Management of diabetic macular edema with intravitreal dexamethasone implants: Expert recommendations using a Delphi-based approach

Role of inflammation in diabetic macular edema and neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Diabetic macular edema (DME) and neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) are multifactorial disorders that affect the macula and cause significant vision loss. Although inflammation and neoangiogenesis are hallmarks of DME and nAMD, respectively, they share some biochemical mediators. While inflammation is a trigger for the processes that lead to the development of DME, in nAMD inflammation seems to be the consequence of retinal pigment epithelium and Bruch membrane alterations. These pathophysiologic differences may be the key issue that justifies the difference in treatment strategies. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors have changed the treatment of both diseases, however, many patients with DME fail to achieve the established therapeutic goals. From a clinical perspective, targeting inflammatory pathways with intravitreal corticosteroids has been proven to be effective in patients with DME. On the contrary, the clinical relevance of addressing inflammation in patients with nAMD has not been proven yet. We explore the role and implication of inflammation in the development of nAMD and DME and its therapeutical relevance.

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

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.

Recommendation for Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses: A Delphi Consensus Statement by the ESASO Study Group

PURPOSE

To establish consensus among experts in lens and refractive surgery to guide general ophthalmologists on issues related to presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs).

DESIGN

A modified Delphi method to reach a consensus among experts.

METHODS

A steering committee formulated 105 relevant items grouped into four sections (preoperative considerations, IOL selection, intraoperative considerations, and postoperative considerations). The consensus was defined as ≥ 70% of experts agreeing with the evaluation of a statement.

RESULTS

Ten experts participated and completed all rounds of questionnaires (100% response rate). Of 68 items considered in the preoperative considerations, consensus was achieved in 48 (70.6%). There was a lack of consensus over IOL selection, the experts only agreed on the importance of the patient's habits for the optical IOL design selection. Of the 14 considerations related to intraoperative issues, the experts reached a consensus on 10 (71.4%). The postoperative considerations section reached the highest consensus in 10 items of 13 (76.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Key recommendations for a diffractive multifocal IOL were a potential postoperative visual acuity > 0.5, a keratometry between 40-45 diopters, a pupil >2.8 mm under photopic conditions and <6.0 mm under scotopic conditions, a root mean square of higher order corneal aberrations <0.5 µm for 6-mm pupil size, while monofocal or non-diffractive IOLs should be considered for patients with coexisting eye disorders. A lack of agreement was found in the issues related to the IOL selection.

Diabetic Macular Oedema Guidelines: An Australian Perspective

The number of people living with diabetes is expected to rise to 578 million by 2030 and to 700 million by 2045, exacting a severe socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems around the globe. This is also reflected in the increasing numbers of people with ocular complications of diabetes (namely, diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and diabetic retinopathy (DR)). In one study examining the global prevalence of DR, 35% of people with diabetes had some form of DR, 7% had PDR, 7% had DMO, and 10% were affected by these vision-threatening stages. In many regions of the world (Australia included), DR is one of the top three leading causes of vision loss amongst working age adults (20-74 years). In the management of DMO, the landmark ETDRS study demonstrated that moderate visual loss, defined as doubling of the visual angle, can be reduced by 50% or more by focal/grid laser photocoagulation. However, over the last 20 years, antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and corticosteroid therapies have emerged as alternative options for the management of DMO and provided patients with choices that have higher chances of improving vision than laser alone. In Australia, since the 2008 NHMRC guidelines, there have been significant developments in both the treatment options and treatment schedules for DMO. This working group was therefore assembled to review and address the current management options available in Australia.

Expert recommendations for the management of diabetic macular edema with intravitreal dexamethasone implant: A Turkish Delphi study

PURPOSE

To provide consensus on the clinical use of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in Turkey.

METHODS

A panel of 22 retina experts prepared 77 statements of recommendation, and 80 retinal specialists practicing in Turkey were chosen to vote either in support or against each one. A Delphi-based method was used through which the ophthalmologists were able to view all of the results anonymously after two rounds and modify their subsequent answers. The survey was conducted via a mini website, and statements without consensus were resent to the specialists with the latest vote results a week later.

RESULTS

A total of 72 ophthalmologists answered the first and second round questions. After the first stage, consensus was achieved on 55 of the statements, leaving 22 without agreement. After the second stage, consensus was reached on 11 of the remaining statements. Strong consensus was achieved on statements regarding the etiopathogenesis of DME and the first-line indications and safety of the DEX implant procedure. The panel recommended the use of DEX implant for patients with an arterial thromboembolic event in the last three months and also agreed that pro re nata DEX implant treatment not only provides better outcomes for DME patients but also reduces the treatment burden for those who could not receive an adequate number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections.

CONCLUSION

This study provides clinical consensus and recommendations about the use of DEX implant in the clinical practice of DME management in Turkey.

Do serum vitamin D levels correlate with Macular Edema or with Diabetic Retinopathy?

PURPOSE

To compare serum vitamin D (25(OH)D) levels according to the presence of diabetic macular edema (DME) in Diabetes Mellitus (DM) patients with different retinopathy conditions.

METHODS

The files of all DM patients presenting for examination at the ophthalmology clinic between October 2018 and March 2020 were retrospectively examined. Data was collected from the files and included a comprehensive ophthalmological examination, laboratory results from fasting blood tests, and the internal medicine outpatient clinic examination. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of DME, they were divided into three groups in terms of retinopathy and DME, and in terms of retinopathy severity and presence of DME, they were divided into five groups.

RESULT

Ninety one (51.1%) of the age-sex matched participants were female and 87 (48.9%) were male. There was a statistically significant difference in vitamin D levels between the group with DME and the group without DME (p ≤ 0.001). In the comparison made according to the presence of retinopathy and DME; a significant difference was found between the DME group and the group with retinopathy but no DME (p ≤ 0.001). When the severity of retinopathy and the presence of DME were evaluated, a significant difference was found between the proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) group with DME and the PDR group without DME in terms of vitamin D levels (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the presence of DME is associated with lower serum 25(OH)D levels.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Foveal Microvascular Integrity Association With Anti-VEGF Treatment Response for Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To investigate the association between foveal microvascular integrity and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment response for diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 58 eyes (from 45 patients) with DME. Treatment strategy was three to five monthly anti-VEGF injections followed by a PRN protocol. Treatment with an intravitreal corticosteroid would be considered for persistent DME after five consecutive anti-VEGF injections. Eyes achieving a treatment-free interval ≥ four months within two years were classified into the good clinical course group (group 1). Eyes with frequent recurrent edema (treatment-free interval < four months) or requiring an intravitreal corticosteroid within two years were classified into the suboptimal clinical course group (group 2). Foveal microvascular integrity was evaluated by two continuous variables, that is, vessel density (%) within a width of 300 µm around the foveal avascular zone (FD-300) on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and perifoveal leakage (area %) on fluorescein angiography (FA).

Results

There were 37 eyes in group 1 and 21 eyes in group 2. FD-300 (odds ratio 0.733, 95% CI 0.620–0.867, P < 0.001) and perifoveal leakage (odds ratio 1.064, 95% CI 1.007–1.124, P = 0.027) were significantly associated with suboptimal clinical course. Area under curve (AUC) was 0.820 for FD-300 and 0.723 for perifoveal leakage in predicting clinical course. FD-300 was negatively correlated with perifoveal leakage (coefficient = −0.325, P = 0.014).

Conclusions

Compromised foveal microvascular integrity, represented by lower FD-300 and more severe perifoveal fluorescein leakage, was associated with suboptimal clinical course in anti-VEGF treatment for DME. A negative correlation between FD-300 and perifoveal leakage existed.

Saudi Arabia Guidelines for diabetic macular edema: A consensus of the Saudi Retina Group

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and its complications are major public health burdens in Saudi Arabia. The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) is 19.7% and the prevalence of diabetic macular edema (DME) is 5.7% in Saudi Arabia. Diabetic macular edema is a vision-threatening complication of DR and a major cause of vision loss worldwide. Ocular treatments include retinal laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, intravitreal corticosteroids, and vitreoretinal surgery when necessary. The present consensus was developed as a part of the Saudi Retina Group's efforts to generate Saudi guidelines and consensus for the management of DME, including recommendations for its diagnosis, treatment, and best practice. The experts' panel stipulates that the treatment algorithm should be categorized according to the presence of central macula involvement. In patients with no central macular involvement, laser photocoagulation is recommended as the first-line option. Patients with central macular involvement and no recent history of cardiovascular (CVS) or cerebrovascular disorders can be offered anti-VEGF agents as the first-line option. In the case of non-responders (defined as an improvement of <20% in optical coherence tomography or a gain of fewer than 5 letters in vision), switching to another anti-VEGF agent or steroids should be considered after 3 injections. Within the class of steroids, dexamethasone implants are recommended as the first choice. In patients with a recent history of CVS events, the use of anti-VEGF agents is not recommended, regardless of their lens status. The experts' panel recommends that a future study be conducted to provide a cut-off point for early switching to steroid implants in pseudo-phakic eyes.

INVICTUS: Intravitreal anti-VEGF and dexamethasone implant comparison for the treatment of diabetic macular edema: A 12 months follow-up study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of intravitreal injections (IVI) of ranibizumab (Lucentis^®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland; RAN), aflibercept (Eylea^®, Bayer, Leverkusen, Germany; AFL) and dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex^®, Allergan, Irvine, California; DXI) in the treatment of naive diabetic macular oedema (DME) during a 12-month follow-up, in real life.

METHODS

Nineteen eyes treated with RAN, 20 with AFL and 21 with DXI were analysed from inclusion up to 12 months (M12) with intermediate analysis at M6. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), fundus and central retinal thickness (CRT) using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT; Spectralis/HRA, Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) were performed at inclusion, M3, M6 and M12.

RESULTS

BCVA improved until 67.9 letters ±13.3 SD (+5.5 letters) at M6 and 69.6 letters ±12 SD (+7.2 letters) at 12 months for RAN group (p = 0.036). For the AFL group it improved until 63.6 letters ±15.2 SD (+6.6 letters) at M6 and 67.5 letters ±12.2 SD (+8.5 letters) at 12 months (p = 0.014). Lastly DXI group improved by 66.9 letters ±15.1 SD (+7.9 letters) at M6 and 68.4 letters ±11.2 SD (+9.4 letters) at 12 months (p = 0.0023). CRT decreased by 124.4 µm at M6 and 99.3 µm at M12 in RAN group, 144.3 µm and 101.5 µm in AFL group and finally 95.6 µm and 162.7 µm in DXI group.

CONCLUSION

In summary, these three drugs provide an efficient treatment option with an acceptable benefit-risk ratio for the treatment of naive patients with DME, whether on BCVA or CRT on the first year of treatment.

Real-Life Management of Diabetic Macular Edema with Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant: A Retrospective Analysis of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

Inflammation plays a key role in the pathogenesis of diabetic macular edema (DME), and intravitreal corticosteroids are among the recommended therapies. The goal of this retrospective analysis was to describe outcomes with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) in real life.

METHODS

Medical digital records of DME patients treated with DEX implant and followed up for 3 years were analyzed. Treatment with DEX implant was started either as first-line therapy in pseudophakic patients and in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities or as second-line therapy in patients refractory to the inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy. Analyzed outcomes included central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Mean number of implant injections per patient and mean duration of the interval between injections were also estimated.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (mean age 65.7 (±12.3) years; 53 phakic and 22 pseudophakic) with DME were included. Overall, 84 eyes were treated. Mean CMT improved from 380.1 (±100.3) µm at baseline to 306.8 (±77.0) µm at 36 months (p=0.0003). Mean BCVA improved for up to 6 months (p=0.08) and then started to decrease reaching values lower than baseline after 24 months. In pseudophakic patients, BCVA improvements were more pronounced and sustained up to 36 months (p=0.6). Over 36 months, each patient received on average 2.4 (±1.6) intravitreal injections of DEX implant. The time interval between consecutive injections was included between 180 and 240 days. No unexpected safety issues were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

With fewer than 3 injections per patient over a 3-year period, DEX implant was able to improve anatomic outcomes in DME patients. Only pseudophakic eyes showed also a long lasting functional benefit at 36 months.

[Clinical Decision Making for Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema with DEX Implant: a Consensus Paper]

BACKGROUND

Currently two intravitreally applied corticosteroids (dexamethasone and fluocinolone) are licensed in Germany for treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). The use of DEX implant for DME in daily clinical practice has not been defined in detail. Following a Delphi panel survey, a group of retina experts set out to come up with a consensus for use of the DEX implant in DME.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

International and national treatment recommendations were identified from the literature. A steering group generated a catalogue of 72 statements on the aetiology and pathogenesis of DME, therapy with DEX implant, use of DEX implant in patients previously treated with VEGF-inhibitors, use of DEX implant in combination therapy, safety of DME therapies as well as patients' burden of treatment. Twenty-two ophthalmologists from private practice and 6 hospital ophthalmologists participated in the Delphi panel via Survey Monkey. Consensus was reached if at least 75% of participants agreed or disagreed with a statement. Statements for which consensus was not reached were discussed once more during the expert consensus meeting and a vote was taken. Based on these results a treatment algorithm for foveal DME was proposed.

RESULTS

If a patient does not show sufficient response after 3 - 6 months of anti-VEGF treatment (visual acuity gain of < 5 ETDRS letters or reduction of central retinal thickness ≤ 20%), a switch to DEX implant should take place. DEX implant is also suitable in eyes with longer presentation of DME, showing e.g. massive lipid exudates. DEX implant is suitable as first-line therapy especially in pseudophakic patients, patients unwilling or able to comply with tight anti-VEGF injection intervals or patients with known vascular diseases. With fixed control visits every 4 - 8 weeks, use of DEX implant is flexible and individual. Decision parameters for repeated use should be visual acuity, retinal thickness and intraocular pressure. Treatment of both eyes on the same day should not take place.

CONCLUSION

The algorithm presented reflects survey as well as expert discussion results and may differ from recommendations issued by the German professional society. The consensus recommendations for the treatment of DME generated during the survey and meeting of retina experts are intended to guide use of DEX implant in daily practice.