Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with cataract and naïve diabetic macular edema

Comparison of the therapeutic effects of photodynamic therapy, transpupillary thermotherapy, and their combination on circumscribed choroidal haemangioma

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the clinical and imaging features of circumscribed choroidal hemangioma (CCH), and to evaluate individualized treatment efficiency of photodynamic therapy (PDT), transpupillary thermotherapy (TTT), or their combination, followed by retrobulbar injection of betamethasone on CCH resolvement.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients with CCHs who underwent PDT, TTT or PDT+TTT treatments were retrospectively analyzed. Their treatment efficacy was compared by analyzing the change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), subretinal fluid (SRF) and CCH lesion characteristics.

RESULTS

PDT, TTT and PDT+TTT were respectively administrated in 17, 11 and 21 patients. No significant difference in age, gender, affected eyes and tumor location across the three groups. Baseline BCVA were 0.41 ± 0.28, 0.62 ± 0.30 and 0.24 ± 0.24 for PDT, TTT and PDT+TTT groups, respectively (F = 6.572, P = 0.003). CCH treated by three strategies showed significant difference in maximum tumor basal diameter, SRF areas and macula involvement prior to the treatment (P < 0.05). Patients receiving PDT+TTT exhibited larger tumor basal diameter, more SRF, higher ratio of macular involvement than other groups. A total of 38 (77.6 %) cases had good visual acidity with final BCVA ≥0.5 after treatments. PDT and PDT+TTT treatment groups acquired more vision improvement (0.27 ± 0.23 and 0.31 ± 0.26) in BCVA than TTT group (0.09 ± 0.13). All SRF were resolved within two weeks of treatment and no recurrent SRF were found.

CONCLUSION

The three treatments showed good performance in improving visual function and controlling SRF, and individualized treatment should be selected primarily by the tumor location, and then the tumor size and presence of SRF.

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 dexamethasone implant versus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy combined with cataract surgery in patients with diabetic macular oedema: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of cataract surgery combined with either anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (anti-VEGF) therapy or dexamethasone implant (DEX) in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

METHODS

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes of diabetic cataract surgery combined with either anti-VEGF or DEX, with a follow-up ≥3 months. The primary outcome was the mean change in central macular thickness (CMT). Mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was considered as a secondary outcome. The mean difference between baseline and post-treatment values (MD) with 95%-Confidence Interval (95%CI) was calculated and meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Nine-teen studies were included, 8 in the DEX group and 11 in the anti-VEGF group. A significant reduction of macular thickness was shown in the DEX group at 3 months (MD = -98.35 µm; 95% CI, -147.15/-49.54), while mean CMT change was non-significant in the anti-VEGF group (MD = -21.61 µm; 95% CI, -59.46/16.24; test of group differences, P < 0.001). At 3 months, no difference in visual gain was found between the two groups (P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

In DMO patients, cataract surgery combined with DEX seems to provide better anatomical outcomes compared with cataract surgery combined with anti-VEGF therapy. However, our evidence was limited by significant heterogeneity. Randomised trials comparing these two different combined approaches are warranted.

Ocular Injectable Treatment Options for Post-Cataract Macular Edema: A Systematic Review of Current Literature

ABSTRACT

The incidence of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) ranges from 0.1% to 20% and is the most common cause of post-procedure vision loss. Currently there is no widely accepted treatment for PCME. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) drops given alone or in combination with topical corticosteroids are often used; however, there is a growing body of literature surrounding the off-label use of various ocular injectable medications. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to characterize the current evidence surrounding these treatments and conduct qualitative analysis to assess the risk for bias of each study. Eighteen total studies were found and evaluated to have moderate (n=3, 17%) to high risk (n=15, 83%) of bias. Although the growing body of real-world data favors improvements in visual acuity and anatomical outcomes with these injectable treatments, larger studies with better study design are needed to demonstrate their role in the management of PCME.