Evaluation of Predictive Factors for Successful Intravitreal Dexamethasone in Pseudophakic Cystoid Macular Edema

Pseudophakic macular edema in nondiabetic and diabetic patients without diabetic retinopathy treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant during a 12-month period in nondiabetic and diabetic patients without diabetic retinopathy (DR) as a treatment for refractory pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) following prior treatment with topical nepafenac 0.1% and prednisolone 1%.

METHODS

Forty-two consecutive medical records of patients diagnosed with PCME after uneventful cataract surgery were included. The outcomes measured included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). Linear regression analysis was statistically applied.

RESULTS

Following topical treatment, nondiabetic and diabetic subjects presented a mean ± SD gain of - 0.11 ± 0.11 and - 0.18 ± 0.11 BCVA logMAR and a CFT reduction of - 43.42 ± 53.66 µm and - 58.76 ± 36.28 µm, respectively. The mean BCVA gain at month 12 subsequent to DEX implantation was - 0.35 ± 0.17 in nondiabetic (p < 0.001) and - 0.55 ± 0.26 in diabetic patients (p < 0.001), with CFT reductions of - 195.71 ± 93.23 µm (p < 0.001) and - 260.81 ± 198.69 µm (p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who responded with better VA after topical treatment presented better visual outcomes at month 12 following DEX implantation (r2 = 0.46; rho = - 0.71, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Nondiabetic and diabetic patients without DR demonstrated similar results after DEX implant after combined topical therapy, suggesting that selected diabetic patients may have a response comparable to that of nondiabetic patients with PCME.

Clinical Course of Pseudophakic Cystoid Macular Edema Treated with Nepafenac

Background: To evaluate the clinical course of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) treated with topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Methods: An analysis of the clinical course of PCME consisting of 536 eyes of 536 patients from five consecutive randomized clinical trials aimed at the optimization of anti-inflammatory medication in patients undergoing routine cataract surgery. PCME was classified as (i) grade 0a; no macular thickening, (ii) grade 0b; macular thickening (central subfield macular thickness (CSMT) increase of at least 10%) without signs of macular edema, (iii) grade I; subclinical PCME, (iv) grade II; acute PCME, (v) grade III; long-standing PCME. Eyes with PCME classification from grade I onwards were treated with nepafenac 1 mg/mL t.i.d. for two months. Results: CSMT increase of at least 10% at any postoperative timepoint with cystoid changes—a criterion for PCME—was found in 19 of 536 eyes (total incidence 3.5%). Of these 19 eyes, 13 eyes (total incidence 2.4%) had clinically significant PCME. PCME was considered clinically significant when both of the following visual acuity criteria were fulfilled. At any timepoint after the cataract surgery both the corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) gain was less than 0.4 decimals from that of preoperative CDVA, and the absolute CDVA level remained below 0.8 decimals. Only one of the 19 eyes with criteria for PCME (total incidence 0.2%, incidence of PCME eyes 5.3%) showed no macular edema resolution within 2 months after topical nepafenac administration. Conclusions: PCME in most cases is self-limiting using topical nepafenac without any further need for intravitreal treatment.

Current role of intravitreal injections in Irvine Gass syndrome-CRIIG study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) or steroid injection for the management of Irvine Gass syndrome.

METHODS

It is an interventional, retrospective, multicenter study. One hundred and thirty-two injections were given in 79 eyes of 72 patients with Irvine Gass syndrome. Patients were treated with at least one intravitreal injection of either anti-VEGF or steroid. Outcomes were measured at 12 months (± 1 week). [Ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) (Razumab; Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd, Ahmedabad, India) Bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) or Aflibercept (Eylea; Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY)] or steroids [Dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA) or intravitreal triamcinolone)].

RESULTS

Intravitreal injections were initiated in (67.6%) of eyes within 14 weeks of diagnosis. Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was used as the initial intravitreal therapy in (73.4%) of eyes. More than fifty percent (54.5%) of the patients were switched from anti-VEGF to Intravitreal dexamethasone implant. Reduction in the mean CMT was 336.7 ± 191.7 and 160.1 ± 153.1 microns in eyes treated within four weeks and more than 14 weeks from diagnosis (p = 0.005). Mean ETDRS letter gain was 16.7 ± 12.9 and 5.2 ± 9.2 in eyes treated within 4 weeks and more than 14 weeks from diagnosis (p = 0.004). Three eyes injected with intravitreal dexamethasone implant reported an intraocular pressure spike of > 25 mmHg which was controlled with topical medications. No other ocular or systemic adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

Study results suggest that physicians tend to introduce intravitreal therapy within 14 weeks of diagnosis. The most common therapy at initiation and for the switch is intravitreal dexamethasone implant. Patients treated early (within 4 weeks) respond better in terms of structure and function.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implantation in Intravitreal Bevacizumab Treatment-resistant Pseudophakic Cystoid Macular Edema

Purpose

To evaluate the changes in visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT) after intravitreal dexamethasone (IVD) implantation in intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) treatment-resistant cases with pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME).

Methods

This study included 10 PCME cases who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation with similar methods and six PCME cases referred to our hospital for treatment of low VA after cataract surgery. Due to the persistence of PCME, both topical steroid and anti-inflammatory medication were administered first, followed by IVB injection. IVD implantation was performed for all IVB treatment-resistant cases. VA and CMT values were compared before and at three months after the first IVD implantation.

Results

The mean VA values before and at 3 months after the first IVD implantation were 0.69 ± 0.19 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (1.50 to 0.10 logMAR) and 0.26 ± 0.07 logMAR (1.00 to 0.00 logMAR), respectively (p < 0.001). The mean CMT was 476.13 ± 135.13 mm (314 to 750 mm) and 294.06 ± 15.26 mm (222 to 480 mm), respectively (p < 0.001). The mean number of implanted IVD was 1.44 ± 0.89 (1 to 4) and the mean follow-up time was 7.4 ± 4.6 months (6 to 24 months). After IVD implantation therapy, the mean VA and CMT values were 0.19 ± 0.05 logMAR (0.70 to 0.00 logMAR) and 268.38 ± 31.35 mm (217 to 351 mm), respectively.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to show the efficacy of IVD implantation even after repeated IVB injections in treatment-resistant PCME. IVD implantation is both a safe and effective method for decreasing PCME after both uneventful and complicated cataract surgery.