Comparison of intravitreal dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion-induced oedema: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Comparing the efficacy of dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF for the treatment of macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) implant, for the treatment of macular edema (ME) caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched from inception to November 21, 2022, for studies evaluating the clinical efficacy of DEX implant for patients with retinal vein occlusion macular edema (RVO-ME) or diabetic macular edema (DME). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were considered eligible. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was applied to assess the risk of bias in each study. Effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using the random effects model. We also conducted subgroup analyses to explore the sources of heterogeneity and the stability of the results.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 8 RCTs (RVO-ME [n = 2] and DME [n = 6]) assessing a total of 336 eyes. Compared with anti-VEGF therapy, DEX implant treatment achieved superior outcomes in terms of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (mean difference [MD] = -3.68 ([95% CI, -6.11 to -1.25], P = 0.003), and no heterogeneity was observed (P = 0.43, I2 = 0%). DEX implant treatment also significantly reduced central macular thickness (CMT) compared with anti-VEGF treatment (MD = -31.32 [95% CI, -57.92 to -4.72], P = 0.02), and there was a high level of heterogeneity between trials (P = 0.04, I2 = 54%). In terms of severe adverse events, DEX implant treatment had a higher risk of elevated intraocular pressure than anti-VEGF therapy (RR = 6.98; 95% CI: 2.16 to 22.50; P = 0.001), and there was no significant difference in cataract progression between the two groups (RR = 1.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 5.27, P = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with anti-VEGF therapy, DEX implant treatment is more effective in improving BCVA and reducing ME. Additionally, DEX implant treatment has a higher risk of elevated intraocular pressure. Due to the small number of studies and the short follow-up period, the results should be interpreted with caution. The long-term effects of the two treatments need to be further determined.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero Registration Number CRD42021243185.

Initial response and 12-month outcomes after commencing dexamethasone or vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors for retinal vein occlusion in the FRB registry

To compare baseline characteristics, initial response and 12-month efficacy and safety outcomes in eyes with branch and central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO and CRVO) treated with dexamethasone implants (DEX) or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) we performed a multi-centre, retrospective and observational study using Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry. Of 725 eligible eyes, 10% received DEX initially with very frequent adjunctive anti-VEGF (BRVO-DEX 49%, CRVO-DEX 60%). The primary outcome of mean adjusted change in VA at 12 months with DEX and anti-VEGF initiated groups were not statistically significantly different (BRVO: DEX + 6.7, anti-VEGF + 10.6 letters; CRVO: DEX + 2.8, anti-VEGF + 6.8 letters). DEX initiated eyes had fewer injections and visits than anti-VEGF initiated eyes. The BRVO-DEX eyes had greater initial mean changes in VA and central subfield thickness (CST) and achieved inactivity sooner than BRVO-anti-VEGF eyes. The mean CST after the first three months was above 350 μm in all but the BRVO-anti-VEGF group, suggesting undertreatment. In routine care DEX is uncommonly used when available as initial treatment of BRVO and CRVO requiring supplemental anti-VEGF within the first year. The 12-month outcomes were similar, but DEX initiated eyes had fewer injections and visits but more episodes of raised IOP Vs those starting anti-VEGF.

Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema or Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusion Based on Repeated Injection of the Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis

Purpose

To assess the "real world" utility of repeated injection with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in routine practice.

Methods

This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive patients with diabetic macular edema, or macular edema following retinal vein occlusion, treated with DEX. None had received prior intravitreal steroid treatment. DEX was implanted as per the manufacturer's instructions.

Results

Seventy-eight individuals (95 eyes) were included (50.0% female; mean age: 68.1 ± 12.4 years; mean duration of macular edema: 13.2 ± 12.9 months). Thirty-three eyes (34.7%) had received previous treatment with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and/or laser. Thirty eyes (31.6%) underwent one round of DEX implantation; the remainder received 2-5 cycles (total: 225 cycles). Initial DEX treatment led to significant increases in visual acuity (VA) at 6 weeks (mean change: 4.6 letters; P=0.004). Greater VA improvements during the first treatment cycle were associated with inferior baseline VA (P=0.02), borderline associated with baseline central macular thickness (CMT; P=0.06), and independent of prior anti-VEGF treatment (P=0.39). In an analysis of all DEX injections, VA improvements were robust across cycles 1 and 2 but reduced in cycle 3 (P=0.03). CMT improvements did not differ based on injection number (P=0.20). Increases in intraocular pressure (IOP) were largest over the first 6 weeks (but rebounded towards baseline more rapidly) in cycle 1 versus cycles 2 and 3 (P<0.001). IOP rises were typically manageable with topical medications.

Conclusion

This analysis confirms the broad utility of DEX and may inform decision-making in routine practice.

Long-term outcomes of anti-VEGF treatment with 5+PRN regimen for macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion

AIM

To assess the long-term outcomes of treating macular edema (ME) associated with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) with a regimen of "5+pro re nata (PRN)".

METHODS

This retrospective study included 27 eyes of 27 patients with ME associated with non-ischemic CRVO (non-iCRVO group, n=15) and ischemic CRVO (iCRVO group, n=12). The eyes were treated with five consecutive intravitreal injections of conbercept or ranibizumab, followed by reinjections as needed or PRN. Retinal laser photocoagulation or intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) were implemented in both groups when necessary. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were recorded at baseline, at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12mo, and at the final visit. The efficacy rates of BCVA and CRT before and after treatment were calculated. The number of injections at each visit and the incidence of adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

The patients, aged 59.4±15.1y, were followed up for 24.7±8.8mo (range: 15-42mo). After treatment, BCVA improved significantly from 1.04±0.56 logMAR at baseline to 0.59±0.36 logMAR (P=0.038) at the final visit in all patients. Both the non-iCRVO and the iCRVO groups achieved improved BCVA compared to the baseline at all visit points, but there was no statistical significance (P=0.197 and 0.33, respectively). The mean CRT was statistically reduced compared to baseline at all visit points in all the eyes and in both groups (all P<0.001). The apparent effective rate was 22.22% for BCVA and 37.04% for CRT after the first injection, 48.15% for BCVA and 62.96% for CRT after 5 consecutive injections, and 74.08% for BCVA and 100% for CRT at the end of follow up. The average number of injections in all patients was 9.0±2.4 at 12mo and 14.9±8.1 finally with no statistical significance between both groups (P>0.05). Laser treatment was applied to all eyes in the iCRVO group, while only 5 patients in the non-iCRVO group. Six patients in the non-iCRVO group and 3 patients in the iCRVO group had a drug switch. DEX was applied to 4 eyes in the non-iCRVO group and 5 eyes in the iCRVO group.

CONCLUSION

The 5+PRN anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) regimen is found to be safe and effective for both iCRVO and non-iCRVO, especially in the iCRVO group. The best regimen for such patients needs to be further investigated. Adjuvant laser therapy and DEX are necessary in some cases.

Novel pharmaceuticals for the management of retinal vein occlusion and linked disorders

INTRODUCTION

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second leading cause of blindness from retinal vascular disease behind diabetic retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and glucocorticoid therapy are the cornerstones of pharmaceutical treatment for RVO. There is considerable interest in developing new pharmaceuticals in and out of these two classes to reduce costs, lower injection burden, and treat the occlusion itself, rather than the complications.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss novel pharmaceuticals for the treatment of RVO outside of current standard of care. We performed a comprehensive literature search encompassing pharmaceuticals that have recently been approved or have shown promising results in early clinical trials or animal models.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-VEGF therapy remains the most efficacious treatment for RVO with a very favorable side effect profile. New biosimilars reduce costs while maintaining efficacy. Novel glucocorticoids may be a useful therapy in patients for whom anti-VEGF therapy has failed, or as an adjunct. Pharmaceuticals in other drug classes, particularly those with neuroprotective or regenerative properties, as well as those geared toward treating the occlusion itself, represent exciting options for early RVO therapy, but are likely years away from clinical relevance.

Systemic Outcomes of Intravitreal Injections of Dexamethasone and Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor

INTRODUCTION

Intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications have revolutionized ocular disease management and favorable ocular safety profiles, but few studies have compared their systemic adverse events (SAEs). This study investigated the SAEs of intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-VEGFs by using real-world data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study sourced medical records from the largest multi-institutional database in Taiwan. Patients who received intravitreal dexamethasone (n = 137) or anti-VEGFs (n = 10,345) between 2014 and 2019 were enrolled. Propensity score matching was performed to achieve homogeneity between the two groups. Subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Fine-Gray model. Systemic as well as ocular clinical events and systemic biomarkers after 1-year follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups demonstrated comparable risks of major cardiac adverse events (SHR 1.57, 95% CI 0.29-8.55), heart failure (SHR 0.62, 95% CI 0.07-5.33), major bleeding (SHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03-1.77), all-cause admission (SHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.41-1.30), and all-cause death (SHR 2.11, 95% CI 0.35-12.71). There were no significant differences in longitudinal changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or alanine aminotransferase between the groups. Both groups had a similar incidence of cataract surgery. Although the dexamethasone group exhibited a relatively high prevalence of antiglaucomatous medication use, there was not a significantly higher incidence of glaucoma surgery.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal dexamethasone and anti-VEGF medications had comparable systemic safety profiles in our study. Both drugs represent efficacious and safe therapies for ocular diseases.

Antithrombotic treatment for retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) represents a common thrombotic disorder.

OBJECTIVES

In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy in RVO.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to December 2021 for observational studies and randomized controlled trials including patients with RVO. Efficacy outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity improvement, recurrent RVO, fluorescein angiography improvement, cardiovascular events, and safety outcomes were major bleeding and intraocular bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 1422 patients (15 studies) were included. Antiplatelet therapy was administered to 477 patients (13 studies), anticoagulant therapy to 312 patients (12 studies), and 609 (7 studies) patients received no antithrombotic treatment. The treatment duration ranged between 0.5 and 3 months. The median follow-up duration was 12 months. Best-corrected visual acuity improvement was reported in 58% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 45%-69%) overall, 64% (95% CI, 58%-71%) in those on anticoagulant therapy, and 33% (95% CI, 21%-47%) in those on antiplatelet therapy. The rates of recurrent RVO was 11% (95% CI, 7%-17%), 7% (95% CI, 2%-19%), and 15% (95% CI, 8%-28%), respectively. The rate of recurrent RVO in untreated patients was 9% (95% CI, 6%-14%). The rate of major bleeding was 5% (95% CI, 3%-9%) overall, 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%) in those on anticoagulant therapy, and 7% (95% CI, 2%-23%) in those on antiplatelet therapy.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulant therapy was associated with higher visual acuity improvement and fewer recurrent RVO events than antiplatelet therapy, at the cost of an acceptable proportion of bleeding complications.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Has Better Retinal Perfusion than Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Five-Year Real-World Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the long-term effect of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection on macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

The medical records of RVO-ME cases, with intravitreal injections and followed up for at least 5 years, were retrospectively reviewed. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were primary outcomes. Images of fluorescence angiography and swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography were analyzed. Foveal avascular zone (FAZ) metrics and perfusion density at the last visit were also compared between the two treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 16 patients were recruited, 8 in the anti-VEGF group and 8 in the DEX group. At the 5th year, the BCVA and the CMT in the DEX group were not different from those in the anti-VEGF group (0.69 ± 0.36 LogMAR vs. 0.57 ± 0.30 LogMAR, p = 0.574; 183.25 ± 97.31 µm vs. 195.38 ± 40.92 µm, p = 0.442). Compared with the anti-VEGF group, the DEX group had higher FAZ circularity index (0.57 ± 0.14 vs. 0.68 ± 0.14, p = 0.130) and higher retinal perfusion density (0.45 ± 0.02 vs. 0.39 ± 0.03, p = 0.001), especially in the deep capillary plexus.

CONCLUSION

DEX implant and anti-VEGF injection had comparative long-term effects on RVO-ME. Compared with the anti-VEGF treatment, the DEX treatment had advantages in maintaining retinal perfusion in patients with RVO.

Comparison of intravitreal ranibizumab monotherapy vs. ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone implant for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and the injection number of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) monotherapy vs. intravitreal ranibizumab plus dexamethasone (IVR + DEX) implants for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

Methods

This prospective, control trial comprised 96 eyes of 96 patients with ME due to non-ischemic RVO divided into two groups. The IVR monotherapy group consisted of 61 patients (29 with CRVO and 32 with BRVO) treated with ranibizumab with three consecutive loading doses at a monthly + pro re nata (three + PRN) regimen. The IVR + DEX implant group consisted of 35 patients (19 with CRVO and 16 with BRVO) treated with intravitreal ranibizumab plus DEX implant. All eyes underwent best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, log MAR), central foveal thickness (CFT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). In case of recurrence, each group received initial medication.

Results

At the 12-month visit, the mean log MAR BCVA that was improved from baseline was 0.23 with the IVR group and 0.30 with the IVR + DEX group. CFT decreased on average by 420 ± 292 μm with the IVR group and 393 ± 259 μm with the IVR + DEX implant group. No significant differences were detected in BCVA improvement and CFT reduction between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of injections was 5.4 in the IVR group and 3.9 in the IVR + DEX implant group (p < 0.001). The mean reinjection interval for patients with the IVR + DEX implant was 131.2 ± 8.9 days (range: 98–150). The incidence of high IOP and cataract progression were significantly higher in the IVR + DEX implant group than in the IVR group (both p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In RVO-ME, the IVR + DEX implant did not have synergistic efficacy, providing further improvement in BCVA and a reduction in CFT. However, the IVR + DEX implant still had an advantage in reducing the number of injections and prolonging the time between injections.

Efficacy and mechanism of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs for diabetic macular edema patients

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is a serious public health concern in China, with 30% of patients developing retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema (DME) having the biggest impact on vision. High blood glucose level can cause retinal cell hypoxia, thus promoting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) formation and increasing vascular permeability, which induces DME. Moreover, cell hypoxia can accelerate the rate of apoptosis, which leads to the aging of patients. In severe cases, optic cell apoptosis or retinal fibrosis and permanent blindness may occur.

AIM

To investigate and compare the efficacy, mechanism, and differences between two anti-VEGF drugs (Compaq and ranibizumab) in DME patients.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients with DME who attended our hospital from April 2018 to February 2020 were included and randomly divided into two groups (Compaq group and ranibizumab group). The groups received vitreal cavity injections of 0.5 mg Compaq and 0.5 mg ranibizumab, respectively, once a month. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), macular retinal thickness (CMT), macular choroidal thickness (SFCT), foveal no perfusion area (FAZ), superficial capillary density, deep capillary density, treatment effect, and adverse reactions were compared before and after treatment and between the two groups.

RESULTS

Before treatment and 1-mo post-treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the estimated BCVA in both groups (P > 0.05). BCVA decreased in the Compaq group 3 mo after treatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Before treatment, and 1 mo and 3 mo post-treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the estimated IOP in either group (P > 0.05). Before treatment and 1-mo post-treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the estimated CMT, SFCT, or FAZ in either group (P > 0.05). CMT and SFCT values decreased in the Compaq group 3 mo post-treatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Before treatment, and 1 mo and 3 mo post-treatment, there were no statistically significant differences in vascular density in the shallow or deep capillary plexi of the fovea, parafovea, or overall macular area between the two groups (P > 0.05). Marked efficient, effective, and invalid rates were 70.83% and 52.08%, 27.08% and 39.58%, and 2.08% and 8.33% in the Compaq and ranibizumab groups, respectively. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Anti-VEGF drugs can effectively improve CMT and SFCT, without affecting microcirculation, thus providing an effective and safe treatment for patients with DME.

Antithrombotic treatment of retinal vein occlusion: a position statement from the Italian Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SISET)

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) represents a common cause of visual impairment and blindness. RVO may be associated with both local (e.g., hyperopia, glaucoma) and systemic (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and dyslipidaemia) risk factors. The association with thrombophilia remains controversial. Data on the use of antithrombotic therapy for RVO are poor and inconsistent with most of the information being derived from observational studies. Here we provide a position statement from the Italian Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SISET) to guide the clinical and therapeutic management of patients with RVO based on the available evidence and expert opinion.

The Efficacy of Simultaneous Injection of Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab Into Vitreous Cavity on Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous vitreous injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab on macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). We conducted a 6-month retrospective self-control study. Twenty-five patients diagnosed with macular edema secondary to CRVO were enrolled in this study. The patients received intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab. The changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and interocular pressure (IOP) before and at 2w, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 m after injection were recorded and compared. The adverse reactions in eyes and whole body were observed. The BCVA of all patients at 2 w (61.8 ± 5.42), 1 m (68.68 ± 5.23), 2 m (70.8 ± 5.8), 3 m (68.44 ± 5.61), 4 m (65.76 ± 5.76), 5 m (67.08 ± 5.57), and 6 m (70.12 ± 5.46) after surgery were significantly higher than that before surgery (52.2 ± 5.06,p < 0.01), and CRT of all patients at 2w (393.36 ± 52.66 um), 1 m (334.52 ± 32.95 um), 2 m (298.800 ± 29.97 um), 3 m (309.080 ± 28.78 um), 4 m (345.48 ± 39.81 um), 5 m (349.080 ± 29.88 um), and 6 m (309.76 ± 30.41 um) after surgery were significantly reduced than that before surgery (583.76 ± 121.09 um, p < 0.01). Macular edema recurred in an average of 4.44 ± 0.51 months after treatment, and those patients received combined treatment again. During follow-up, the most common adverse reactions were subconjunctival hemorrhage and increased intraocular pressure, with the incidence of 22% (11/50) and 18% (9/50) respectively. In all cases, the increased intraocular pressure could be controlled by a single intraocular pressure reducing drug. No patient needed to receive anti-glaucoma surgery. The overall incidence of lens opacity was 4% (2/50). After the first injection, no case showed lens opacity. After re-injection, 2 patients (2 eyes) (8%) developed lens opacity. None of the patients showed serious ocular adverse reactions or systemic complications such as vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, uveitis or ocular toxicity. The simultaneous vitreous injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab can significantly improve the visual acuity and anatomical prognosis in macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO-ME) patients, exhibiting good safety and effectiveness.

Treatment of Macular Edema in Vascular Retinal Diseases: A 2021 Update

Macular edema (ME) is associated with various conditions; however, the main causes of ME are retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and diabetes. Laser photocoagulation, formerly the gold standard for the treatment of ME, has been replaced by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) intravitreal injections. Despite its efficiency, this treatment requires frequent injections to preserve the outcomes of anti-VEGF therapy, and as many patients do not sufficiently respond to the treatment, ME is typically a chronic condition that can lead to permanent visual impairment. Generalized recommendations for the treatment of ME are lacking, which highlights the importance of reviewing treatment approaches, including recent anti-VEGFs, intravitreal steroid implants, and subthreshold micropulse lasers. We reviewed relevant studies, emphasizing the articles published between 2019 and 2021 and using the following keywords: macular edema, diabetic macular edema, retinal vein occlusion, laser photocoagulation, anti-VEGF, and intravitreal injections. Our results revealed that a combination of different treatment methods may be beneficial in resistant cases. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to help select the best treatment option for patients in the near future.