Early versus late switch: How long should we extend the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in unresponsive diabetic macular edema patients?

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.

Switching to an Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant after Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review

Among working-age people, diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema are currently considered the main causes of blindness. Nowadays, intravitreal injections are widely acknowledged as a significant milestone in ophthalmology, especially for the treatment of several retinal diseases, including diabetic macular edema. In particular, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are typically the first line of treatment; however, monthly injections are required, at least, during the loading dosage. Notably, an intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (DEX) implant (Ozurdex®, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) is considered a legitimate substitute treatment for diabetic eyes that have not responded to anti-VEGF treatment. In fact, clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of an intravitreal DEX implant in treating such conditions over a period of three to six months. For this reason, wisely selecting diabetic patients might be crucial to decreasing the load of injections in clinics and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to analyze the available scientific literature to highlight the benefits, efficacy, and clinical criteria for choosing whether to switch from intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy to an intravitreal DEX implant in diabetic macular edema.

Timing of Switching to Steroid Implants in Cases of Recalcitrant Diabetic Macular Edema Not Responding to Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Therapy: A Real-World Study

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the timing of the steroid switch on both visual and anatomical outcomes in diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes that have shown an inadequate response to multiple intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections. In the treatment of DME, anti-VEGF injections are typically the initial course of action. However, in cases where DME persists despite anti-VEGF treatment, intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex®, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) are often utilized. Despite this, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the optimal timing for transitioning to steroid treatment. This study aims to shed light on the potential benefits of adjusting the timing of the steroid switch in cases of recalcitrant DME.  Methods The eyes (n = 105) of 77 patients with recalcitrant DME were included in this retrospective, interventional, comparative study comprising three groups: participants switched to steroid implants after three anti-VEGF injections (Group I), four to six anti-VEGF injections (Group II), and more than six anti-VEGF injections (Group III). Anti-VEGF treatment failure was defined as a central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 microns and/or a lack of visual improvement (≤1 line of visual gain according to Snellen acuity). The last follow-up took place after 10-12 weeks of Ozurdex® injections. Results Improvement was observed in 19 eyes (46%), 17 eyes (50%), and 10 eyes (33%) in Groups I, II, and III, respectively, after switching to dexamethasone implants. The best overall results (an improvement in vision and stabilization) were seen in Group II (32 eyes, 94%). The decrease in CRT was statistically significant in all three groups.  Conclusion Intravitreal dexamethasone implants improved functional and morphological outcomes in anti-VEGF-resistant DME eyes. After four to six anti-VEGF injections, switching to a steroid implant resulted in the best functional results.

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.

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.

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.

Optical coherence tomography in the management of diabetic macular oedema

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is the major cause of visual impairment in people with diabetes. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is now the most widely used modality to assess presence and severity of DMO. DMO is currently broadly classified based on the involvement to the central 1 mm of the macula into non-centre or centre involved DMO (CI-DMO) and DMO can occur with or without visual acuity (VA) loss. This classification forms the basis of management strategies of DMO. Despite years of research on quantitative and qualitative DMO related features assessed by OCT, these do not fully inform physicians of the prognosis and severity of DMO relative to visual function. Having said that, recent research on novel OCT biomarkers development and re-defined classification of DMO show better correlation with visual function and treatment response. This review summarises the current evidence of the association of OCT biomarkers in DMO management and its potential clinical importance in predicting VA and anatomical treatment response. The review also discusses some future directions in this field, such as the use of artificial intelligence to quantify and monitor OCT biomarkers and retinal fluid and identify phenotypes of DMO, and the need for standardisation and classification of OCT biomarkers to use in future clinical trials and clinical practice settings as prognostic markers and secondary treatment outcome measures in the management of DMO.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factors: the AUSSIEDEX study

AIM

To evaluate effectiveness of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) monotherapy in the AUSSIEDEX study non-responder subgroup, defined by diabetic macular oedema (DME) refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, observational, real-world study included pseudophakic and phakic (scheduled for cataract surgery) eyes that did not achieve a ≥5-letter best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain and/or clinically significant central subfield retinal thickness (CRT) improvement after 3-6 anti-VEGF injections for DME (N=143 eyes), regardless of baseline BCVA and CRT. After an initial DEX injection (baseline visit), reinjection was permitted at ≥16-week intervals.

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

changes in mean BCVA and CRT from baseline to week 52. Safety assessments included adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 143 eyes, 53 (37.1%) and 89 (62.2%) switched to DEX after 3-6 (early) and >6 (late) anti-VEGF injections, respectively; 1 (0.7%) had missing information. With 2.3 injections (mean) over 52 weeks, the change in mean BCVA from a baseline of 57.8 letters was not significant at week 52. Mean CRT improved significantly from a baseline of 417.8 μm at week 52 (mean change -60.9 μm; p<0.001). Outcomes were similar in eyes switched to DEX early and late. No unexpected adverse events were reported; no filtration surgeries were required.

CONCLUSION

To date, AUSSIEDEX is the largest prospective, real-world study of DEX monotherapy for treatment-naïve or anti-VEGF-refractory DME. Following early or late switch from anti-VEGF agents, DEX significantly improved anatomic outcomes at 52 weeks without new safety concerns, supporting use in anti-VEGF-refractory DME.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02731911.

Distance and near vision changes after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injection in eyes with center-involving diabetic macular edema

Purpose

To elucidate distance and near vision changes after intravitreal injections in center-involving diabetic macular edema (CIDME) in phakic and pseudophakic groups.

Methods

A retrospective study was done on 148 eyes (72 phakic and 76 pseudophakic) with center-involving DME. All eyes were treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection. All patients underwent distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) testing, near BCVA testing, dilated fundus examination, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline and follow-up visits. Eyes that could not improve after the first injection were given 2nd, 3rd, and more injections in the subsequent visits.

Results

On follow-up, post injections in the phakic group (n = 72), there were 65 eyes (90.3%) with stable/improved near vision and 59 eyes (81.9%) with stable/improved distance vision, whereas in the pseudophakic group (n = 76), 63 eyes (82.9%) and 60 eyes (78.9%), respectively. Both in phakic and pseudophakic eyes, 7.7%-13% of the cohort showed only near vision improvement.

Conclusion

In DME, besides the changes in distance vision, there are also changes in near vision. These changes should be taken into account while determining the response to anti-VEGF in DME treatment.

Predictive factors for treatment outcomes with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections in diabetic macular edema in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections are the standard of care for diabetic macular edema (DME), a common complication of diabetes. This study aimed to identify factors influencing DME intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment outcomes in real-world practice.

METHODS

This was a multi-center retrospective observational study using medical chart review of participants receiving anti-VEGF injections for DME (N = 248). Demographic and clinical variables were assessed for association with best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) outcomes using regression models.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in BCVA (p < 0.001) and CMT (p < 0.001) after 12 months of treatment, although 21% of participants had decreased BCVA, and 41% had a < 10% CMT reduction at 12 months. Higher baseline BCVA (p = 0.022, OR=-0.024, 95% CI=-0.046,-0.004) and longer duration of diabetic retinopathy (p = 0.048, OR=-0.064, 95% CI=-0.129,-0.001) were negative predictors for BCVA response, whereas Aflibercept treatment (p = 0.017, OR = 1.107, 95% CI = 0.220,2.051) compared with other drugs and a positive "early functional response" (p < 0.001, OR=-1.393, 95% CI=-1.946,-0.857) were positive predictors. A higher baseline CMT (p < 0.001, OR = 0.019, 95% CI = 0.012,0.0261) and an "early anatomical response", (p < 0.001, OR=-1.677, 95% CI=-2.456, -0.943) were predictors for greater reduction in CMT. Overall, the variables could predict only 23% of BCVA and 52% of CMT response.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows a significant proportion of DME patients do not respond to anti-VEGF therapy and identifies several clinical predictors for treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was approved through the Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Tasmania (approval number H0012902), and the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 86 - 067).

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.

Early-switch versus late-switch in patients with diabetic macular edema: a cost-effectiveness study

Background

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early- versus late-switch to the intravitreal-dexamethasone implant (DEX-i) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who did not adequately respond to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of a multicenter Clinical Data Registry. The registry included DME eyes who received 3 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (early-switch) or > 3 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (late-switch) before switching to DEX-i injections. The primary outcome was to estimate the incremental cost needed to obtain a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement ≥ 0.1 or a central-retinal thickness CRT ≤ 250 μm.

Results

The analysis included 108 eyes, 32 (29.6%) and 76 (70.4%) in the early- and late-switch groups, respectively. Early-switch strategy was associated with a cost saving of €3,057.8; 95% CI: €2,406.4–3,928.4, p < 0.0001). Regarding incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio, late-switch group was associated with an incremental cost of €25,735.2 and €13,533.2 for achieving a BCVA improvement ≥ 0.1 at month 12 and at any of the time-point measured, respectively. At month 12, 38 (35.2%) eyes achieved a BCVA improvement ≥ 0.1. At month 12, 52 (48.1) eyes had achieved a CRT ≤ 250 micron. As compared to baseline, the mean (95% CI) CRT reduction was − 163.1 (− 212.5 to − 113.7) µm and − 161.6 (− 183.8 to − 139.3) µm in the early-switch and late-switch groups, respectively, p = 0.9463.

Conclusions

In DME eyes, who did not adequately respond to anti-VEGF, switching to DEX-i at early stages (after the first 3-monthly injections) was found to be more cost-effective than extending the treatment to 6-monthly injections of anti-VEGF.

Monoclonal antibodies in diabetic retinopathy

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic retinopathy (DR), as one of the main complications of diabetes, is among the leading causes of blindness and visual impairment worldwide.

AREAS COVERED

Current clinical therapies include photocoagulation, vitrectomy, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies. Bevacizumab and ranibizumab are two monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) inhibiting angiogenesis. Intravitreal ranibizumab and bevacizumab can decrease the rate of blindness and retinal thickness, and improve visual acuity whether as monotherapy or combined with other treatments. They can increase the efficacy of other treatments and decrease their adverse events. Although administered intravitreally, they also might enter the circulation and cause systemic effects. This study is aimed to review our current knowledge about mAbs, bevacizumab and ranibizumab, in DR including superiorities, challenges, and limitations. Meanwhile, we tried to shed light on new ideas to overcome these limitations. Our latest search was done in April 2021 mainly through PubMed and Google Scholar. Relevant clinical studies were imported.

EXPERT OPINION

Future direction includes detection of more therapeutic targets considering other components of DR pathophysiology and shared pathogenesis of DR and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, the treat-and-extend regimen, and new ways of drug delivery and other routes of ocular drug administration.

Update on Current and Future Management for Diabetic Maculopathy

Diabetic macular edema (DME) remains the major cause of preventable blindness in the working-age population in developed countries, and screening programs are extremely important in the management of this complication of diabetic retinopathy. The introduction of modern imaging modalities and technological advances have facilitated both the early detection and the follow-up of patients with DME, particularly optical coherence tomography angiography and artificial intelligence. Intravitreal therapy is the gold standard treatment for DME, but not all patients respond equally to this therapy, and sometimes it is not easy to apply treatment protocols correctly; for these reasons, clinical practice results may differ from those of clinical trials in terms of vision gain. One approach has been to implement new treatment regimens, such as treat and extend, and new molecules and therapeutic targets are constantly being developed. The main goal of this review paper is to describe the current treatment options and management strategies for DME in Europe and to provide a brief oversight of the novel therapeutic options on the horizon.

[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.

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

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

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in Patients Who Did Not Complete Anti-VEGF Loading Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Retrospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To compare the functional and anatomic outcomes between eyes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who underwent a complete anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) loading dose with aflibercept and those who were switched to dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant after an incomplete anti-VEGF treatment regimen during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

This was a retrospective and comparative study conducted on patients with DME. Main outcome measures were mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to month 4.

RESULTS

Forty-three eyes (23 eyes in the anti-VEGF group and 20 eyes in the DEX group) were included. Mean BCVA significantly improved from 37.7 ± 25.3 and 35.7 ± 22.0 letters at baseline to 45.4 (23.9) (mean adjusted BCVA improvement 7.6 ± 20.8 letters, p = 0.033) and 46.1 ± 26.0 (mean adjusted BCVA improvement 10.6 ± 15.9 letters, p = 0.049) at month 4 in the anti-VEGF and DEX groups, respectively, with no significant differences between study groups (mean adjusted BCVA difference 2.8 letters, 95% CI - 9.4 to 14.9 letters, p = 0.648). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of eyes that achieved a BCVA improvement of ≥ 5, ≥ 10, and ≥ 15 letters between groups. CRT was significantly reduced from baseline to month 4 in both DEX (mean adjusted CRT reduction 167.3 ± 148.2 µm, p = 0.012) and anti-VEGF groups (mean adjusted CRT reduction 109.9 ± 181.9 µm, p < 0.001), with no differences between them (mean adjusted CRT difference 56.1 µm, 95% CI - 46.0 to 158.2 µm, p = 0.273). Of 20 eyes in the DEX group, 16 (80.0%) and 9 (45.0%) eyes achieved a CRT reduction of ≥ 20% from baseline at 2 months and at 4 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results seem to suggest that DEX implant can significantly improve both functional and anatomic clinical outcomes in patients who were unable to complete anti-VEGF loading dose during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

The prognostic role of optical coherence tomography in diabetic macular edema patients undergoing early dexamethasone implant shift

PURPOSE

To determine the prognostic characteristics of optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters by evaluating diabetic macular edema (DME) patients with early dexamethasone (DEX) shift after three doses of intravitreal ranibizumab (RNB) injection.

METHODS

Fifty-four eyes of 34 patients who had DEX implant after three doses of RNB were included in this retrospective study. Early DEX shift includes patients who received direct DEX implant replacement after three doses of RNB load. Baseline OCT values and factors affecting best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) response were analyzed with logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The presence of subretinal fluid and hyperreflective spot (HRS) >20 were found to be a negative predictive factor for anatomical response. (p = 0.009, p = 0.001, respectively) Low initial BCVA creates a positive effect on visual gain.( p = 0.041) Giant outer nuclear layer cysts, completely disrupted inner segment-outer segment and HRS > 20 have a negative effect on visual gain. (p = 0.025, p = 0.043, p = 0.023, respectively) According to the receiver operating characteristic analysis, the subretinal fluid volume threshold at which >20% reduction in CMT occurs was determined to be 0.85 mm³. (sensitivity 70%, specificity 84% area under the curve 0.817, p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

The presence of high number of HRS and high subretinal fluid volume at the baseline negatively affect prognosis even in patient groups with early DEX shift.

Intravitreal Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: An Update

Diabetic macular edema (DME) represents a prevalent and disabling eye condition. Despite that DME represents a sight-threatening condition, it is also among the most accessible to treatment. Many different treatment options including photocoagulation, intravitreal medical treatment (either vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors or corticosteroids therapies), and surgical removal are currently available. Although laser has been considered as the gold standard for many years, over the past several years vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) have become first-line therapy. However, many patients do not adequately respond to them. With the development of sustained-release corticosteroid devices, steroids have gained a presence in the management of the DME. We review and update the role of anti-VEGF and intravitreal sustained-release corticosteroid management of DME. According to the currently available scientific evidence, the choice of one anti-VEGF over another critically depends on the baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). While aflibercept may be the drug of choice in low baseline BCVA, the three anti-VEGFs (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept) provided similar functional outcomes when the baseline BCVA was higher. DEX implants are a valuable option for treating DME, although they are usually seen as a second choice, particularly in those eyes that have an insufficient response to anti-VEGF. The new evidence suggested that, in eyes that did not adequately respond to anti-VEGF, switching to a DEX implant at the time to 3 monthly anti-VEGF injections provided better functional outcomes.

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.

Profile of non-responder and late responder patients treated for diabetic macular edema: systemic and ocular factors

Diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment represents a challenge for the ophthalmologists, and several aspects of real treatment expectancy are still being discussed and not yet fully elucidated. A univocal definition of responsiveness to treatment has not been reached. How the clinicians can evaluate the therapeutic success? The evaluation of systemic and ocular factors should help in this complex management. The age influences the long-term outcomes, and the role of glycemic control is confounded by contrasting correlations between hemoglobin glycated A1c and DME. Long-term treatment success is influenced by baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and early BCVA response. Also baseline diabetic retinopathy severity scale score is useful to evaluate the chances of improvement before and during treatments. The time-switching was influenced by early BCVA response, however considering a delayed response in a percentage of patients. Several structural optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings could predict long-term success, as the presence of serous retinal detachment, hyperreflective retinal spots, the disruption of external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone, the disorganization of inner retinal layers and continued increase in CMT were considered predictors of poor response to treatment. Foveal avascular zone enlargement, high number of microaneurysms (Mas), lower vessel density (VD) in deep capillary plexus and lower parafoveal VD in superficial capillary plexus were considered as OCT angiography biomarkers of poor responsiveness. The aim of this review is to report the factors that could influence the response to treatment of DME patients.

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.

Can the dexamethasone intravitreal implant Ozurdex be safely administered in an out-of-operating room setting?

Purpose

To describe a standardized protocol of the dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant Ozurdex (Allergan, Dublin, Ireland) performed in a controlled environment surgical cabin (CESC).

Methods

Retrospective and observational study conducted on patients who underwent a DEX implant between May 2011 and June 2019, in a third level University Hospital. The controlled environment surgical cabin (ArcSterile, Imex, Valencia, Spain) used in this study was the MB 20 (2 m width, 1.60 m depth, and 2 m height) with an uninterrupted power system (ARSSAI1) to keep the cabin working for 20 min. The cabin was used in the open mode. A standardized protocol of intravitreal injections in controlled environment surgical cabin was designed.

Results

From May 2011 to February 2015, a total of 454 DEX implants were performed in the operating room, whereas from March 2015 to June 2019, 1054 DEX devices were implanted using the CESC. The mean number of DEX implants/per week was significantly lower in the operating room than in the CESC [2.3 (2.1 to 2.5) versus 3.8 (3.6 to 4.1), mean difference 1.5 (1.2 to 1.8), p < 0.0001]. The incidence of endophthalmitis was similar in the two populations, 0/454 (0.0%; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.81%) and 0/1054 (0.0%; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.35%) in the operating room and in the CESC, respectively.

Conclusions

The CESC may be a good alternative to the conventional operating room for the administration of the intravitreal DEX implant.