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

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.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pretreated Diabetic Macular Edema-A Swiss Cohort Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a significant cause of visual impairment, often treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. However, some patients do not respond adequately to this treatment. This study aims to evaluate the contribution of the intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant as a second-line treatment in DME patients with insufficient response to anti-VEGF therapy or with high treatment burden.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted across seven clinical sites in Switzerland. The study included eyes with active DME that had been pretreated with anti-VEGF for at least six months before receiving DEX therapy. Data were extracted from electronic patient records, focusing on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), and injection frequency.

RESULTS

A total of 95 eyes from 89 patients (38.8% females, mean age 65.6 ± 9.1 years, follow-up time 80.6 ± 38.5 [13.5-166.7] months) were analyzed. Prior to the first DEX implant, eyes had undergone an average of 16.0 ± 13.3 anti-VEGF injections over 32.5 ± 22.4 months. Post-DEX treatment, 22.1% of eyes received DEX monotherapy, 44.2% received a combination of DEX and anti-VEGF, 25.3% continued with anti-VEGF monotherapy, and 8.4% received no further treatment. The number of anti-VEGF injections decreased significantly from 6.4 ± 3.1 in the year before DEX to 1.6 ± 2.4 in the year after DEX (p < 0.001). BCVA remained stable (0.4 ± 0.3 logMAR at baseline, 0.4 ± 0.5 logMAR at 24 months, p = 0.2), while CST improved from 477.7 ± 141.0 to 320.4 ± 125.5 μm (p < 0.001), and the presence of retinal fluid decreased from 98.0% to 61.1% (p = 0.021). During follow-up, 26.3% of eyes required glaucoma medication, 4.2% underwent glaucoma surgery, and 1.1% needed cataract surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical settings, the addition of DEX to anti-VEGF therapy in DME patients significantly reduces treatment burden and retinal fluid while maintaining visual function. Treatment decisions should balance anatomical and functional outcomes, considering individual patient needs.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in diabetic macular edema patients considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies (REACT): a prospective, non-randomized, and multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the intravitreal fluocinolone-acetonide implant (FAc-i) in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema who did not sufficiently respond to other available therapies.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, non-randomized, and phase-IV observational study conducted on patients with recurrent-DME who were insufficient responders to currently available therapies (REACT-Study). The primary end-point was the mean change in best-corrected-visual-acuity from baseline to month-24 values.

RESULTS

Thirty-one eyes from 31 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 68.0 ± 7.7 years, and 10 (32.3%) were women. Study patients had received 5.3 ± 7.3 previous DME treatments before starting the study. In the overall study sample, BCVA improved from 56.1 ± 12.3 letters at baseline to 62.4 ± 17.0 letters at month-24 (p = 0.0510). The eyes with a baseline BCVA < 70 ETDRS letters had a significant improvement in BCVA from 53.2 ± 10.2 letters at baseline to 61.5 ± 17.9 letters at month-24 (p = 0.0165). In the overall study population, central-subfoveal-thickness (CST) was significantly reduced from 474.0 ± 135.1 µm at baseline to 333.4 ± 135.6 at month-24 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, macular-volume (MV) was significantly reduced from 10.7 ± 2.7 mm3 at baseline to 9.6 ± 2.9 mm3 (p = 0.0027) at month-24. Among the 31 study eyes, 19 (61.3%) required an additional treatment for DME. Throughout the study, 9 (29.0%) eyes required ocular hypotensive medication for controlling their intraocular-pressure and 5 (16.1%) eyes underwent cataract surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In DME eyes who did not sufficiently respond to previous therapies, the FAc-i was associated with an improvement in visual and anatomic outcomes. There were no unexpected adverse-events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT identifier: 2016-001680-37.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Naïve and Previously Treated Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

PURPOSE

To compare the direct costs associated with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX-i) in treatment-naïve and previously treated eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a real clinical setting.

METHODS

Retrospective and single-center study conducted in a real clinical scenario. Consecutive DME patients, either naïve or previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF), who received treatment with one or more DEX-i between May 2015 and December 2020, and who were followed-up for a minimum of 12 months, were included in the study. The cost analysis was performed from the perspective of the Andalusian Regional Healthcare Service. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the probability of achieving an improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≥ 15 ETDRS letters after 1 year of treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different improvements in BCVA was calculated.

RESULTS

Forty-nine eyes, twenty-eight (57.1%) eyes from the treatment-naïve group and twenty-one (42.9%) from the previously treated group, were included in the analysis. The total cost of one year of treatment was significantly lower in the treatment-naïve eyes than in the previously treated eyes [Hodges-Lehmann median difference: EUR 819.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): EUR 786.9 to EUR 1572.8; p < 0.0001]. The probability of achieving a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters at month 12 was significantly greater in the treatment-naïve group than in the previously treated group (rate difference: 0.321; 95% CI: 0.066 to 0.709; p = 0.0272). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio of achieving a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters at month 12 was 3.55 (95% CI: 1.09 to 11.58; p = 0.0309). In terms of ICER, the treatment-naïve group showed cost savings of EUR 7704.2 and EUR 5994.2 for achieving an improvement in BCVA ≥ 15 letters at month 12 and at any of the measured time points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX-i was found to be more cost-effective in treatment-naïve eyes than in those previously treated with anti-VEGF. Further studies are needed to determine the most cost-effective treatment based on patient profile.

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.

Retrospective analysis of the efficacy of early switching from bevacizumab to aflibercept or ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

The study aimed to compare the anatomical and functional gains of switching to ranibizumab or aflibercept in eyes with treatment-naive diabetic macular edema (DME) which has an inadequate response to three consecutive bevacizumab injections.

METHODS

This observational, retrospective, comparative study presented 12-month results of 80 patients with DME. One eye of each patient was enrolled, and bevacizumab was switched as aflibercept (40 eyes) or ranibizumab (40 eyes). DME was diagnosed based on a fundoscopic examination, fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA), central macular thickness (CMT), and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

RESULTS

Forty-one patients (51.2%) were male, and 39 (48.8%) were female, with a mean age of 62.3 ± 6.7 years. At the end of the study, the mean number of intravitreal injections was 8.1 ± 1.8 in the aflibercept group, whereas 8.9 ± 1.4 in the ranibizumab (p = 0.091). The mean CMT decreased from 449.2 ± 69.3 µm to 311.0 ± 48.9 µm in the aflibercept group, and from 444.9 ± 109.2 µm to 316.3 ± 54.5 µm in the ranibizumab group (for both, p < 0.0001). The mean BVCA increased from 49.2 ± 11.1 ETDRS letters to 62.5 ± 9.9 in the aflibercept group (p < 0.0001) and from 49.9 ± 12.0 ETDRS letters to 61.1 ± 9.1 in the ranibizumab group (p < 0.0001). Macular laser treatment was required in 17.5% of the aflibercept group and 22.5% of the ranibizumab group (p = 0.781).

CONCLUSION

Significant improvement was observed with ranibizumab and aflibercept treatments in initial bevacizumab-resistant DME. Early switching therapy may contribute to better visual and anatomical outcomes.

One-Month Outcomes of Intravitreal Anti-VEGF vs. Dexamethasone Implant in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema in Vitrectomized Eyes

Objectives

To compare short-term effect of intravitreal ranibizumab with dexamethasone implant for diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized eyes.

Methods

Single-center, prospective, randomized study of vitrectomized eyes with DME. Study eyes were divided into two groups, receiving ranibizumab (IVV group, n = 35 eyes) or dexamethasone implant (IVD group, n = 35 eyes) respectively. Patients were evaluated at baseline, Week 1 and Month 1. The main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and intraocular pressure (IOP).

Results

BCVA and CRT were similar in the two groups at baseline. At Week 1, the CRT improvement was significant in two groups (P = 0.041 in IVV group, P = 0.030 in IVD group), but at Month 1, only IVD group had significant improvement in CRT (P < 0.001). And BCVA gains were significant at Week 1 (P = 0.029) and Month 1 (P = 0.001) in IVD group, whereas IVV group did not show significant BCVA gains (P = 0.056 at Week1, P = 0.166 at Month 1). The changes of BCVA and CRT were significantly higher in IVD group than IVV group at Month1, but the changes were not significant at Week1.

Conclusions

Comparing to anti-VEGF therapy, DEX implant is more effect in improving BCVA and reducing CRT in vitrectomized eyes at 1 month, which indicated DEX implant is a better strategy.

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.

Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema in the Asia-Pacific Region

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) compared with laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

Patients and Methods

This Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, efficacy evaluator–masked, parallel-group, 12-month clinical study enrolled adults in China and the Philippines with reduced visual acuity secondary to fovea-involved DME in the study eye. Participants were randomized 1:1 to study eye treatment with laser photocoagulation every 3 months as needed (n = 139) or DEX every 5 months (n = 145). The main efficacy measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and leakage area. The primary endpoint was the average change in BCVA from baseline over 12 months (area-under-the-curve method). Preplanned subgroup analyses evaluated outcomes in Chinese patients.

Results

Mean average change in BCVA from baseline during the study (letters) was 4.3 with DEX (n = 145) versus 1.4 with laser (n = 127) overall (P = 0.001) and 4.6 with DEX (n = 129) versus 0.6 with laser (n = 113) in Chinese patients (P < 0.001). At Month 12, mean change in CRT from baseline was −209.5 μm with DEX versus −120.3 μm with laser (P < 0.001) and mean change in total leakage area from baseline was −8.367 mm² with DEX versus −0.637 mm² with laser (P < 0.001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the DEX group were increased intraocular pressure and cataract.

Conclusion

DEX administered every 5 months provided significantly greater improvement in BCVA, CRT, and total leakage area compared with laser treatment. DEX demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, consistent with an intraocular corticosteroid, and similar to that reported in completed global registration studies.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Coadministration of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Silicone Oil Endotamponade for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy with Tractional Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy and safety of coadministered intravitreal dexamethasone (IVD) implant and silicone oil endotamponade during pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) with tractional diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: In this prospective, controlled, and randomized clinical study, the eyes with PDR and vitreomacular traction syndrome that underwent PPV with silicone oil endotamponade were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 was defined as the control group, and no other procedures were performed. IVD was implanted to the eyes in Group 2. In both groups, panretinal photocoagulation was completed to the missed areas during PPV. All cases followed for 6 months, postoperatively. Retinal findings were followed with optical coherence tomography and fluorescein fundus angiography. Results: A total of 52 eyes of 52 patients were included in the study. Twenty-six eyes of 23 patients were included in both groups. The improvement in best corrected visual acuity was statistically significantly higher in Group 2 (P > 0.05). In the postoperative period, the DME development rate and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injection requirement were significantly higher in Group 1 (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the proliferative vitroretinopathy development rate between the groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Coadministration of IVD implant and silicone oil endotamponade to the eyes with PDR during vitrectomy seems to be safe and effective application and may decrease the rate of DME and the requirement of IVR injection.