WIDESPREAD MACULAR NEUROSENSORY DETACHMENT AFTER OCRIPLASMIN INTRAVITREAL INJECTION

The Effect of Intravitreal Ocriplasmin on Hue Discrimination

SIGNIFICANCE

We report 13 patients who received ocriplasmin for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion. Farnsworth-Munsell 100 (FM 100) hue test total error score (TES) increased from baseline to month 1, before recovering at year 1. Ocriplasmin may alter hue discrimination.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine whether intravitreal ocriplasmin affects hue discrimination.

METHODS

Thirteen patients with symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion received intravitreal ocriplasmin 125 μg. Patients underwent full ocular examination, optical coherence tomography, and FM 100 hue test at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year.

RESULTS

Mean age was 74.8 years. The median baseline FM 100 TES was similar in the injected and fellow eyes (272 vs. 252, respectively). Median TES in the injected eye increased from 272 to 348 at 1 week (median difference compared with baseline, +52.0; 98.8% confidence interval of difference, -64.0 to 184.0; P = .29), decreased to 324 at 1 month (median difference compared with baseline, -4.0; 98.8% confidence interval of difference, -44.0 to 256.0; P = .40), and decreased to 268 at 1 year (median difference compared with baseline, -108.0; 93.8% confidence interval of difference, -200.0 to 52.0; P = .19). Two patients (15.4%) had anatomic release of vitreomacular adhesion, occurring within 1 month of injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Ocriplasmin may alter hue discrimination, but larger studies are required to provide sufficient power to detect or exclude a statistically significant effect. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the duration of any effect.

Pharmacotherapy for Choroidal Neovascularization Due to Uncommon Causes

BACKGROUND

Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in adults is most commonly associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and pathologic myopia. Though less common, CNV can also develop from other conditions such as uveitis, central serous chorioretinopathy, angioid streaks, intraocular tumors, hereditary chorioretinal dystrophies, or can be idiopathic in origin. If left untreated, CNV may cause visual loss because of exudation of intraretinal or subretinal fluid, retinal or subretinal hemorrhage, or fibrosis involving the macula. It is well known that one of the main drivers of angiogenesis in CNV development is vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and therefore inhibitors of VEGF might be an effective treatment for CNV.

METHODS

The goal of this review is to provide an overview and summary in the use of pharmacotherapy especially anti-VEGF therapy, in the treatment of CNV due to uncommon causes.

RESULTS

Results from uncontrolled case series and controlled clinical trials have reported good efficacy and safety in using anti-VEGF agents including bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept and ziv-aflibercept in the treatment of CNV due to uncommon causes. Anti-VEGF has also been used in combination with verteporfin PDT and anti-inflammatory agents for treating CNV of various causes.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapy with anti-VEGF agents is an effective treatment option for CNV due to uncommon etiologies.

Intravitreal gas for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion: a synthesis of the literature

Symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion (sVMA) is defined as visual loss secondary to foveal damage from vitreomacular traction (VMT) and includes isolated VMT, impending macular hole (MH), and full-thickness MH with persisting vitreous attachment. Management options include pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), intravitreal ocriplasmin, intravitreal gas injection or observation. This synthesis of the literature aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of intravitreal gas for sVMA. Articles describing patients with VMT or MH treated with intravitreal expansile gas were selected by systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to September 2016. The main outcomes at 1 month and final review were logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA), anatomical success (absence of both VMT and MH, without PPV) and adverse events (AEs). The intended comparator was observation. Nine of 106 identified articles were eligible, and none were randomized controlled trials. The mean VA of 91 eyes improved from 0.55 (Snellen equivalent 6/21) to 0.48 (6/18) logMAR at 1 month and to 0.35 (6/13) logMAR at final review. The mean VA at final review, prior to a vitrectomy, was 0.42 (6/16). Anatomic success was 48% at 1 month and 57% at final review. The reported AEs comprised retinal detachment in two highly myopic eyes. Intravitreal gas injection can relieve sVMA. Larger controlled studies are needed to determine safety and efficacy relative to observation, ocriplasmin, or vitrectomy.

Ocriplasmin for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion (sVMA) is a recognised cause of visual loss and by tradition has been managed by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). A less invasive alternative to surgery in some people is enzymatic vitreolysis, using an intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ocriplasmin compared to no treatment, sham or placebo for the treatment of sVMA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 February 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 24 February 2017), PubMed (1946 to 24 February 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 24 February 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 24 February 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 24 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with sVMA. The intervention was intravitreal ocriplasmin 125 μg injection, and this was compared to placebo or sham injection (control). Placebo was defined as a single intravitreal injection of 0.10 mL placebo with identical drug vehicle diluted with saline. A sham injection was defined as the syringe hub or blunt needle touching the conjunctiva to simulate an injection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included four RCTs conducted in Europe and the USA with a total of 932 eyes of 932 participants. Participants were 18 to 97 years of age, with evidence of focal vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) on optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, with a best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/25 or worse in the study eye and 20/400 or better in the fellow eye. The interventions compared were intravitreal ocriplasmin versus sham (two RCTs) or placebo (two RCTs) injection. Both sham and placebo injection were classified as the control group. The main outcome measures were assessed at 28 days and six months. Overall, we judged the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. All four RCTs were sponsored by the manufacturers of ocriplasmin.Compared with control, ocriplasmin treatment was more likely to result in VMA release within 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 3.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.00 to 6.00; 859 eyes, 4 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 97/1000 eyes will have VMA release within 28 days without treatment. An additional 237 eyes will have VMA release within 28 days for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 96 more to 482 more).Treatment with ocriplasmin was also more likely to result in macular hole closure (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.51; 229 eyes, 3 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 123/1000 eyes with macular holes will have closure with no treatment. An additional 231 eyes will have macular hole closure for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 62 more to 556 more).Eyes receiving ocriplasmin were also more likely to have complete posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) within 28 days (RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.24; 689 eyes, 3 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 40/1000 eyes will have complete PVD within 28 days without treatment. An additional 78 eyes will have complete PVD within 28 days for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 16 more to 210 more).Eyes receiving ocriplasmin were more likely to achieve 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.53; 674 eyes, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 61/1000 eyes will have a 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months without treatment. An additional 58 eyes will have 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 9 more to 154 more).Receiving ocriplasmin also reduced the requirement for vitrectomy at six months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91; 689 eyes, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 265/1000 eyes will require vitrectomy at six months without treatment and 87 fewer eyes will require vitrectomy for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 24 fewer to 132 fewer).Treatment with ocriplasmin resulted in a greater improvement in validated Visual Function Questionnaire form score at six months (mean improvement difference 2.7 points, 95% CI 0.8 to 4.6; 652 eyes, 2 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence).Eyes receiving ocriplasmin were more likely to have an adverse event (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37, 909 eyes, 4 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 571/1000 eyes will have an adverse event with sham or placebo injection and 106 more eyes will have an adverse event for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 52 more to 212 more).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from a limited number of RCTs suggests that ocriplasmin is useful in the treatment of sVMA. However, up to 20% of eyes treated with ocriplasmin will still require additional treatment with PPV within six months. There were more ocular adverse events in eyes treated with ocriplasmin than control (sham or placebo injection) treatment. Many of these adverse events, particularly vitreous floaters and photopsia, are known to be associated with posterior vitreous detachment. At present however, there is minimal published long-term safety data on eyes treated with ocriplasmin. Further large RCTs comparing ocriplasmin with other management options for sVMA would be beneficial.