Early treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implants in diabetic macular edema: Naïve versus refractory patients

Aflibercept versus ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of aflibercept (AFL) versus ranibizumab (RAN) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases were searched up to September 2022 to identify prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AFL with RAN for the treatment of DME. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for data analysis. We used the GRADE system to evaluate the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs involving 1067 eyes (939 patients) were included; there were 526 eyes in the AFL group and 541 eyes in the RAN group. Meta-analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between RAN and AFL in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of DME patients at 6 months (WMD: -0.05, 95% CI  =  -0.12 to 0.01, moderate quality) and 12 months after injection (WMD: -0.02, 95% CI  =  -0.07 to 0.03, moderate quality). Additionally, there was no significant difference between RAN and AFL in the reduction of central macular thickness (CMT) at 6 months (WMD: -0.36, 95% CI  =  -24.99 to 24.26, very low quality) and 12 months after injection (WMD: -6.36, 95% CI  =  -16.30 to 3.59, low quality). Meta-analysis showed that the number of intravitreal injections (IVIs) for AFL was significantly lower than that for RAN (WMD: -0.47, 95% CI  =  -0.88 to -0.05, very low quality). There were fewer adverse reactions to AFL than to RAN, but the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSION

This study found that there was no difference in BCVA, CMT or adverse reactions between AFL and RAN at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, but AFL needed fewer IVIs than RAN.

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.

Prospective, Observational, Multicenter, Real-World Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Pattern of Use of the Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema in France: Short-Term Outcomes of LOUVRE 3

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate real-world efficacy, safety, and treatment patterns with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in diabetic macular edema (DME) in France.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, observational, noncomparative, post-reimbursement study, consecutively enrolled patients with DME had a baseline evaluation on day 0. Those treated with DEX on day 0 were to be reevaluated at week 6 and months 6, 12, 18, and 24. DEX retreatment and/or alternative therapies were allowed during follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the maximum best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain from baseline during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included time to maximum BCVA gain, patients (%) with prespecified BCVA gains from baseline at each visit, maximum central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction from baseline, patients (%) with CRT reduction ≥ 20% from baseline at each visit, patients (%) with DME resolution (per investigator judgement), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Of 112 patients/eyes with DME for 3.5 years (mean) at baseline, 80 (including 86.1% previously treated) received DEX on day 0 and were analyzed for efficacy. Early study termination precluded collection of ≥ 12-month efficacy data. Patients received 1.4 DEX injections over 8.3 months (averages). The maximum BCVA gain from baseline was 3.6 letters, reached after 77.2 days (averages); 24.6% (week 6) and 15.0% (month 6) of patients experienced ≥ 10-letter BCVA gains from baseline. The mean maximum CRT reduction from baseline was -146.4 µm; 61.4% (week 6) and 36.0% (month 6) of patients had CRT reductions ≥ 20% from baseline, and 68.1% reported DME resolution at least once during follow-up. Ocular hypertension (n = 8, 12.1%) was the most frequent treatment-related AE.

CONCLUSIONS

LOUVRE 3 confirmed that DEX improves BCVA and CRT, even in a patient population that had predominantly received DEX before enrollment in the study, and showed that DME resolution was observed during follow-up. DEX tolerability was consistent with published data, supporting treatment benefits in DME.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03003416.