The Portuguese Experience with Ocriplasmin in Clinical Practice

Pneumatic vitreolysis versus vitrectomy for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular holes: complication analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review to compare  the effects of pneumatic vitreolysis (PV), enzymatic vitreolysis (EVL) with ocriplasmin, and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) on vitreomacular traction (VMT) syndrome and macular holes (MHs) to assess their efficacy as treatment options.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)-including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2)-, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2000-October 2022), were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of PV versus PPV, PPV versus ocriplasmin and ocriplasmin versus PV. RevMan 5.1 was used for the meta-analysis of the studies.

RESULTS

Among the 89 studies, 79 were considered eligible for qualitative analysis, and 10 quantitative studies were subjected to meta-analysis. PPV resulted in better postoperative visual acuity improvement than ocriplasmin (standardized mean deviation (SMD) = 0.38, 95% CI 0.03-0.73, p = 0.0003). PV resulted in no significant difference in visual improvement compared  with  PPV (SMD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.47 to 0.16, p = 0.35). PPV was significantly more effective in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.62, p = 0.00001) and MH closure rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.81, p = 0.006) than ocriplasmin. PV was more effective than ocriplasmin in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.70, p = 0.0001). Qualitative analysis showed MH closure rates of 46%, 47.8%, and 95% and VMT releases rates of 46%, 68% and 100% after ocriplasmin, PV, and PPV treatments, respectively.  Adverse events and postoperative complications occurring after treatment have also been documented in these studies.

CONCLUSION

PPV appears to be the most promising option for MH closure and VMT release, with fewer serious complications than EVL  or PV. However, given the limited number of studies comparing these treatments, further research is needed to establish the superiority of PPV over the other options.

Effectiveness of ocriplasmin in real-world settings: A systematic literature review, meta-analysis, and comparison with randomized trials

Purpose

Effectiveness of ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction (VMT) varies depending on the presence of common ocular conditions and patient selection criteria. We carried out a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis of ocriplasmin studies conducted in real‐world settings (RWS) and compared outcomes with those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We included prospective and retrospective studies from RWS documenting effectiveness of ocriplasmin in patients with VMT with or without MH, and RCTs of ocriplasmin versus control. Key end‐points were vitreomacular adhesion resolution (VMAR), nonsurgical MH closure, need for vitrectomy and safety. We conducted meta‐regression on pooled results to evaluate effects of baseline covariates and study design on outcomes.

Results

Thirty RWS (2402 patients) and 5 RCTs (737 patients) were included epiretinal membrane (ERM) and broad VMA were more prevalent in RCTs. Primary VMAR, vitrectomy and MH closure rates were comparable between RWS and RCTs. Rates of nsVMAR were significantly higher in RWS than RCTs (odds ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18–2.34). nsVMAR rates were inversely associated with ERM prevalence (odds ratio 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08–0.51). Compared with the recent OASIS trial, RWS reported a higher incidence of new/worsening subretinal fluid cases and less photophobia, photopsia, vitreous floaters, electroretinogram abnormalities and MH progression.

Conclusions

Ocriplasmin was significantly more effective in achieving nsVMAR in RWS than in RCTs. Lower ERM prevalence in RWS was the single significant explanatory variable for this difference. Conclusions on ocriplasmin safety in RWS are limited due to inconsistent reporting.

Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique: Is It the Best Option for Macular Holes?

Surgical treatment is generally necessary to repair full-thickness macular holes (FTMH). Although vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling remains the standard surgical technique, the inverted ILM flap procedure has increasingly assumed a role in the primary surgical repair of FTMHs. Some vitreoretinal surgeons reserve this technique to treat large or myopic holes, whereas others use it routinely in all cases. This paper is a comprehensive review of the current scientific evidence on the anatomical and functional outcomes of the inverted ILM flap technique in the repair of macular holes, following the International Vitreomacular Traction Study (IVTS) group classification.

OCRIPLASMIN FOR VITREOMACULAR TRACTION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: The INJECT Study

PURPOSE

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ocriplasmin in patients with vitreomacular traction (VMT), including those with macular hole (MH). The INJECT study prospectively evaluated ocriplasmin in the setting of clinical practice.

METHODS

INJECT was a Phase 4, multicenter, prospective observational study. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Assessments included nonsurgical VMT resolution, nonsurgical MH closure, best-corrected visual acuity, occurrence of vitrectomy, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The efficacy population (N = 395) received an ocriplasmin injection and had optical coherence tomography-confirmed VMT at baseline. At Day 28, the rate of nonsurgical VMT resolution was 40.7% in the overall group, and the rate of nonsurgical MH closure was 36.0% in the VMT with MH group. At Month 12, the rate of ≥2-line best-corrected visual acuity gain (irrespective of vitrectomy) was 36.8% in the overall group and 59.6% in the VMT with MH group. The percentage of patients who underwent vitrectomy in the study eye was 29.1% in the overall group and 55.6% in the VMT with MH group. Photopsia (9.8%) and vitreous floaters (6.8%) were the most frequent adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The INJECT study showed that ocriplasmin is effective in a clinical setting in patients with VMT, with or without MH. No new safety signals were identified from this large and surgeon-selected patient group, although the significant limitations of the study design without an image reading center and scheduled study visit timings should be noted.

ASSESSMENT OF ANATOMICAL AND FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES WITH OCRIPLASMIN TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH VITREOMACULAR TRACTION WITH OR WITHOUT MACULAR HOLES: Results of OVIID-1 Trial

Enzymatic vitreolysis with ocriplasmin is more effective in patients with focal vitreomacular adhesion without epiretinal membrane and macular hole ≤400 µm (if present) at baseline. This study shows that the treatment outcomes are related to patient selection.

Purpose:

To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes with ocriplasmin in patients with vitreomacular traction (VMT) with or without macular hole (MH).

Methods:

In a Phase 4, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study, eligible patients (VMT with focal adhesion, without epiretinal membrane, and with MH ≤400 µm [if present]) received a single intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin. Nonsurgical resolution of VMT (Day 28 [primary endpoint]), best-corrected visual acuity, MH closure, vitrectomy rate, and safety were assessed through Day 180.

Results:

Overall, 466 patients were included in the full analysis set, of whom 47.4% had VMT resolution by Day 28; resolution rates in patients with VMT without MH, VMT with MH ≤250 µm, and VMT with MH >250 to ≤400 µm were 43.4%, 68.6%, and 62.7%, respectively. Macular hole closure was higher in eyes with VMT and MH ≤250 µm (57.1%) than in eyes with VMT and MH >250 to ≤400 µm (27.5%) at Day 28. Overall, 30.8% of patients with VMT resolution gained ≥10 letters in best-corrected visual acuity at Day 180. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of ocriplasmin.

Conclusion:

Ocriplasmin is effective for resolution of VMT without or with MH (≤400 μm); treatment outcomes can be optimized with patient selection.

Enzymatic vitreolysis for the treatment of tractional diabetic macular edema

Background:

A new approach to address focal vitreomacular adhesion in patients with diabetic macular edema may control and stabilize diabetic macular edema with fewer anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to demonstrate that diabetic macular edema can be improved by inducing the release of a vitreomacular adhesion, with less than 2500 μm, with enzymatic vitreolysis.

Methods:

From a retrospective analysis of clinical records from patients with diabetic retinopathy, patients with diabetic macular edema and vitreomacular adhesion <2500 μm were selected for a single-arm prospective study. The primary endpoint was to control diabetic macular edema with fewer anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections after an observed vitreomacular adhesion release. A statistical subanalysis was performed for the following two groups: the group with vitreomacular adhesion release (group 1) and the group without vitreomacular adhesion release (group 2).

Results:

A total of 23 eyes from 19 patients were included. A reduction of the median number of injections was achieved in group 1 (p = 0.006). Adverse events were mild and transitory.

Conclusion:

Release of vitreomacular adhesion <2500 μm through enzymatic vitreolysis contributed to the control and stabilization of diabetic macular edema with fewer anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections, reducing the burden and the risks related to these invasive and frequently chronic treatments.

Flare changes after intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin in symptomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome

PURPOSE

To evaluate the changes in anterior chamber flare after a single intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin (125 μg), in patients with symptomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome (VMT).

STUDY DESIGN

An institutional review board-approved single-center not randomized prospective study.

METHODS

Fifteen eyes of fifteen patients (9 women, 6 men) underwent intravitreal injection with ocriplasmin for symptomatic VMT (width of attachment ≤ 1500 μm). Anterior segment flare was measured with a laser flare meter (Kowa) before intravitreal injection and 1 day, 1 week, 1 month after injection. The changes in flare were analyzed; the resolution of VMT was evaluated with spectral-domain OCT.

RESULTS

The mean anterior chamber flare was 10.5 ± 1.9 photons per millisecond (photons/ms) before the injection. After 1 day it increased to 13.6 ± 2.7 photons/ms (p = 0.027) and after 1 week to 14.4 ± 2.5 photons/ms (p = 0.005); after 1 month it decreased to 12.3 ± 2.3 photons/ms (p = 0.123). At 1 day and 1 week after injection, mean anterior chamber flare of fellow eyes was significantly lower than study eyes, while at 1 month this difference was not significant (12.3 ± 2.3 vs. 10.5 ± 1.8 photons/ms, p = 0.124, for study and fellow eyes). There was no statistically significant difference in the changes in flare between women and men or between phakic (N = 10) and pseudophakic (N = 5) eyes. No eye demonstrated intraretinal damage at any time-point. Also, 9 eyes showed resolution of VMT while 6 eyes demonstrated persistence of VMT.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin can be a safe and effective approach to treat symptomatic VMT syndrome in selected patients.

Assessment of intravitreal ocriplasmin treatment for vitreomacular traction in clinical practice

PURPOSE

To assess treatment effects following intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction (VMT), with or without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH), in real-life setting.

METHODS

This is a monocentric, retrospective, consecutive series of 82 eyes from 82 patients who underwent ocriplasmin treatment between July 2013 and December 2016. We included 57 eyes with pure VMT, 17 eyes with small FTMHs, and eight eyes with medium FTMHs. Primary outcome measures were VMT release and MH closure rates. Secondary outcomes were visual acuity (VA), morphological changes, and subjective visual impairment after 1, 3, and 6 months and at last follow-up.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 10 months, VMT release was achieved by pharmacologic vitreolysis in 57% of all eyes, whereas the macular hole closure rate was 32%. In those presenting with five or more positive prognostic factors (PPF), eyes with pure VMT showed nonsurgical traction release in 88%, and FTMHs were released in 93%, with a closure rate of 20%. Small FTMHs closed in 41% and medium FTMHs in 13%. The mean change in VA (LogMAR) was -0.07 ± 0.24 (median - 0.10) in all eyes. Subretinal fluid accumulation and ellipsoid zone changes were seen in 31% and 37% of all eyes, respectively. They were more frequent in eyes with traction release, but were self-limited.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-life setting, release of VMT by ocriplasmin injection can be achieved in the majority of eyes, relying on a strict patient selection. Closure of FTMHs rather correlates with hole diameter than with presence of PPF, and remains a rare finding in medium FTMHs.