Pharmacological Management of Diabetic Macular Edema in Real-Life Observational Studies

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.

Serum and Vitreous Levels of Placenta Growth Factor in Diabetic Retinopathy Patients: Correlation With Disease Severity and Optical Coherence Tomographic Parameters

Purpose The primary objective of this study was to compare placenta growth factor (PlGF) levels in the serum and vitreous of diabetic retinopathy (DR) patients to non-diabetic controls. Additionally, the study aimed to establish associations between serum and vitreous PlGF concentrations and to examine the correlation between vitreous PlGF in DR patients and morphological parameters. Methods This study included serum and vitreous samples from 38 patients, including 21 patients with DR and 17 non-diabetic controls. The control group included non-diabetic patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with retinal tears secondary to posterior vitreous detachment or trauma. PlGF levels were quantified in vitreous and serum samples using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans from DR patients were evaluated to measure the central retinal thickness (CRT) and macular volume (MV). Results DR patients had significantly higher mean vitreous PlGF levels compared to non-DR patients (70.0±39.2 vs. 46.47±9.7 pg/mL, p-value=0.004). However, no significant increase in mean serum PlGF levels was observed in DR patients (p-value=0.232). Within the DR group, proliferative DR (PDR) patients presented significantly higher vitreous PlGF levels than non-PDR (NPDR) patients (76.5±41.0 vs. 42.5±5.0 pg/mL, p-value=0.009). There was no association between serum and vitreous PlGF levels. The correlation between vitreous PlGF levels and morphological parameters was rsp=0.175, p-value=0.488 for CRT, and rsp=0.288, p-value=0.262 for MV. Conclusion This study emphasizes the important role of PlGF in neovascularization, specifically highlighting its overexpression exclusively in vitreous from PDR patients. The observed increase in PlGF levels may be indicative of disease severity. The lack of correlation between vitreous and serum PlGF levels suggests a potential dissociation between intravitreal and systemic PlGF synthesis. Consequently, targeting PlGF in therapeutic approaches may offer an additional strategy for ocular pathologies with a neovascular component.

Influence of prior treatment protocol on intravitreal dexamethasone implant behavior in patients with diabetic macular edema in real-world practice

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEXI) has been placed as an effective option to treat diabetic macular edema (DME). However, there is no consensus on the best time to introduce it. We conducted a study to evaluate anatomical and functional behavior after the first DEXI according to previous treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective, real-world study between 2013 and 2020 investigated changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT at months 2 and 6 after the first DEXI in DME. Patients were divided into naive, early switch (≤3 anti-VEGF injections), or late switch (>3 anti-VEGF injections) groups.

RESULTS

Among 112 consecutive eyes, mean BCVA and CMT improved significantly in all groups at month 2, with no difference between them. However, this improvement was not maintained at 6 months. The Naíve group presented better BCVA all over the study period. The previously treated groups, which started with worse initial visual acuity, showed more visual gain without reaching the BCVA of the naive group. CMT performance was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was similar anatomical and functional behavior in all groups. Poorer visual acuity at baseline was associated with worse functional outcome despite good anatomic response.

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.

Intravitreal DEX Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review of National Consensus

Diabetic macular edema (DME)'s therapeutic approach can frequently be challenging. The purpose of the review is to propose evidence-based recommendations on the employment of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) when approaching patients suffering from DME. Seven national consensuses redacted by different groups of retina specialists from Europe and Asia were examined and confronted. Each consensus was redacted utilizing a Delphi approach, in person meetings, or by reviewing the literature. DEX can be studied as a first-line strategy in individuals suffering from DME with inflammatory OCT biomarkers, in vitrectomized eyes, in patients with recent cardiovascular events, in pregnant women, in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery or with poor compliance. The other parameters considered were the indications to the DME treatment, when to switch to DEX, the definition of non-responder to anti-VEGFs agents and to the DEX implant, whether to combine DEX with laser photocoagulation, the association between glaucoma and DEX, and the management of DEX and the cataract. Although several years have passed since the introduction of DEX implants in the DME treatment, there is still not a unified agreement among retina specialists. This paper compares the approach in the DME treatment between countries from different continents and provides a broader and worldwide perspective of the topic.

Suppressing Inflammation for the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Dazdotuftide as a Potential New Multitarget Therapeutic Candidate

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are major causes of blindness globally. The primary treatment option for DME and neovascular AMD (nAMD) is anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) compounds, but this treatment modality often yields insufficient results, and monthly injections can place a burden on the health system and patients. Although various inflammatory pathways and mediators have been recognized as key players in the development of DR and AMD, there are limited treatment options targeting these pathways. Molecular pathways that are interlinked, or triggers of multiple inflammatory pathways, could be promising targets for drug development. This review focuses on the role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME and AMD and presents current anti-inflammatory compounds, as well as a potential multitarget anti-inflammatory compound (dazdotuftide) that could be a candidate treatment option for the management of DME and AMD.

Current Treatments and Innovations in Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide. Multiple treatment options have been used over time to attempt to modify the natural progression of the disease in both proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). These two retinal complications are the result of microvascular occlusions and vascular hyperpermeability and are considered one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness in patients of working age. It is now well demonstrated that PDR and DME are associated with increased levels of inflammatory and pro-angiogenic factors in the ocular compartment. To date, laser photocoagulation, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, and corticosteroids have demonstrated efficacy in their treatment in large randomized controlled trials and in real-life observational studies. This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive review of current treatments, including the main drugs used in diabetic pathologic manifestations, as well as new therapeutic alternatives, such as extended-release intraocular devices.

In vitro induction and intraocular application in oxygen-induced retinopathy of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells

Purpose

We designed a study to find theoretical evidence for the induction, movement, fusion, proliferation, and safety of human adipose mesenchymal stem cells (hADSCs) in intraocular application.

Methods

HADSCs were induced to confirm that they can express the characteristics of endothelial cells (ECs) in vitro. HADSCs were intraocularly injected into oxygen-induced retinopathy (OIR) mice to check the movement, fusion, proliferation, and prognosis in vivo. Electron microscopy was used to check retinal changes to confirm the safety of hADSCs in intraocular application.

Results

After induction, hADSCs expressed von Willebrand Factor (vWF), the cell marker of ECs. The hADSCs were distributed above the retina after an intravitreal injection in the OIR mice. The injected cells did not fuse with the retina and gathered in the central and peripheral areas, which is the lesion area of the OIR model. Five days after the hADSC intravitreal injection, the area of ​neovascularization was reduced by 94.83% compared with that of the OIR group. Hematologic staining and electron microscopy did not show noticeable proliferation and degeneration of the retina.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence for the intraocular application of hADSCs.

Do new drugs for diabetic macular edema offer a safer option?

INTRODUCTION

The last decade has witnessed important advances in retinal drug discovery, administered intravitreally, allowing high intraocular concentration and low systemic passage. However, local and systemic adverse events have been described and should be discussed before proposing treatment. In diabetes mellitus specifically, the choice of molecule and treatment regimen should limit the therapeutic burden, avoiding the need for frequent ophthalmological appointments, in patients receiving multi-disciplinary care.

AREAS COVERED

We aim to review and discuss the risk/benefit ratio of the main intravitreal therapies currently proposed for diabetic macular edema (DME), and how these treatments could be tailored to each individual patient.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-VEGF injections and steroid implants are currently the two therapeutic options proposed in cases of DME. New molecules in these two classes have recently been approved and are currently being studied under phase IV observations to establish their efficacy and tolerance. The preferred therapeutic option is determined based on the ocular condition and the patient profile. As new treatments are developed, new adverse events will also enter into consideration, and retinal physicians must therefore be able to call on a range of therapeutic options and question the risk/benefit ratio of each of them before proposing a treatment.

Real-World Evidence in the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema with Intravitreal Anti-VEGFs in Asia: A Systematic Literature Review

Purpose

To evaluate the visual outcomes and safety profile of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-world studies in Asian countries.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic literature databases (Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010, to March 16, 2021) was conducted to identify observational studies that reported clinical and safety outcomes of anti-VEGF treatments for DME in Asia. We analyzed baseline patient characteristics, treatment patterns, mean number of injections, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal thickness, and safety outcomes.

Results

Seventy-one studies were included in this review. Most studies reported treatment of DME with ranibizumab (n = 33), followed by aflibercept (n = 13), bevacizumab (n = 28), and conbercept (n = 9). At 12 months, the cumulative mean number of injections for ranibizumab, aflibercept, and conbercept was 5.2, 4.6, and 6, respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, the cumulative mean BCVA gain was 6.8 letters (ranibizumab), 4.6 letters (aflibercept), 4.9 letters (bevacizumab), and 8.3 letters (conbercept). The cumulative mean reduction in retinal thickness at 12 months was 116.9 μm (ranibizumab), 105.9 μm (aflibercept), 81.7 μm (bevacizumab), and 135.2 μm (conbercept). A strong positive correlation (r = 0.78) was observed between mean number of injections and change in BCVA at 12 months. A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.54) was observed between mean number of injections and mean reduction in retinal thickness at 12 months. A weak positive correlation was observed between baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity at 12 months. Baseline BCVA and mean number of injections were predictors of BCVA at 12 months.

Conclusion

All anti-VEGFs were effective in the treatment of DME in Asia. The data suggest that a greater number of anti-VEGF injections was associated with better improvement in BCVA and moderate reduction in retinal thickness at the 1-year follow-up.

Real-Life Value of the Odysight® Application in At-Home Screening for Exudative Recurrence of Macular Edema

Background: The aim of this study was to describe the value of the Odysight® application in addition to a classical follow-up regimen in the detection of exudative recurrences in patients with macular edema. Methods: We conducted an observational, multicenter, retrospective study. The Odysight® application includes a visual acuity (VA) test that can lead to alerts in case of a drop of >5 VA letters on two successive tests. The efficacy of the alerts in detecting exudative recurrence was studied. Results: A total of 149 eyes of 123 patients were included. The sensitivity of alerts for the detection of recurrence was 30.8% (95% CI [17.6; 44.0]) and its specificity was 83.7% (95% CI [73.2; 94.3]. A better baseline VA was found to be significantly associated with a better retention of the application (OR = 0.05, 95% CI [0.002; 0.62]; p = 0.045). Of the 12/39 alerts that detected a recurrence, eight (20.5% of all alerts) resulted in the scheduling or advancement of an intravitreal injection. Conclusions: In the present study, the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the Odysight® application seems low but its use in addition to the usual follow-up of the patient can detect, in certain cases, an early recurrence and thus allow an anticipated readjustment of the treatment.

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.

Costs comparison of treating diabetic macular edema with aflibercept, ranibizumab or dexamethasone at 1 year in France (INVICOST study)

PURPOSE

INVICOST, a medico-economic analysis, compared costs of managing treatment-naive patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) receiving intravitreal injections (IVIs) of aflibercept (AFL), dexamethasone implant (DXI) or ranibizumab (RAN) over 1 year.

METHODS

Healthcare resource use and associated costs were estimated using individual patient data from INVICTUS, a prospective, open-label, monocentric study. Healthcare costs comprised direct medical costs such as drug acquisition and administration, consultations and ophthalmological procedures. Costs were assessed from the French National Health Insurance perspective using published national tariffs expressed in 2019 euros.

RESULTS

Of the 60 treated eyes, 48 had no treatment switch; 14 received AFL, 19 received DXI and 15 received RAN. AFL-treated eyes received an average of 6.5 IVIs, DXI-treated patients received 2 IVIs and RAN-treated received 6.8 IVIs. All treated eyes received an initial prescription for adjunctive ocular medications and 349 follow-up procedures were performed including an average of 3.9 optical coherence tomography and 3.2 retinography procedures per eye. Average total direct cost of per-eye treatment was €4516 (€1128-€8257). Average cost was €5782 for eyes treated with AFL, €2779 with DXI and €5536 with RAN. Drug therapy was the cost driver: €4394 (76%) for AFL, €1915 for DXI (69%) and €4268 (77%) for RAN.

CONCLUSION

The difference in total treatment cost is largely explained by the significantly lower frequency of IVI and annual cost of therapy with DXI, compared with AFL and RAN. INVICOST is the first study comparing treatment costs with AFL, DXI and RAN in France in current clinical practice.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Chronic Diabetic Macular Edema Previously Treated in Real-Life Practice: The REALFAc Study

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the main cause of visual impairment in diabetic patients and a chronic disease requiring long-term treatments. The fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant has recently been approved to treat DME in patients considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies. This study evaluates the functional and anatomical efficacy of the FAc implant in real-life practice. A total of 62 eyes with chronic DME were included and followed for a mean of 13.9 (+7.5) months. Previous treatment included at least anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in 83.9% of eyes, dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) in 100% of eyes, vitrectomy in 29.0% of eyes, and laser photocoagulation (either panretinal or focal photocoagulation) in 75.8% of eyes. The mean baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 64.0 (+/−17.2) letters (median: 67.5 letters) with a mean DME duration of 60.3 (+/−30.6) months. The maximum BCVA gain occurred at 21 months with a mean gain of 5.0 (+/−12.7) letters. A total of 50.0% of eyes gained ≥5 letters during follow-up. Patients with lower BCVA at baseline had the lowest final BCVA (p < 0.001) but the highest BCVA gain (p = 0.02). The best overall improvement in mean central macular thickness (CMT) occurred at 18 months (p < 0.0001). The improvement in BCVA was inversely associated with the decrease in CMT and showed a decrease when CMT increased (DME recurrence). According to the history of vitrectomy, we did not find any significant difference in mean final BCVA (p = 0.1) and mean BCVA gain (p = 0.2) between eyes previously vitrectomized or not. A total of 23 eyes (37.1%) required additional treatment for DME, and 17.7% required an IOP-lowering procedure during follow-up. In conclusion, this real-life observational study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the FAc implant in patients with chronic DME already treated with other available therapies.

Non-Cancer Effects following Ionizing Irradiation Involving the Eye and Orbit

Simple Summary

The irradiation of tumors involving the eye or orbit represents a complex therapeutic challenge due to the proximity between the tumor and organs that are susceptible to radiation. The challenges include tumor control, as it is often a surrogate for survival; organ (usually the eyeball) preservation; and the minimization of damage of sensitive tissues surrounding the tumor in order to preserve vision. Anticipation of the spectrum and severity of radiation-induced complications is crucial to the decision of which technique to use for a given tumor. The aim of the present review is to report the non-cancer effects that may occur following ionizing irradiation involving the eye and orbit and their specific patterns of toxicity for a given radiotherapy modality. The pros and cons of conventional and advanced forms of radiation techniques and their clinical implementation are provided with a clinical perspective.

Abstract

The eye is an exemplarily challenging organ to treat when considering ocular tumors. It is at the crossroads of several major aims in oncology: tumor control, organ preservation, and functional outcomes including vision and quality of life. The proximity between the tumor and organs that are susceptible to radiation damage explain these challenges. Given a high enough dose of radiation, virtually any cancer will be destroyed with radiotherapy. Yet, the doses inevitably absorbed by normal tissues may lead to complications, the likelihood of which increases with the radiation dose and volume of normal tissues irradiated. Precision radiotherapy allows personalized decision-making algorithms based on patient and tumor characteristics by exploiting the full knowledge of the physics, radiobiology, and the modifications made to the radiotherapy equipment to adapt to the various ocular tumors. Anticipation of the spectrum and severity of radiation-induced complications is crucial to the decision of which technique to use for a given tumor. Radiation can damage the lacrimal gland, eyelashes/eyelids, cornea, lens, macula/retina, optic nerves and chiasma, each having specific dose–response characteristics. The present review is a report of non-cancer effects that may occur following ionizing irradiation involving the eye and orbit and their specific patterns of toxicity for a given radiotherapy modality.

Fluocinolone acetonide implant in diabetic macular edema: International experts' panel consensus guidelines and treatment algorithm

Center-involving diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision impairment in working-age adults. While its management is particularly challenging in a poorly compliant population, continuous innovation and the advent of new molecules have improved its outcome. The control of glycemia and of systemic aggravating factors remain essential to slow down progression of disease complications including DME. The indications for macular laser photocoagulation has progressively been phased out as a standard of care and replaced by local intraocular anti-VEGFs biologics and glucocorticoids (GCs). Intravitreal GCs in controlled-release drug delivery systems have allowed to reduce injection frequency and treatment burden. The non biodegradable Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) implant allows a long-lasting stabilization of both functional and anatomic improvements. However, adequate patient selection and monitoring through regular follow-up are essential for optimal results. Based on their experience and the latest literature, the aim of the present review is to provide international expert panel consensus on the place of the FAc implant in the treatment algorithm of DME, as well as its safety profile and how to manage it.

One-year outcomes of the treat-and-extend regimen using aflibercept for the treatment of diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

Optimal regimen using intravitreal aflibercept injections for diabetic macular edema (DME) in clinical practice remains to be elucidated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a treat-and-extend (TAE) approach using intravitreal aflibercept in participants with center-involved DME.

METHODS

A 52-week open-label, prospective, multicenter, interventional study was conducted between August 2015 and November 2017 in Taiwan. Adults with diabetes mellitus and center-involved DME who have best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 73 to 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters and central retinal thickness (CRT) >300 μm were included. Participants received five monthly loading doses of 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept, followed by a TAE regimen with a four-week increment/decrement interval over 48 weeks; the maximum interval was 12 weeks. Main outcomes included changes in BCVA and CRT from baseline to week 52, additional anatomical outcomes, and treatment burden parameters.

RESULTS

Forty-five participants with mean (SD) age of 63.7 (8.3) years were analyzed. At baseline, mean (SD) BCVA and CRT were 58.3 (11.9) letters and 434.4 (116.8) μm, respectively. Changes from baseline in BCVA and CRT were +8.3 (9.3) letters and -138.2 (150.0) μm (both p < 0.001) at week 52, respectively. In addition, 22% (10/45) of patients gained ≥15 letters, 14% (6/44) of participants achieved ≥2-level improvement in diabetic retinopathy severity, and 51% (23/45) demonstrated dry retina at week 52 compared with 13% (6/45) at baseline. In total, 87% (39/45) of patients reached disease stability, entering TAE at week 20. Subsequently, 89% (40/45) of patients reached maximum interval at week 52. Mean (SD) number of injections was 7.7 (1.5) over a period of 52 weeks.

CONCLUSION

This straightforward and practical TAE regimen using intravitreal aflibercept injections resulted in favorable clinical outcomes with minimal treatment burden for DME at week 52.

[Efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant as a starting monotherapy and when switching from an anti-VEGF drug in diabetic macular edema]

PURPOSE

To conduct a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of an intravitreal dexamethasone implant as a starting monotherapy and when switching from anti-VEGF therapy for macular edema in patients with diabetes mellitus.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study involved 112 patients (112 eyes) with diabetic macular edema. The 1^st group of the study included 58 patients (58 eyes) with newly diagnosed diabetic macular edema, who had not previously received special ophthalmic treatment. Group 2 included 54 patients (54 eyes) resistant to anti-VEGF therapy after 5 intravitreal injections of aflibercept. All patients underwent monthly spectral optical coherence tomography of the macular region, as well as visometry and tonometry during the follow-up period (6 months).

RESULTS

The maximum therapeutic effect in both groups was observed 3 months after intravitreal introduction of the dexamethasone implant - in 94.8% and 92.5% of cases, respectively, it contributed to an improvement in the architectonics of the retinal layers, a decrease in retinal edema and an increase in visual acuity. At the same time, the most pronounced increase in BCVA (on average up to 0.66±0.1) was observed in patients of the 1^st group.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that an intravitreal dexamethasone implant can be recommended for newly diagnosed diabetic macular edema, as just one injection leads to resolution of macular edema and high functional outcomes, which persisted in 89.6% of study patients throughout the observation period.

Intraoperative dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular edema patients undergoing phacoemulsification: The CataDex study

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of preoperative intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DexI) on functional and anatomic outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

METHODS

Prospective and non-comparative study conducted on consecutive DME patients undergoing cataract surgery. DexI was administered 15 days before surgery and in a pro re nata regime after surgery. Main outcome measures were mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), central subfield thickness (CST), total macular volume (TMV), and central subfield volume (CSV) from baseline to month-12. Secondary outcome was mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

RESULTS

Forty eyes were included in the study. CRT significantly decreased from 410.4  ±  64.8 µm at baseline to 303.2  ±  24.3 µm at month-12, p < 0.0001. Similarly, CST was significantly reduced from 436.4  ±  120.4 µm at baseline to 322.9  ±  54.2 µm at month-12, p < 0.0001. Total macular volume and CSV were significantly reduced from 9.95  ±  1.68 mm3 and 0.38  ±  0.11 mm³ at baseline to 8.49  ±  0.83 mm³ and 0.31  ±  0.05 mm³ at month-12, respectively (p < 0.0001 each, respectively). BCVA significantly improved from 0.26  ±  0.17 Snellen equivalent at baseline to 0.65  ±  0.19 at month-12, p < 0.0001. Mean DexI administered during the study were 2.0  ±  0.3. Neither DME subtype nor previous treatment status had any effect on functional or anatomic outcomes. Regarding safety, one (2.5%) eye developed ocular hypertension, which was successfully controlled with topical hypotensive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

DexI was and effective and safe strategy for managing DME in diabetic patients undergoing uneventful cataract surgery.

Recommendations for the management of diabetic macular oedema with intravitreal dexamethasone implant: A national Delphi consensus study

PURPOSE

The intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) is an alternative to anti-VEGF for the first-line treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). However, several questions remain regarding its routine use and its place in certain situations not always specified in current recommendations. A national consensus approach was, therefore, initiated by French retinal experts.

METHODS

An iterative Delphi consensus approach was used. A steering committee (SC) of seven experts analysed data from the literature to formulate statements divided into five key areas of treatment. These statements were submitted to the independent and anonymous electronic vote of 87 French retina experts among whom 39 expressed their opinion and therefore constituted the voting panel.

RESULTS

After two rounds of voting, 22 and 7 of 38 statements received a strong consensus and a good consensus, respectively. The consensus level was higher for statements regarding first-line indications and safety of DEX-I compared to those regarding efficacy assessment, reprocessing time or pathophysiological biomarkers. The panellists recommended the preferential use of DEX-I for patients with limited availability for multiple injections, those who needed to undergo cataract surgery or who had a recent cardiovascular history, and as a therapeutic alternative to anti-VEGF in patients with a history of vitrectomy, retinal serous detachment, hyper-reflective points or dry exudates in optical coherence tomography (OCT). However, some statements proposed by SC experts were not validated.

CONCLUSION

This study provides some key recommendations to clinicians treating diabetic macular oedema, which may be useful when using intravitreal dexamethasone implants in daily practice.

Impact of Different Clinical Baseline Characteristics on Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Ozurdex® Outcomes

Purpose

To determine the impact of different baseline clinical characteristics on the improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who underwent the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) Ozurdex^®.

Methods

This was a single center retrospective study conducted on patients with DME, either naïve or previously treated, who were treated with one or more DEX and had a follow-up of at least 6 months. The main outcome measure was the proportion of DEX achieving an improvement ≥15 letters in BCVA.

Results

The study analyzed 192 DEX implants administered to 97 eyes (65 patients). Among the 192 DEX analyzed, 57 (29.7%) implants achieved a BCVA improvement ≥15 letters (ETDRS) from baseline, with a mean time for achieving such improvement of 89.2 (39.7) days. Eyes who received an additional DEX and those with a duration of DME < 6 months had a greater probability of achieving a BCVA improvement ≥15 letters (odds-ratio: 2.55, p = 0.0028 and odds-ratio: 1.93, p = 0.0434). The mean (standard deviation) change in BCVA from baseline was 7.5 (14.5) letters, p < 0.0001. The mean change in central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline was -128.0 (151.0) µm, p < 0.0001. The mean number of DEX implanted was 1.9 (0.8). Four (2.1%) DEX experienced an intraocular pressure increased ≥10 mm Hg; all the cases were successfully managed with topical antiglaucoma medication.

Conclusion

The results of this study confirmed previous evidence suggesting that DEX is effective for improving BCVA and CMT in patients with DME.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) in diabetic macular edema: real-world data versus clinical trials outcomes

AIM

To investigate the safety and efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex^®/DEX) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) either naïve or non-naïve to anti-VEGF therapies who switched to DEX implant independent of response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs).

METHODS

This was an audit retrospective review of medical records of patients with DME who switched to the DEX intravitreal implant. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients naïve to antiangiogenic therapy and patients who were previously treated with anti-VEGFs. Data regarding demographics, changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) was collected over 6mo. The demographic data mean changes in BCVA, CMT, and IOP were compared. Six-month follow-up data of 47 patients (57 eyes), who either switched to DEX implant irrespective of response to previous treatments or were treatment naïve before receiving DEX implant, was collected.

RESULTS

Improvement in mean BCVA was observed from 1-4mo after injection with a decreased effect at month 6 as expected, with better outcomes in naïve compared to non-naïve patients. A statistically relevant decrease in mean CMT was observed during the follow-up period. An increase in mean IOP was observed in the first 2mo after DEX therapy. The mean number of injections of the overall population during the 6mo was 1.3. A subgroup analysis showed no relevant difference between phakic versus pseudophakic patients relative to measured outcomes. There was no cataract progression during the follow-up period and no adverse events reported.

CONCLUSION

This real-life setting study shows that intravitreal DEX implant is effective and safe. The timings of greater therapeutic impact are concordant with previous studies and suggest that earlier treatment with corticosteroids may have an additional benefit in naïve patients.

Comparison of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab in Vitrectomized Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a single institution.

Methods

Pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve center-involved DME were enrolled, with one eye in each patient. They were divided into two groups: one group receiving IDI every 3 to 4 months and another group receiving IVR using 3 monthly plus treat-and-extend injections, all with monthly follow-up for 6 months. Switch of intravitreal drugs or deferred macular laser was not allowed. Primary outcome measures included change in central foveal thickness (CFT) in 1 mm by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at Month 6.

Results

Twenty-two eyes were included in the IDI group and 26 eyes in the IVR group. The baseline demographics, glycosylated hemoglobin level, intraocular pressure (IOP), BCVA, and CFT did not significantly differ (p > 0.05). Compared to baseline data, CFT decreased and BCVA improved significantly after either IDI or IVR at Month 6 (p < 0.05). Significantly better mean final BCVA (0.38 logMAR vs. 0.62 logMAR, p=0.04), more mean visual gain (−0.30 logMAR vs. −0.15 logMAR, p=0.02), lower mean final CFT (310.9 μm vs. 384.2 μm, p=0.04), and larger mean CFT decrease (−150.0 μm vs. −60.1 μm, p=0.03) were found in the IDI group compared to those in the IVR group. A smaller mean treatment number (2.6 vs. 5.6, p < 0.001) and higher rate of postinjection ocular hypertension requiring topical hypotensive agent therapy (27.3% vs. 0%, p=0.0002) were demonstrated in the IDI group than those in the IVR group.

Conclusion

We concluded that IDI and IVR can both effectively treat vitrectomized eyes with DME. Dexamethasone implants had significantly better visual/anatomical improvement, smaller treatment number, and higher rate of elevated IOP after injection than IVR in pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with DME in a 6-month period.

Place of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in the treatment armamentarium of diabetic macular edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a very important and well-known cause of visual loss in diabetics. Blood–retina barrier disruption and consequent intraretinal fluid accumulation may lead to retinal thickening at the posterior pole namely DME. Even though it is not clearly understood, current evidence suggests that chronic low-grade inflammation characterized with various cytokines has a major role in the occurrence of DME. Clinical trials are continuously shaping our treatment approaches for the eyes with DME. Today, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor and steroid administrations are the main alternatives in DME treatment. Dexamethasone (DEX) implant (Ozurdex^®; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, United States) was approved by the United States Food & Drug Administration in 2014 for DME treatment. The implant is made up of a biodegradable solid copolymer that is broken down by releasing its active ingredient into the vitreous cavity over time. Biphasic release feature of this sustained-release drug delivery system ensures its efficacy for up to 6 mo with an acceptable and manageable safety profile. DEX implant provides a favorable anatomical and functional outcome in DME as shown in several randomized-controlled studies but has a relatively higher ocular side-effect profile such as increased risk of cataract formation and raised intraocular pressure when compared to the gold standard anti-VEGF agents. Thus, DEX implant becomes the second-line treatment option demonstrating inadequate clinical response to anti-VEGF therapy. However, it can be preferred as the first-line treatment in vitrectomized and pseudophakic eyes. Even in some selected conditions DEX implant is favored over anti-VEGF agents where the use of VEGF-inhibitors is either inappropriate or contraindicated such as the patients with a recent history of a major cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event, pregnancy and noncompliant to frequent visits. This mini-review briefly overviews the efficacy, safety profile and complications of DEX implant and summarizes the outcome of DEX implant administration in major clinical studies on DME treatment.

Retrospective Analysis of Treatment Patterns in Pseudophakic Diabetic Macular Oedema Eyes Treated with Anti-VEGF

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of outcomes in 81 pseudophakic eyes with DMO that received at least 6 anti-VEGF injections. We reviewed baseline and posttreatment optical coherence tomography images, visual acuity, prescribing patterns, time taken to deliver anti-VEGF injections, and structural and functional outcomes.

Results

It took an average of 913 ± 454.1 days to deliver a mean of 11.1 ± 4.7 anti-VEGF injections. Time from baseline to receiving the first 6 anti-VEGF injections was longer than 9 months in 74.7% (n = 59/79) of eyes. There was a mean gain of 1.6 letters (−0.03 logMAR) from baseline to the end point. After 5 anti-VEGF intravitreal injections, the mean CMT was 391.9 μm from 474.4 μm at baseline (p < 0.0001). In 52 of 79 eyes (65.8%), more than one type of anti-VEGF agent was used.

Conclusions

The anti-VEGF treatment used to treat these eyes with DMO was suboptimal, a finding consistent with recently published “real-world” data. There was a strong tendency for patients to be switched within the class to a second anti-VEGF agent.

LONG-TERM INCIDENCE AND RISK FACTORS OF OCULAR HYPERTENSION FOLLOWING DEXAMETHASONE-IMPLANT INJECTIONS: THE SAFODEX-2 STUDY

PURPOSE

To analyze the incidence, risk factors, and time to onset of ocular hypertension (OHT) after intravitreal injections (IVI) of dexamethasone implant and to evaluate the long-term cumulative probability of intraocular pressure elevation.

METHODS

Eyes of patients having received at least one dexamethasone implant IVI between October 2010 and February 2015 were included in the present study. Ocular hypertension was defined as intraocular pressure > 25 mmHg and/or an increase of 10 mmHg over the follow-up period compared with baseline intraocular pressure.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-four eyes were studied in 410 patients. For a total of 1,371 IVI, the incidence of OHT was 32.6% in the study eyes with a mean follow-up period of 30 months (3-62.5) and a median follow-up of 29 months. Pressure-lowering treatment was introduced for 36.9% of eyes. Topical treatment alone was sufficient to manage OHT in 97%. Young age, male sex, uveitis and retinal vein occlusion, and glaucoma treated with a double- or triple-combination topical pressure-lowering medication were found to be risk factors for OHT. The incidence of OHT did not change with an increase in the number of IVI, and there was no cumulative effect, defining by an increase of the incidence of OHT in patients after repeated IVI (P = 0.248).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that OHT is of moderate incidence, transient, controlled by topical treatment and provides data on the long-term cumulative probability of intraocular pressure elevation in a large cohort of eyes treated with dexamethasone implant IVI. Repeat injections of dexamethasone implant neither increase nor decrease the risk of OHT.

A Real-World Single-Centre Study of Patients with Diabetic Macular Oedema Who Wore a Home-Use Sleep Mask (Noctura 400) for One Year

A “Real-World” single-centre observational study was carried out to analyse the effects of enhanced patient interaction with the use of the Noctura 400 sleep mask on a group of 26 diabetics displaying diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular oedema (DMO), of which 24 completed the study. We hoped to find if patient compliance could be maintained and to determine the anatomical and functional consequences of consistent mask wear. While this study was ongoing, COVID-19 impacted on normal eye clinic practice, allowing an unexpected analysis of the effects of this disruption to the clinical system on mask wear and disease progress. Throughout the whole study, outcomes were positive, with a high level of consistent patient use of the mask, above 74% up to and beyond 1 year. Even during the COVID-19 1st lockdown in England, the patients maintained a 65% nightly light mask compliance. Statistically significant improvements in maculopathy, including cyst reduction (56.4% of eyes with cysts exhibited cyst shrinkage), and visual acuity (VA) improvement (42/48 eyes gained 5 letters or more) were observed and maintained to the end of the study. Anatomical improvement or stability was recorded in all but one study eye. This investigation shows that given that there is appropriate interaction with patients who are self-treating in home environment, a high level of patient compliance can be maintained, even while there are disruptions to the normal hospital clinic setup.

ETOILE: Real-World Evidence of 24 Months of Ranibizumab 0.5 mg in Patients with Visual Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg (Lucentis) in improving visual acuity (VA) in adults with decreased VA due to diabetic macular edema (DME).

Patients and Methods

Real-world prospective observational 24-month study. Ranibizumab-naïve patients (n=116) were enrolled, treated and followed up according to investigators’ usual procedures. Outcomes included change from baseline to month 24 in best-corrected VA (BCVA; primary outcome), central retinal thickness (CRT), treatment exposure and safety.

Results

Overall, 62.9% of patients completed the study per protocol, 68.6% completed the induction phase (first three injections one month apart). On average, patients had 12.5 ophthalmologist visits and 5.74 injections in year 1, decreasing to 4.6 visits and 1.94 injections in year 2. Mean baseline BCVA was 58.4 letters, mean gain at M24 was +6.08 letters (95% CI: 2.95, 9.21). Gains were higher for patients who completed induction, and for patients who did not switch treatment. Mean CRT improved by 149.17 μm at M24. There were no new safety signals. BCVA variation of ≥6 letters by M3 was predictive of BCVA gains at M24 (p=0.007), as was hypertension medication at baseline (p=0.022).

Conclusion

Real-world ranibizumab treatment improved VA in DME patients, despite fewer injections than recommended.

Long-term outcomes of intravitreal therapy for symptomatic diabetic macular oedema in a real-world setting in Switzerland

Objective

To assess the long-term visual outcomes in eyes with symptomatic diabetic macular oedema (DME) under intravitreal treatment (IVT) in a clinical routine setting.

Methods

Patients with newly diagnosed DME were included in this retrospective study if they had received at least three IVTs and a follow-up period ≥ 2 years. Due to altered treatment patterns since the approval of ranibizumab for DME in 2012, patients were subdivided according to their first IVT before 2013 (group 1) or thereafter (group 2). The primary outcome measure was the evolution of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) over time.

Results

Of 217 eyes (191 patients) with DME, 151 eyes (117 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria (63 eyes in the first period, 88 in the second period). Mean follow-up time was 7.9 ± 3.1 (group 1) and 4.1 ± 1.4 years (group 2; p < 0.001). Visual gains were similar in the first year (group 1: + 5.3 ± 15.5, group 2: + 7.3 ± 12.2 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; p = 0.44), but not thereafter (after 2 years in group 1: + 4.4 ± 15.0, group 2: + 8.3 ± 13.0 ETDRS letters; p = 0.038). During the first year, group 1 patients received less clinical examinations (group 1: 6.6 ± 3.3, group 2: 7.5 ± 2.1; p = 0.007) and less injections (group 1: 3.6 ± 2.7, group 2: 6.1 ± 2.7; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A greater visual gain, in response to more intensive treatment during the first year, was maintained for at least 5 years in group 2 subjects. Our data confirm that in a real-world setting, early intensive treatment results in satisfying long-term visual outcomes.

Effect of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for refractory and treatment-naive diabetic macular edema in Taiwanese patients

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone (DEX) implant has been shown to improve visual and anatomic function in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of DEX implant between refractory and naive eyes with DME.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from pseudophakic patients with center-involved DME who received DEX implant (1 + as needed retreatment) from May 2015 to May 2017. Baseline clinical characteristics, changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-four eyes of 31 patients refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents and 41 eyes of 38 treatment-naive patients were reviewed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). In the refractory eyes, significant improvements in both BCVA and CFT were observed at 1 month post DEX implant and sustained throughout 6 months. Mean change from baseline in BCVA at 6 months was -0.17 ± 0.35 logMAR (7.29 ± 16.22 letters) and 155.44 ± 112.67 μm in CFT. Similar trends of improvement were seen in treatment-naive eyes; however, the visual improvement (-0.30 ± 0.29 logMAR [16.42 ± 14.38 letters]) was significantly better than the refractory group, with significantly less injections (1.54 ± 0.49 versus 1.82 ± 0.38, p = 0.007). Between-group changes in CFT were comparable. No serious ocular complications occurred, and about a quarter of the patients had elevated intraocular pressures that were manageable with topical medications.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this was the first study comparing DEX implant between treatment-naive and refractory Asian patients with DME. Intravitreal DEX implant can effectively treat refractory and treatment-naive patients with DME. In addition, superior visual outcomes were observed in the naive group comparing to the refractory group following DEX implant treatment in Taiwanese pseudophakic eyes with DME.

UVEITIS TREATED WITH DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT

PURPOSE

To evaluate the real-life efficacy and safety of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant in uveitis.

METHODS

This retrospective observational multicentric study included 152 eyes treated exclusively by 358 dexamethasone implant injections. The main outcome measures included change in the best-corrected visual acuity, central macular thickness, and vitreous haze score.

RESULTS

Patients were treated with dexamethasone implant for macular edema (51.3%), vitritis with macular edema (40.1%), vitritis (5.3%), and other causes (3.3%). The mean duration of follow-up was 19.0 months. The mean gain in best-corrected visual acuity during follow-up was +12.1 letters. An improvement in best-corrected visual acuity ≥5, 10, and 15 letters was found in 64.5, 50.7, and 35.5% of cases, respectively. 59.7% of eyes with macular edema at baseline were found to be anatomical responders. Vitritis resolution (vitreous haze = 0+) was obtained in 81.4% of cases. Ocular hypertension (intraocular pressure ≥25 mmHg and/or gain ≥10 mmHg from baseline) occurred in 28.3% of patients. No filtering surgery/laser therapy was required. A total of 40.2% of phakic subjects underwent cataract surgery on average 11.2 months after the first injection.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone implant in noninfectious uveitis. Cataract and ocular hypertension were not uncommon but easily manageable.

Visual Acuity Gain Profiles and Anatomical Prognosis Factors in Patients with Drug-Naive Diabetic Macular Edema Treated with Dexamethasone Implant: The NAVEDEX Study

Brief Summary Statement

NAVEDEX (NAive diabetic macular Edema treated by DEXamethasone implant) study is a real-life multi-center study on drug-naive diabetic macular edema treated by Dexamethasone-implant. Two different visual acuity gain (VA) profiles were identified, based on baseline visual acuity (VA). Baseline disorganization of retinal inner layers or ellipsoid zone alterations (EZAs) negatively influence final VA but has no impact on VA gain.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the visual acuity (VA) gain profiles between patients with drug-naive diabetic macular edema (DME) treated by dexamethasone implant (DEX-implant) and assess the baseline anatomical and functional factors that could influence the response to the treatment in real-life conditions. A retrospective, multi-center observational study included 129 eyes with drug-naive DME treated by DEX-implant. The Median follow-up was 13 months. Two groups of VA gain trajectories were identified—Group A, with 71% (n = 96) of patients whose average VA gain was less than five letters and Group B, with 29% (n = 33) of patients with an average gain of 20 letters. The probability of belonging to Group B was significantly higher in patients with baseline VA < 37 letters (p = 0.001). Ellipsoid zone alterations (EZAs) or disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRILs) were associated with a lower final VA (53.0 letters versus 66.4, p = 0.002) but without a significant difference in VA gain (4.9 letters versus 6.8, p = 0.582). Despite a low baseline VA, this subgroup of patients tends to have greater visual gain, encouraging treatment with DEX-implant in such advanced-stage disease. However, some baseline anatomic parameters, such as the presence of EZAs or DRILs, negatively influenced final vision.

Managing Diabetic Macular Edema in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Strategies and Treatment Options

Purpose

This meta-analysis aims to summarize 12-month best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and to identify factors affecting treatment response using evidence generated from meta-regression.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life/observational studies that reported 12-month changes in BCVA in patients with DME on anti-VEGF or dexamethasone implant treatment in monotherapy. Study factors that were analyzed are baseline patient characteristics, study type, drug employed, number of injections and 12-month change in BCVA. Data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis with BCVA change as the main outcome. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the impact of multiple covariates.

Results

One-hundred-five heterogeneous study populations (45,032 eyes) were identified and included in the analysis. The use of anti-VEGFs and dexamethasone implant induced an overall increase of +8.13 ETDRS letters in BCVA at 12 months of follow-up. Meta-regression provided evidence that mean BCVA change using anti-VEGFs was not statistically higher for RCTs (p=0.35) compared to observational studies. Dexamethasone implant showed a trend for better results in observational studies over RCTs. Populations following a fixed aflibercept regimen performed better than those following a reactive treatment regimen. Mean BCVA gain was higher in younger populations (p<0.001), with lower baseline BCVA (p<0.0001) and longer diabetes duration (p<0.0001), receiving a higher number of injections (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

Intravitreal therapy with anti-VEGFs or dexamethasone implant produces a significant improvement in BCVA at 12 months in patients with DME. Meta-regression identified the modifiable covariates that can be targeted in order to maximize functional results.

Micropulse laser in patients with refractory and treatment-naïve center-involved diabetic macular edema: short terms visual and anatomic outcomes

Purpose:

The purpose of the study is to describe visual and anatomic outcomes of 5774nm micropulse laser photocoagulation in eyes with either treatment-naïve or refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) at 3 months.

Methods:

This was a prospective case series that recruited 23 consecutive patients (33 eyes) with center-involved DME that was either treatment-naïve or had not responded to prior treatment. Micropulse therapy was performed with the Easy Ret 577 (Quantel Medical, Cournon d’Auvergne, France) diode laser in a high-density manner in eyes with treatment-naïve or refractory DME. The primary outcome was the change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; logMAR) at 1 and 3 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in the central macular thickness (CMT), thickness area, macular volume, and macular capillary leakage at 1 and 3 months.

Results:

There were no significant changes in BCVA at 3 months, with mean ± standard deviation (SD) of −0.08 ± 0.01 (p = 0.228) and + 0.01 ± 0.01 (p = 0.969) for treatment-naïve and refractory groups, respectively. The change in CMT at 3 months was statistically but not clinically significant in the treatment-naïve group only (mean ± SD; –30 ± 130 µm; p = 0.011). The macular volume and area thickness change were not statistically significant (p = 0.173 and p = 0.148 for macular volume and area thickness, respectively) in the treatment-naïve group. There was no difference concerning the leakage area in both groups. No adverse events were reported.

Conclusion:

We concluded that micropulse 577nm laser therapy maintained the visual acuity and macular thickness at 3 months in both treatment-naïve and refractory DME.

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review

To assess real-world outcomes of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in treating diabetic macular edema (DME), a systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed in order to identify publications assessing the efficacy and safety of the FAc implant in DME in daily practice. Case reports and randomized controlled trials were excluded. Twenty-two observational real-world studies analyzing a total of 1880 eyes were included. Mean peak visual gain was +8.7 letters (11.3 months post-FAc injection) and was greater for lower baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and for more recent DME. Mean central retinal thickness (CRT) decreased 34.3% from baseline. 77.0% of the analyzed studies reported both BCVA improvement of at least five letters and a CRT decrease by 20% or more. Rescue therapy was needed more frequently when FAc was administered for chronic DME. FAc-induced ocular hypertension was reported in 20.1% of patients but only 0.6% needed surgery. Cataract extraction was performed in 43.2% of phakic patients. Adequate patient selection is essential for optimal FAc response and better safety profile. Currently positioned as second- or third-line treatment in the management algorithm, FAc implant decreases treatment burden and provides better letter gain when administered for more recent DME.

Long-term follow-up of diabetic macular edema treated with dexamethasone implant: a real-life study

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX-implant) for diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-life practice with an extended follow-up for up to 5 year.

METHODS

This multicentric retrospective study reviewed 227 eyes of 152 patients with DME treated by DEX-implant. Main outcome measures included changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), time to retreatment and incidence of adverse effects.

RESULTS

The mean number of DEX-implant received by patients was 2.6 (± 2.2) with a mean (SD) follow-up of 20.1 (± 15.8) months, median [IQR] 15.8 [7.4-30.1]. The mean time of retreatment was 6.9 months. The mean maximal BCVA gain during follow-up was 12.3 (± 12.7) letters. A gain of ≥ 5, ≥ 10 and ≥ 15 letters from baseline BCVA was obtained for 71.8%, 48.9% and 34.8% of eyes, respectively. A total of 62.6% of eyes presented a significant anatomical response (decrease of CMT ≥ 20%), and DME was resolved (absence of cystoid macular spaces on OCT) in 37% of cases at the end of the follow-up. A transient increase in intraocular pressure ≥ 25 mmHg occurred in 14.1% of eyes, and cataract surgery was performed for 49.1% of the phakic eyes during the follow-up. Four eyes developed a proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

CONCLUSION

This large cohort study showed favorable long-term outcomes when using DEX-implant, which provides substantial long-term benefits in the treatment of DME in real life.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema: a retrospective study

AIM

To assess the effect of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) Ozurdex on the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Totally 43 eyes (24 naïve and 19 previously treated) were included in the study. Retrospective and single-center study involved patients with a clinical diagnosed of DME, who received treatment with DEX implant and had a follow-up of at least 12mo. Primary endpoints included changes in BCVA and CRT.

RESULTS

At month 12, mean improvement in BCVA from baseline was 20.4±20.8 letters and 6.8±6.9 letters in naïve and previously treated patients, respectively (P=0.0132). The naïve patients achieved the BCVA improvement significantly faster (2.4±1.5mo) than the previously treated ones (3.5±2.4mo, P=0.0298; Mann-Whitney test). The proportion of eyes gaining ≥15 letters was 54.2% and 21.1% in the non-previously treated and previously treated groups, respectively (P=0.0293). CRT was significantly reduced from 484.0±119.8 and 487.5±159.9 µm to 272.0±39.2 and 233.5±65.7 µm in the naïve and previously treated patients, respectively; P<0.0001 each, respectively. The presence of subretinal fluid was significantly associated with the proportion of patients achieving a BCVA improvement ≥5 letters [HR (95%CI), 1.23 (1.04 to 1.45), P=0.0145]; ≥10 letters [HR (95%CI), 1.75 (1.10 to 2.77), P=0.0182]; and ≥15 letters [HR (95% CI), 2.04 (1.03 to 4.02), P=0.0407]. Naïve patients received less DEX implants throughout the study than the previously treated ones (1.8±0.6 vs 2.3±0.6, P=0.0172, respectively). Totally 9 patients (20.9%) have developed ocular hypertension, which was successfully controlled with topical hypotensive drugs. Of the 23 phakic eyes at baseline, 5 eyes (21.7%) either had new onset lens opacity or progression of an existing opacity during the study follow-up. Four of them (2 in the naïve group and 2 in the previously treated one) required cataract surgery at months 4, 6, 6, and 6, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained in this study may support the early use of DEX Ozurdex as first line therapy in naïve patients.

Effect of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant on Visual Acuity and Foveal Photoreceptor Integrity in Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vascular Disease

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant on the external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity in treatment-naïve patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vascular disease (RVD).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted on patients with ME secondary to RVD, who underwent a DEX implant.

RESULTS

One-hundred eyes were included. Mean age was 70.3 ± 11.1 years. Mean ELM integrity significantly improved from 1,575.9 ± 285.9 μm at baseline to 1,711.7 ± 244.0 μm at month 3 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, there was a significant improvement in EZ integrity from baseline to month 3 (1,531.5 ± 317.1 vs. 1,694.3 ± 252.8 μm, respectively, p < 0.0001). At month 3, mean visual acuity (VA) gain was 9.9 ± 14.1 letters (p < 0.0001). Mean central retinal thickness (CRT) significantly decreased by -193.2 ± 185.7 μm from baseline to month 3 (p < 0.0001). Mean changes in VA and CRT were significantly correlated with baseline ELM integrity (p = 0.0065 and p = 0.0046, respectively) and EZ integrity (p = 0.0300 and p = 0.0035, respectively). At month 3, the proportion of eyes which had an intact ELM (mean difference 16.0%, 95% CI 5.4-26.4%, p = 0.0033) and EZ (mean difference 12.0%, 95% CI 1.8-22.1%, p = 0.0210) was significantly higher than at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX implant was able to significantly improve ELM and EZ integrity in naïve patients with ME.

Results of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) in diabetic macular edema patients: Early versus late switch

PURPOSE

To assess the functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex® in eyes with diabetic macular edema that did not adequately respond to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.

METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective, and real-life case series study conducted on consecutive diabetic macular edema patients who underwent treatment with one or more dexamethasone implant injections and were followed up for a minimum of 12 months. Subjects were divided into three groups: I-naïve patients, II-previously treated eyes that received three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections before the study (early switch), and III-previously treated eyes that received >3 intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections before the study (late switch). Primary endpoints were best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness at month 12.

RESULTS

A total of 129 eyes (21 naïve and 108 previously treated, Group II: 32 and Group III: 76) were included. At month 12, best-corrected visual acuity significantly improved from 0.27 ± 0.23 and 0.31 ± 0.22 at baseline to 0.36 ± 0.25 and 0.37 ± 0.23 at month 12 in naïve and previously treated eyes, respectively, and p = 0.0063 and 0.0060, respectively. Central retinal thickness, in naïve and previously treated eyes, was significantly reduced from 483.0 ± 143.4 and 431.3 ± 115.5 µm, at baseline, to 278.8 ± 72.1 and 269.3 ± 66.2 µm, at month 12, respectively, and p < 0.0001 each, respectively. Best-corrected visual acuity improvement was significantly greater in both absolute and percentage values, p = 0.0393 and 0.0118, respectively, in Group II than in Group III.

CONCLUSION

In eyes with insufficient response to antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, switching to dexamethasone at the time to 3-monthly antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections provided better functional outcomes than those that received >3 antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors injections.

Association between the patterns of diabetic macular edema and photoreceptors' response after intravitreal ranibizumab treatment: a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography study

PURPOSE

To analyze photoreceptors' condition after intravitreal ranibizumab treatment according to the pattern of diabetic macular edema (DME) on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT).

METHODS

Retrospective study includes 58 treatment naïve patients with DME, treated with intravitreal ranibizumab injections and followed up for at least 12 months. Patients were classified based on DME morphology on SD-OCT into: diffuse macular edema, cystoid macular edema (CME) and serous retinal detachment with CME (SRD/CME). The DME morphology was analyzed, while quantitative measurement of ellipsoid zone (EZ) defect, as well as qualitative assessment of the condition of external limiting membrane (ELM) and interdigitation zone (IZ) at foveal area, was taken before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Before treatment, patients with CME presented worse ELM and IZ condition and greater EZ defect than patients with diffuse macular edema or SRD/CME. After treatment, the restoration of EZ defect and IZ was more evident in patients with CME than in diffuse macular edema or SRD/CME.

CONCLUSION

Patients with DME presented significant photoreceptors' restoration after intravitreal ranibizumab injections at the 12-month follow-up. The improvement in EZ defect size and IZ was dependent on the pattern of DME on SD-OCT.

Anti-VEGF Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Visual Outcomes in Routine Clinical Practice

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate 2-year visual outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with anti-VEGF agents in a routine clinical setting.

Methods

The medical records of patients treated with ranibizumab or aflibercept due to DME at the Eye Hospital, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia, between January 2016 and March 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 123 patients (123 eyes) were included in the study.

Results

Baseline visual acuity (VA) was 60.9 ± 15.2 letters (median 63; range 7-85). Baseline central retinal subfield thickness (CRT) was 440.7 ± 132.5 μm (median 430; range 114-1000). No significant change in VA over 2 years was found (mean change +2.1 ± 16.8 letters (median 2; range -53-52)). However, there was a significant change in VA in the subgroup with baseline VA <70 letters (mean change +5.7 ± 17.9 letters (median 5; range -52-52)). VA gains of ≥15 letters were achieved in 25 eyes (20.3%). Changes in CRT were significant over 2 years. Patients received 4.5 ± 2.1 (median 5, range 1-9) and 2.6 ± 2.3 (median 2, range 0-8) injections in the first and second years, respectively.

Conclusions

The two-year visual outcomes in this retrospective analysis appear to be comparable to previously reported outcomes in routine clinical practice. Our analysis provides some information about the effectiveness of anti-VEGF treatment in routine clinical practice in Slovenia. More intensive treatment should be implemented in the management of patients in order to achieve better visual outcomes.

The Evolving Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy

Purpose

To review the current therapeutic options for the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) and examine the evidence for integration of laser and pharmacotherapy.

Methods

A review of the PubMed database was performed using the search terms diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, neovascularization, laser photocoagulation, intravitreal injection, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), vitrectomy, pars plana vitreous surgery, antiangiogenic therapy. With additional cross-referencing, this yielded 835 publications of which 301 were selected based on content and relevance.

Results

Many recent studies have evaluated the pharmacological, laser and surgical therapeutic strategies for the treatment and prevention of DR and DME. Several newer diagnostic systems such as optical coherence tomography (OCT), microperimetry, and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) are also assisting in further refinements in the staging and classification of DR and DME. Pharmacological therapies for both DR and DME include both systemic and ocular agents. Systemic agents that promote intensive glycemic control, control of dyslipidemia and antagonists of the renin-angiotensin system demonstrate beneficial effects for both DR and DME. Ocular therapies include anti-VEGF agents, corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Laser therapy, both as panretinal and focal or grid applications continue to be employed in management of DR and DME. Refinements in laser devices have yielded more tissue-sparing (subthreshold) modes in which many of the benefits of conventional continuous wave (CW) lasers can be obtained without the adverse side effects. Recent attempts to lessen the burden of anti-VEGF injections by integrating laser therapy have met with mixed results. Increasingly, vitreoretinal surgical techniques are employed for less advanced stages of DR and DME. The development and use of smaller gauge instrumentation and advanced anesthesia agents have been associated with a trend toward earlier surgical intervention for diabetic retinopathy. Several novel drug delivery strategies are currently being examined with the goal of decreasing the therapeutic burden of monthly intravitreal injections. These fall into one of the five categories: non-biodegradable polymeric drug delivery systems, biodegradable polymeric drug delivery systems, nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems, ocular injection devices and with sustained release refillable devices. At present, there remains no one single strategy for the management of the particular stages of DR and DME as there are many options that have not been rigorously tested through large, randomized, controlled clinical trials.

Conclusion

Pharmacotherapy, both ocular and systemic, will be the primary mode of intervention in the management of DR and DME in many cases when cost and treatment burden are less constrained. Conventional laser therapy has become a secondary intervention in these instances, but remains a first-line option when cost and treatment burden are more constrained. Results with subthreshold laser appear promising but will require more rigorous study to establish its role as adjunctive therapy. Evidence to support an optimal integration of the various treatment options is lacking. Central to the widespread adoption of any therapeutic regimen for DR and DME is substantiation of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness by a body of sound clinical trials.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in patients not previously treated with any intravitreal drug: a prospective 12-month follow-up study

Objective: To evaluate the mid-long-term efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant (Ozurdex¹) in naïve patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods: Prospective and single-center study conducted on consecutive patients with a diagnosis of DME, who received a DEX implant and were followed up for at least 12 months. The main outcomes measurements were the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and in foveal thickness (FT) as compared to the baseline values.Results: Of the 84 screened patients 50 were included in the study. The BCVA significantly improved from 52.4 (20.4) letters at baseline to 62.6 (15.6), 61.2 (18.4), 61.6 (18.6), 60.6 (19.0), and 60.6 (18.8) at 2, 4, 6, 12 months and end of follow-up period, respectively (repeated measures ANOVA and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction; p = .0008). At the end of the follow-up period, a gain of BCVA of ≥5, ≥10, and ≥15 letters were observed in 26 (52.0%), 18 (36.0%), and 16 (32.0%) patients, respectively. The mean FT was significantly reduced from 446.0 (139.9) µm at baseline to 327.2 (103.6) at the end of follow-up (repeated measures ANOVA and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction; p = .0008). During the study follow-up, the patients receive a mean of 3.4 (2.9-3.9) implants. Of the 32 phakic eyes at baseline, 17 (53.1%) either developed new lens opacity or progression of an existing opacity.Conclusion: In eyes with DME not previously treated with intravitreal drugs, DEX implants provide meaningful functional and anatomical benefits, and these results are sustained mid-long-term.

[Ozurdex in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. When to prescribe?]

Retinal damage in diabetes is known to manifest in two main ways: diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. The most effective anti-inflammatory drugs today are glucocorticoids, a classic representative of which is dexamethasone. Two things that should be considered by ophthalmologists in the therapy of macular edema are the switching point to dexamethasone implant when the effectiveness of anti-vasoproliferative drugs is unsatisfactory, and the identification of the main predictors of diabetic macular edema that make glucocorticoids the drugs of first choice. The data from real clinical practice was used to develop the indications for intravitreal administration of a glucocorticoid as the therapy of first choice for diabetic macular edema. Glucocorticoids are prescribed to patients diagnosed with diabetic macular edema who has a history of acute cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction or other cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, as well as patients with a very high risk of a vascular catastrophe. Intravitreal glucocorticoids can be prescribed to patients who cannot follow the schedule of frequent visits and/or are not able to visit the hospital during the first 6 months after the administration of the drug. Considering the local character of its ophthalmic action, the method can be recommended for treating patients with pseudophakic eyes, persistent diabetic macular edema, or patients who underwent vitrectomy.

The role of placental growth factor (PlGF) and its receptor system in retinal vascular diseases

Placental growth factor (PlGF) is a member of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) family. Upon binding to VEGF- and neuropilin-receptor sub-types, PlGF modulates a range of neural, glial and vascular cell responses that are distinct from VEGF-A. As PlGF expression is selectively associated with pathological angiogenesis and inflammation, its blockade does not affect the healthy vasculature. PlGF actions have been extensively described in tumor biology but more recently there has been accumulating preclinical evidence that indicates that this growth factor could have an important role in retinal diseases. High levels of PlGF have been found in aqueous humor, vitreous and/or retina of patients exhibiting retinopathies, especially those with diabetic retinopathy (DR) and neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD). Expression of this growth factor seems to correlate closely with many of the key pathogenic features of early and late retinopathy in preclinical models. For example, studies using genetic modification and/or pharmacological treatment to block PlGF in the laser-induced choroidal neovascularization (CNV) model, oxygen-induced retinopathy model, as well as various murine diabetic models, have shown that PlGF deletion or inhibition can reduce neovascularization, retinal leakage, inflammation and gliosis, without affecting vascular development or inducing neuronal degeneration. Moreover, an inhibitory effect of PlGF blockade on retinal scarring in the mouse CNV model has also been recently demonstrated and was found to be unique for PlGF inhibition, as compared to various VEGF inhibition strategies. Together, these preclinical results suggest that anti-PlGF therapy might have advantages over anti-VEGF treatment, and that it may have clinical applications as a standalone treatment or in combination with anti-VEGF. Additional clinical studies are clearly needed to further elucidate the role of PlGF and its potential as a therapeutic target in ocular diseases.