Enzymatic vitreolysis for the treatment of tractional diabetic macular edema

Pneumatic vitreolysis versus vitrectomy for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular holes: complication analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review to compare  the effects of pneumatic vitreolysis (PV), enzymatic vitreolysis (EVL) with ocriplasmin, and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) on vitreomacular traction (VMT) syndrome and macular holes (MHs) to assess their efficacy as treatment options.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)-including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2)-, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2000-October 2022), were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of PV versus PPV, PPV versus ocriplasmin and ocriplasmin versus PV. RevMan 5.1 was used for the meta-analysis of the studies.

RESULTS

Among the 89 studies, 79 were considered eligible for qualitative analysis, and 10 quantitative studies were subjected to meta-analysis. PPV resulted in better postoperative visual acuity improvement than ocriplasmin (standardized mean deviation (SMD) = 0.38, 95% CI 0.03-0.73, p = 0.0003). PV resulted in no significant difference in visual improvement compared  with  PPV (SMD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.47 to 0.16, p = 0.35). PPV was significantly more effective in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.62, p = 0.00001) and MH closure rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.81, p = 0.006) than ocriplasmin. PV was more effective than ocriplasmin in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.70, p = 0.0001). Qualitative analysis showed MH closure rates of 46%, 47.8%, and 95% and VMT releases rates of 46%, 68% and 100% after ocriplasmin, PV, and PPV treatments, respectively.  Adverse events and postoperative complications occurring after treatment have also been documented in these studies.

CONCLUSION

PPV appears to be the most promising option for MH closure and VMT release, with fewer serious complications than EVL  or PV. However, given the limited number of studies comparing these treatments, further research is needed to establish the superiority of PPV over the other options.

Vitrectomized versus non-vitrectomized eyes in diabetic macular edema response to ranibizumab-retinal layers thickness as prognostic biomarkers

To evaluate the role of the vitreous in the management of diabetic macular edema with ranibizumab intravitreal injections in a pro re nata regimen. Prospective study of 50 consecutive eyes with diabetic macular edema treated with ranibizumab and 12 months of follow-up. Primary endpoint: to assess differences between non-vitrectomized and vitrectomized eyes in the number injections needed to control the edema. Secondary endpoints: comparison of groups regarding best corrected visual acuity, central foveal thickness and thickness of seven retinal layers. 46 eyes from 38 patients, 10 vitrectomized and 36 non-vitrectomized, completed the follow-up. At month 12, the two groups achieved an equivalent anatomical outcome and needed a similar number of ranibizumab intravitreal injections. In vitrectomized eyes final visual acuity was worse when baseline retinal nerve fiber layers in the central foveal subfield were thicker, showing a strong correlation (r = − 0.942, p < 0.001). A similar, albeit moderate correlation was observed in non-vitrectomized eyes (r = − 0.504, p = 0.002). A decrease of retinal nerve fiber layers inner ring thickness was correlated with a better final visual acuity only in vitrectomized eyes (r = 0.734, p = 0.016). The effect of diabetic macular edema seems to be worse in vitrectomized eyes, with a thinner inner retina reservoir.

Clinicaltrials.govNCT04387604.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab or Aflibercept After Bevacizumab in Diabetic Macular Edema: Exploratory Retrospective Analysis

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of switching from bevacizumab to ranibizumab or aflibercept in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) unresponsive to bevacizumab.

Methods

Single-center retrospective comparative study of patients with DME unresponsive to intravitreal bevacizumab that was switched to ranibizumab or aflibercept. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) were analysed prior to and 4 months after the switch. Ocular coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers were also analysed.

Results

Fifty-six eyes from 40 patients were included in the study, 33 eyes switched to ranibizumab and 23 to aflibercept. A significant median CFT decrease was observed in both groups (p<0.001), with no between-group differences. BCVA gain was only significant in the ranibizumab group (p<0.001). None of the pre-baseline or baseline parameters were associated with the response to ranibizumab or aflibercept.

Conclusion

In persistent DME unresponsive to bevacizumab, both anatomical and functional improvements were observed with ranibizumab whereas aflibercept only showed an anatomical improvement. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04018833.