation and cataract.

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.

Intravitreal corticosteroid implant vs intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of macular edema: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid implant and intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of macular edema (ME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implant with ranibizumab in patients with ME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze the data, and the modified Jadad assessment tool was used to access the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our analysis. The types of causes of ME include central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), and diabetic retinopathy (DR). The ranibizumab treatment group had significantly better BCVA compared with the corticosteroid treatment group (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.80; 95% CI -1.08, -0.53; P<0.00001). The ranibizumab treatment group also had higher CST reduction compared with the corticosteroid treatment group, and there was a significant difference (weighted mean difference [WMD] 167.58; 95% CI 125.21-209.95; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference in serious adverse effects between the two groups (SMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.69, 4.05; P=0.26). However, the use of corticosteroid implant had a higher risk of intraocular pressure (IOP) (OR 6.88; 95% CI 4.53-10.44; P<0.00001) elevation and cataract (OR 3.98; 95% CI 1.89-8.37; P=0.0003) than ranibizumab treatment and fewer injections.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ranibizumab, corticosteroid implant did not have greater improved BCVA, but corticosteroid implant had less CST reduction. The advantages of corticosteroids are fewer injections, while the advantages of ranibizumab include fewer side effects.

Management of diabetic macular edema patients in clinical practice in Spain

Purpose:

Diabetic macular edema is the main cause of blindness in diabetic patients. Vascular endothelial growth factor is involved in diabetic macular edema pathogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors are an important option in diabetic macular edema therapy. This survey investigates actual clinical practice in diabetic macular edema in Spain.

Methods:

An expert advisory panel of 17 Spanish ophthalmologists developed a 30-item anonymous questionnaire about diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up in diabetic macular edema. A total of 137 ophthalmologists from 10 Spanish regions completed the questionnaire online.

Results:

Almost all of the respondents (99.3%) record the measured visual acuity and perform biomicroscopic anterior (94.9%) and posterior (91.2%) segment examinations. Similarly, 100% of responding ophthalmologists always/almost always or frequently perform optical coherence tomography. Most respondents (65%) always/almost always or frequently perform a retinography. More than 50% rarely perform fluorescein angiography. Nearly, all (96.4%) of the specialists responded that, in center-involved diabetic macular edema, the first treatment is an anti–vascular endothelial growth factor drug. For corticosteroids, the first choice of most respondents (91.2%) was the dexamethasone implant. In the follow-up, almost all (96.4%) specialists record the measured visual acuity and most also perform biomicroscopic anterior (82.5%) and posterior (83.2%) segment examination.

Conclusion:

This survey shows the actual clinical practice in diabetic macular edema in Spain, finding that anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is frequently used, and that diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up examinations used by specialists are homogeneous and according to diabetic macular edema guidelines.

Pharmacology of Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment for inflammatory diseases almost 80 years after their first clinical use. Topical ophthalmic formulations of corticosteroids have been available to treat disease of the anterior segment of the eye, but the approval of corticosteroids to treat vitreoretinal diseases, including vein occlusion, diabetic macular edema, and uveitis, has occurred only recently. Although most diseases respond to corticosteroid therapy, some patients are resistant to this therapy and side effects, including cataract and elevated intraocular pressure, can limit their use. The purpose of this review is to detail the basic science of corticosteroids focusing on differences in potency, drug delivery, pharmacokinetics, and gene activation, and how these differences affect safety and efficacy in the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Methods

A review was conducted of basic science and pharmacology of the corticosteroids used to treat diabetic macular edema.

Results

Clinically available corticosteroids not only have differing potency and pharmacokinetics, but also activate different genes in different target tissues. These differences are associated with distinct efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and safety profiles. It is important to understand these differences in selecting corticosteroids to treat diabetic macular edema.

Conclusions

Recent advances in our understanding of the basic science of corticosteroids can explain clinical differences in these agents regarding efficacy and safety. Importantly, this understanding should allow the future discovery of additional novel corticosteroids to treat diabetic macular edema.

INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANTATION IN PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGICAL DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA HAVING INSUFFICIENT RESPONSE TO RANIBIZUMAB

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a single intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant in resistant diabetic macular edema that have different morphological types.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 31 patients (35 eyes) with persistent diabetic macular edema, who underwent a single injection of dexamethasone implant, were evaluated. Diabetic macular edema was classified into three types: diffuse retinal thickening (n = 10), cystoid macular edema (n = 13), and serous retinal detachment (n = 12). Primary outcome measures were best corrected visual acuity, and central macular thickness.

RESULTS

The three subgroups were similar in terms of age and gender (P > 0.05). Total duration of diabetes was significantly less in the serous retinal detachment subgroup (P = 0.01). There were no differences in the best corrected visual acuity between the three subgroups until the sixth month. However, the best corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the diffuse retinal thickness subgroup at the sixth month (P = 0.008). Regarding the central macular thickness values, it was statistically better in serous retinal detachment than in diffuse retinal thickening and cystoid macular edema subgroups till the sixth month (P = 0.001). However, at the sixth month, there was not any statistical difference between subgroups regarding central macular thickness values. Antiglaucomatous agents were required in 4 (11.4%) patients throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

Treatment algorithms should differ according to the morphology of diabetic macular edema; however, more data is needed to give specific recommendations.

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.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implants for diabetic macular edema

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Totally 113 eyes of 84 patients were divided in three subgroups: naive patients (n=11), pseudophakic patients (n=72) and phakic patients (n=30). Inclusive criterion comprised adult diabetic patients with central fovea thickening and impaired visual acuity resulting from DME for whom previous standard treatments showed no improvement in both central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after at least 3mo of treatment. Outcome data were obtained from patient visits at baseline and at months 1, 3, 5, 9 and 12 after the first DEX implant injection. At each of these visits, patients underwent measurement of BCVA, a complete eye examination and measurement of CMT and macular volume (MV) carried out with optical coherence tomography (OCT) images.

RESULTS

Seventy-three eyes (64.5%) received a single implant, 30 (26.5%) received two implants and 10 (9%) received three implants. At baseline, average in BCVA, CMT and MV were 43.5±20.8, 462.8±145 and 12.6±2.5 respectively. These values improved significantly at 1mo (BCVA: 47.2±19.5, CMT: 339.6±120, MV: 11.11±1.4) and 3mo (BCVA: 53.2±18.1, CMT: 353.8±141, MV: 11.3±1.3) (P≤0.05). At 5mo (BCVA: 50.9±19.8, CMT: 425±150, MV: 12.27±2.3), 9mo (BCVA: 48.4±17.6, CMT: 445.5±170, MV: 12.5±2.3) and 12mo (BCVA: 47.7±18.8, CMT: 413.2±149, MV: 12.03±2.5), improvements in the three parameters were no longer statistically significant and decreased progressively but did not reach baseline values. There were no clinical differences between subgroups. Ocular complications were minimal.

CONCLUSION

Patients with DEX implants show maximum efficacy at 3mo which then declined progressively, but is still better than baseline values at the end of follow-up.

Switching Anti-VEGF Drugs in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

Since their introduction in the late 2000s, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have become the first-line choice for center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME). Even with its proven effectiveness, there are still cases that do not respond satisfactorily. In those cases, a treatment option is to change to another anti-VEGF drug. In this paper, the authors review studies on switching between different anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of persistent DME. An extensive bibliographic review was done using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Fourteen studies published from March 2010 to April 2017 reporting switching from anti-VEGF drugs in DME treatment were included. All reported good anatomical results after conversion; however, visual acuity outcomes showed great variability between publications. Therefore, switching to other anti-VEGFs in patients with DME not responding to previous anti-VEGF therapy may be an option, but the results are still not well-known due to a lack of randomized clinical trials. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2017;48:748-754.].

Correlation between Deep Capillary Plexus Perfusion and Long-Term Photoreceptor Recovery after Diabetic Macular Edema Treatment

PURPOSE

To determine the association between baseline deep capillary plexus (DCP) integrity and long-term photoreceptor recovery as well as visual outcome after treatment in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

DESIGN

Retrospective, interventional case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-seven eyes with DME that resolved successfully with initial treatment (baseline) and that remained edema free for 12 months after the initial DME resolution.

METHODS

Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), spectral-domain (SD) OCT, and OCT angiography findings were collected at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after baseline. Correlations were analyzed between DCP integrity parameters (vascular flow density [VD] and area of the foveal avascular zone [FAZ]) and photoreceptor integrity parameters (ellipsoid zone [EZ] and external limiting membrane [ELM] integrity). Multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to identify the baseline predictors for photoreceptor recovery and visual improvement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The association between baseline DCP integrity and recovery of photoreceptor integrity over 12 months.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean central retinal thickness was 306.1±51.8 μm. The mean baseline DCP VD and FAZ were 14.4±5.2% and 0.71±0.36 mm², and the mean baseline EZ and ELM integrity were 57.2±26.1% and 76.4±19.8%, respectively. Ellipsoid zone and ELM integrity recovered significantly at 12 months from baseline (both P < 0.001). The degree of EZ and ELM integrity recovery was well correlated with the baseline DCP VD (P = 0.004 and P = 0.009, respectively) and DCP FAZ (P = 0.007 and P = 0.009, respectively). Moreover, the mean change in BCVA from baseline to 12 months was significantly greater with higher baseline DCP VD (P = 0.003) and smaller DCP FAZ (P = 0.042). Compared with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) nonresponders, anti-VEGF responders had higher baseline DCP integrity and a significantly greater degree of photoreceptor recovery at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The degree of DCP preservation at the time of initial DME resolution is correlated closely with long-term recovery of photoreceptor integrity and visual outcome in patients with resolved DME.

Diabetic macular edema in proliferative stage treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent and triamcinolone acetonide by laser-based strategies

AIM

To appraise the effect of treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) in proliferative stage with sufficient panrentinal photocoagulation (PRP) therapy and intravitreal injections (IV) Conbercept and posterior subtenon's triamcinolone acetonide (STTA) sequential therapy.

METHODS

This prospective clinical randomized controlled trial of cross-over design was conducted in three phases. The participants included cases of DME in proliferative stage. They were divided into two groups and treated with PRP before enrollment. Group A were treated with IV-Conbercept 0.5 mg for one month in the 1^st phase. Group B were treated with STTA 40 mg (twice per two weeks). The interventions were exchanged in the second phase (2mo) between the two groups. In the third phase (3-6mo) no other treatment was given. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) measured by OCT and complications were compared.

RESULTS

After phase I: in Group A, BCVA improved from 0.201±0.17 to 0.37±0.24 (F=5.88, P=0.004). CMT changed from 449±155.10 to 304.1±84.70 µm (F=14.9, P<0.01). In Group B, BCVA changed from 0.195±0.19 to 0.26±0.20 (F=0.76, P=0.41) while CMT changed from 463.82±152.92 to 366.00±115.40 µm (F=3.70, P<0.03). The improvement of BCVA was better in Group A (P<0.05). After phase II: in Group A, BCVA raised to 0.47±0.27 (F=0.26, P<0.01), CMT reduced to 260.67±62.97 µm (F=-188.3, P<0.01); in Group B, BCVA raised to 0.51±0.26 (F=0.31, P<0.01), CMT reduced to 261.93±50.15 µm (F=-201.9, P<0.01). But there were no difference between two groups (P>0.05). After phase III: in Group A, BCVA maintained 0.42±0.25 (F=0.22, P=0.001), CMT maintained 267.8±58.34 µm, (F=-0.27, P<0.01); in Group B, BCVA was 0.47±0.25 (F=-0.27, P<0.01), CMT was 272.71±49.16 µm (F=-191.1, P<0.01). No serious complications happened in all phases.

CONCLUSION

PRP+Conbercept is better than PRP+STTA in DME with proliferative stage but PRP+Conbercept+STTA sequential therapy may be a wiser choice for persistent effectiveness on anatomical as well as functional status.

Use of Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema Who Have a Suboptimal Response to Anti-VEGF: Recommendations of an Expert Panel

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Guidance on the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) is lacking. This study aimed to develop a clinically recommended treatment paradigm for DME with emphasis on the role of corticosteroids.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An expert panel of nine retinal specialists in the United States developed consensus recommendations for DME treatment through a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The panelists typically use intravitreal injections of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antagonists as first-line treatment of DME and switch patients with an inadequate response to anti-VEGF therapy (failure of best-corrected visual acuity to improve to 20/40 or better because of edema after three to six monthly injections, or a less-than-50% reduction in excess macular thickness after three to four monthly injections) to intravitreal corticosteroid treatment.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal corticosteroids have a potentially useful role in the treatment of patients with DME who have an inadequate response to intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2017;48:291-301.].