Laser goniopuncture after deep sclerectomy: incidence, long-term outcomes and risk factors for failure

Emulating VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 Clinical Trial Outcome Data Using the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS Registry

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A retrospective, noninterventional cohort study of the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS Registry, an electronic health record (EHR)-based comprehensive eye disease and condition registry, intended to assess whether the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) could emulate the VIEW randomized clinical trials (VIEW RCTs) eligibility criteria, treatment protocol regimen, and primary endpoint.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Deidentified patients having an anti-VEGF injection of aflibercept or ranibizumab between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018, from the IRIS Registry. Patients were treated in accordance with one of three treatment regimens from the VIEW RCT: monthly intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI 2Q4), intravitreal aflibercept every 2 months after 3 initial monthly doses (IAI 2Q8), or monthly ranibizumab (RQ4) injection. The main outcome measures are the number and proportion of patients meeting VIEW RCT eligibility and treatment group criteria, demographic, and clinical differences between IRIS Registry treatment groups, mean change in best documented visual acuity at one year, and evaluation of the primary endpoint of the VIEW RCT: difference in the proportion of patients maintaining vision.

RESULTS

Among the 90,900 patients who met VIEW RCT eligibility criteria, 4,457 (4.85%) met treatment group criteria. The percentage of patients maintaining vision at one year was over 90%. No statistically significant difference was observed when comparing the proportion of patients maintaining vision among the RQ4 treatment group to the IAI 2Q4 or IAI 2Q8 treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

A small percentage of real-world patients met VIEW RCT study eligibility criteria and treatment protocol regimen. Among patients meeting all available criteria, the primary endpoint interpretation yielded by an observational EHR-based dataset suggested comparable results to the VIEW RCT. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:6-14.].

Intra-Ocular Pressure Response to Dexamethasone Implant Injections in Patients with a History of Filtering Surgery: The TRABEX Study

Patients with both macular edemas, of various etiologies such as diabetes and glaucoma, may suffer serious loss of vision if either disease goes untreated. Where no effective alternative therapies are available, dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) injections may be the only choice of treatment, despite the risk of a possible increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) when using steroids. Although many studies have reported on IOP evolution in eyes treated with DEX-I, little is known specifically about eyes with a history of filtering surgery. The aim of this observational series was to evaluate the IOP response following DEX-I injection in eyes presenting conventional filtering surgeries or microinvasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Twenty-five eyes were included in this study. A total of 64% of the eyes did not experience OHT during follow-up. Additional IOP-lowering therapy was needed for 32% of eyes, and 20% of eyes (all showing bleb fibrosis) required further filtering surgery: 50% of eyes in the MIGS group and 10.5% of eyes in the conventional filtering surgery group. A significant positive correlation was found between IOP at baseline and the maximum IOP throughout follow-ups after DEX-I (r = 0.45, p = 0.02). In conclusion, if DEX-I is used when there are no alternative therapies for treating macular edema, IOP in eyes with a history of filtering surgery is generally manageable. Those eyes which previously underwent conventional therapy with effective blebs obtained better IOP control after DEX-I injections and mostly did not require any additional IOP-lowering therapy or surgery.

The surgical management of glaucoma: A review

After a long period of little change, glaucoma surgery has experienced a dramatic rise in the number of possible procedures in the last two decades. Glaucoma filtering surgeries with mitomycin C and glaucoma drainage devices remain the standard of surgical care. Other newer surgeries, some of which are minimally or microinvasive glaucoma surgeries, target existing trabecular outflow, enhance suprachoroidal outflow, create subconjunctival blebs, or reduce aqueous production. Some require the implantation of a device such as the iStent, Hydrus, Ex-PRESS, XEN and PRESERFLO, whilst others do not-Trabectome, Kahook dual blade, Ab interno canaloplasty, gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy, OMNI and excimer laser trabeculotomy. Others are a less destructive variation of an established procedure, such as micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation, endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and ultrasound cycloplasty. Cataract surgery alone can be a significant glaucoma operation. These older and newer glaucoma surgeries, their mechanism of action, efficacy and complications are the subject of this review.