A prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing a combination of repeated intravitreal Ozurdex and macular laser therapy versus macular laser only in centre-involving diabetic macular oedema (OZLASE study)

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.

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

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

Safety and Efficacy of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Given Either First-Line or Second-Line in Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the leading cause of severe visual impairment among the working-age population. Several therapeutic options are available for the management of DME, including intravitreal corticosteroids. They have been traditionally used as second-line treatment, due to the risk of intraocular pressure increase and cataract-related adverse events. However, attention has recently been focused on the primary or early use of intravitreal corticosteroids, due to growing evidence of the crucial role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME. Furthermore, intravitreal steroid implants offer the additional advantage of a longer duration of action compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGF). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, with a specific focus on clinical scenarios in which it might be considered or even preferred as first-line treatment option by adequate selection of patients, considering both advantages and possible adverse events. Patients with contraindications to anti-VEGF, DME with high inflammatory OCT biomarkers, pseudophakic patients and phakic patients' candidates to cataract surgery as well as vitrectomized eyes may all benefit from first-line DEX implant. Additionally, DME not responders to anti-VEGF should be considered for a switch to DEX implant and a combination therapy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF could be a valid option in severe and persistent DME.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02731911.

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.

Biologic Therapy and Treatment Options in Diabetic Retinopathy with Diabetic Macular Edema

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema can be a potentially sightthreatening disease if not treated correctly. It is directly correlated to the duration of diabetes and how well managed the patients' diabetes is. In the last 15 years, the treatment of diabetic eye disease has taken a quantum leap in methodology due to the group of biological agents named antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). The introduction of the first biological agent has revolutionized the treatment, not only in diabetic eye disease but also across most inflammatory eye diseases, causing leakage of fluid from the blood vessels i.e., in age-related macular degeneration. The availability of these biological agents, despite their considerable costs, have significantly improved the outcomes measured in visual acuity compared to more traditional treatments of diabetic retinopathy in the form of sole laser treatment and glycemic control. The agents demonstrate a favorable safety profile, but if the rarest and most severe side effects occur, there is a potential total loss of vision. This review aims to make an overview of the current pharmaceutical therapeutic options in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. This includes laser therapy, intravitreal steroids, and a primary focus on intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factors.

Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a chronic condition with a multifactorial pathogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and several inflammatory mediators are upregulated in eyes with DME. VEGF inhibitors and corticosteroids have all been used successfully in the management of DME. Currently available corticosteroids include triamcinolone acetonide (TA), the dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, and the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant. The response to treatment can vary substantially with each treatment modality. Some cases of DME are VEGF driven, and in others, inflammation plays a key role. Chronicity appears to favor corticosteroid treatment. There are no clear guidelines to guide switching from an anti-VEGF to a corticosteroid. Combination therapy of an anti-VEGF drug and a corticosteroid does not appear to provide additional benefit over monotherapy with either drug. The main advantage of corticosteroids over VEGF inhibitors is their longer duration of action. Vitrectomy does not affect the pharmacokinetics of the corticosteroid implants. Common adverse events of corticosteroids include cataract formation, cataract progression, and ocular hypertension. TA may cause a sterile endophthalmitis and pseudoendophthalmitis. Migration of the intravitreal DEX and FA implants into the anterior chamber can be problematic. Because of their less favorable safety profile, corticosteroids are generally used as a second-line treatment for DME. Advantages of using an intravitreal corticosteroid implant include the reduction of treatment burden and predictable pharmacokinetics even in vitrectomized eyes. Pseudophakic eyes, previously vitrectomized eyes and eyes with long-standing DME, particularly of patients who have difficulty in maintaining a monthly appointment, may benefit from primary treatment with a corticosteroid intravitreal implant.

Identification of time point to best define 'sub-optimal response' following intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for diabetic macular edema based on real-life data

PurposeTo determine the average time-point at which it is best to define 'sub-optimal response' after ranibizumab treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) based on the data obtained from real-life clinical practice.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, 322 consecutive treatment naïve eyes with DME were treated with three loading doses of intravitreal ranibizumab followed by re-treatment based on decision of the treating physician on a case-by-case basis. The demographic data, clinic-based visual acuity measurements and central subfield thickness (CST) assessed on spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) were evaluated at baseline (month 0), 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months.ResultsOn an average, the improvement in visual acuity and CST was first seen after the loading dose. However, the maximal response in terms of proportion of patients with improvement in visual acuity and/ or CST in this cohort was observed at 12 months. Patients who presented with low visual acuity at baseline (<37 ETDRS letters) were unlikely to attain driving vision with ranibizumab therapy.ConclusionsOn an average, a 'sub-optimal response' after ranibizumab therapy is best defined at month 12 as patients may continue to improve with treatment.

Report of 12-months efficacy and safety of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant for the treatment of chronic diabetic macular oedema: a real-world result in the United Kingdom

Purpose

To report the 12-months visual and anatomical outcomes of chronic diabetic macular oedema (DMO) treated with ILUVIEN in a real-world clinical practice in a single tertiary referral centre.

Method

Retrospective data collection and analysis of consecutive 28 eyes of 23 diabetic patients received ILUVIEN implant for refractory DMO. Standard assessment included visual acuity (VA), central retinal thickness (CRT), slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and Goldmann tonometry for intraocular pressure (IOP) at 1, 6, and 12 months.

Results

Baseline mean VA was 47 (SD 18) letters improved to 55 (SD 17) letters (P=0.004) at 12 months. VA was improved in 16 eyes (57%), stabilised in 9 eyes (32%), and decreased in 3 eyes (11%). Seven eyes (25%) gained ≥15 letters, and 10 eyes (36%) gained >10 letters from baseline. The percentage of eyes achieved driving vision (≥70 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters) was doubled from baseline 18 to 36% at 6 months and 32% at 12 months. Mean CRT decreased by 198 μm from baseline 494 μm (SD 191) to 296 μm (SD 121) at 12 months (P<0.001). Two eyes received additional anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections after 10 months. Complications: Raised IOP in three eyes (11%) controlled with IOP-lowering drops, vitreous haemorrhage in one eye and one endophthalmitis (1 year vision improved to 6/24).

Conclusion

Our real-world results show that the visual and the anatomical improvements achieved by a single ILUVIEN implant injection were maintained up to 12 months with minimal adjunctive therapy. IOP monitoring remains essential in ILUVIEN patients, although our study shows a relatively low risk of IOP elevation post ILUVIEN injection, even in existing controlled ocular hypertension. Our results demonstrate that ILUVIEN is an effective long-term option in treating chronic refractory DMO.

Efficacy of 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN) in eyes with diabetic macular edema and prior vitrectomy

Purpose

Limited data are available on the efficacy of the 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in eyes with prior vitrectomy. Here, we present a collection of 26 vitrectomized eyes treated with the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant.

Methods

Retrospective study involving six centers from four European countries analyzing the safety and efficacy data from patients (26 eyes from 25 patients) with DME and a prior vitrectomy that had been treated with one 0.2 μg/day FAc implant.

Results

Prior intravitreal therapies included anti-VEGF (mean, 3.8 injections) and steroids (mean, 1.9 injections). Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) was performed in these eyes primarily for abnormalities of vitreoretinal interface, followed by proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhage. The 0.2 μg/day FAc implant was injected 24.2 months, on average, after PPV and the mean duration of follow-up after injection was 255 days (range, 90 to 759 days). The mean change in BCVA was +11.7 ETDRS letters (range, −19 to +40 letters; P<0.0004) and the mean change in central foveal thickness (CFT) was −233.5 μm (range, −678 to 274 μm; P<0.0001). The mean change in IOP from baseline at the last visit was +1.4 mm Hg (range, −9 to +8 mm Hg; P=0.0090). Eight eyes initiated or continued IOP lowering medications.

Conclusions

These data suggest the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant is effective in vitrectomized patients with an acceptable safety profile. Further studies are still required to confirm the current findings and to assess the effect of the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant over a longer period of follow-up.

Elevated Intraocular Pressure After Intravitreal Steroid Injection in Diabetic Macular Edema: Monitoring and Management

INTRODUCTION

With the increasing use of intravitreal administration of corticosteroids in macular edema, steroid-induced intraocular pressure (IOP) rise is becoming an emergent issue. However, for patients in whom intravitreal steroids are indicated, there are no specific recommendations for IOP monitoring and management after intravitreal administration of corticosteroids.

METHOD

An expert panel of European ophthalmologists reviewed evidence on corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation. The objective of the panel was to propose an algorithm based on available literature and their own experience for the monitoring and management of corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation, with a focus on diabetic patients.

RESULTS

Data from trials including diabetic patients with a rise of IOP after intravitreal steroid administration indicate that IOP-lowering medical treatment is sufficient for a large majority of patients; only a small percentage underwent laser trabeculoplasty or filtering filtration surgery. A 2-step algorithm is proposed that is based on the basal value of IOP and evidence for glaucoma. The first step is a risk stratification before treatment. Patients normotensive at baseline (IOP ≤ 21 mmHg), do not require additional baseline diagnostic tests. However, patients with baseline ocular hypertension (OHT) (IOP > 21 mmHg) should undergo baseline imaging and visual field testing. The second step describes monitoring and treatment after steroid administration. During follow-up, patients developing OHT should have baseline and periodical imaging and visual field testing; IOP-lowering treatment is proposed only if IOP is >25 mmHg or if diagnostic tests suggest developing glaucoma.

CONCLUSION

The management and follow-up of OHT following intravitreal corticosteroid injection is similar to that of primary OHT. If OHT develops, IOP is controlled in a large proportion of patients with standard IOP treatments. The present algorithm was developed to assist ophthalmologists with guiding principles in the management of corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation.

FUNDING

Alimera Sciences Limited.