Comparison of two techniques used in routine care for the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema, subconjunctival triamcinolone injection and intravitreal dexamethasone implant: medical and economic importance of this randomized controlled trial

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. Considering improvement in visual acuity, we assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.15 logMAR, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on improving BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time. To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. We assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.22 logMAR, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.31; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time.  To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.

Treatment of non-infectious retinal vasculitis

Retinal vasculitis (RV) refers to an entity in which the retinal vasculature is inflamed, frequently with indications of inflammation elsewhere in the eye. Non-infectious RV can be idiopathic or associated with systemic disease, ocular conditions, and malignancy. It can also be classified based on the vessel affected: artery, vein, or both. Due to the lack of strong evidence-based treatment trials and algorithms for RV, physicians must often rely on their experience, which creates great variability in treating this entity. This article provides an overview of various treatment modalities used in the management of non-infectious RV, with a focus on immunomodulatory therapies. We outline a potential stepwise approach of starting with steroids to control the acute inflammation and subsequently changing to immunomodulatory therapy (IMT) for long-term treatment.

Microvascular changes in the recurrent cystoid macular edema secondary to posterior noninfectious uveitis on optical coherence tomography angiography

Background

Posterior uveitis represents the second most frequent type of uveitis (15–30% of all uveitis). Noninfectious posterior uveitis complicated with secondary cystoid macular edema (CME) affects the visual prognosis negatively. The objective of the current study is to detect possible microvascular changes causing relapsing uveitis-related CME using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA).

Methods

This is an interventional, observational, retrospective study with 1 year follow-up. Patients with noninfectious, posterior uveitis-related CME undergoing dexamethasone (DEX) implant were evaluated. Following the DEX-implant were carried out control visits after 1 month, 2-months, 4-months, 6-months, and for up 1-year. A total of 76 eyes of 38 consecutive patients with noninfectious posterior uveitis were enrolled (consecutive sample). Complicated noninfectious posterior uveitis with secondary CME was diagnosed in 56 eyes of uveitis patients (73.7%) and reviewed.

Results

Our investigation showed (1) a reduction in superficial vessel plexus (SVP) measurements within 2-month (84%), reaching 96.4% for up 1-year, (2) an irregular profile of SVP in 69.6% of cases, persisting for up 1-year; relapsing uveitis-related CME eyes with irregular superficial foveal avascular zone (FAZ) profile were in 51%, while the SVP measurements reestablished in 100% of cases. Conversely, (3) the deep vascular plexus (DVP) parameters restored in a lower number of eyes within the 2-month (39.3%), remaining abnormal in 46.4% of cases for up 1-year; despite DVP restored in 53.6% of cases for up 1 year, (4) a capillary rarefaction ring around the FAZ appeared in 80.4% of cases; the relapsing uveitis-related CME eyes with abnormal DVP parameters were present in 41% of cases, of which 92.1% showed a rarefaction ring had abnormal DVP.

Conclusions

The use of OCTA enabled the evaluation in detail of retinal microvascular changes. We suggested that the possibility of the recurrence of the uveitis-related CME depends on the persistence of modifications of the superficial and deep layers. In this regard, we propose to implement the current imaging armamentarium with OCTA for the follow-up of patients with noninfectious uveitis-related CME.

Update on the Management of Uveitic Macular Edema

Uveitic macular edema (ME) is a frequent complication in 8.3% of uveitis patients and is a leading cause of serious visual impairment in about 40% of cases. Despite the numerous available drugs for its treatment, at least a third of patients fail to achieve satisfactory improvement in visual acuity. First-line drugs are steroids administered by various routes, but drug intolerance or ineffectiveness occur frequently, requiring the addition of other groups of therapeutic drugs. Immunomodulatory and biological drugs can have positive effects on inflammation and often on the accompanying ME, but most uveitic randomized clinical trials to date have not aimed to reduce ME; hence, there is no clear scientific evidence of their effectiveness in this regard. Before starting therapy to reduce general or local immunity, infectious causes of inflammation should be ruled out. This paper discusses local and systemic drugs, including steroids, biological drugs, immunomodulators, VEGF inhibitors, and anti-infection medication.

Subconjunctival injection of mesenchymal stem cells for corneal failure due to limbal stem cell deficiency: state of the art

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have unique and beneficial properties and are currently used to treat a broad variety of diseases. These properties include the potential for differentiation into other cell types, secretion of different trophic factors that promote a regenerative microenvironment, anti-inflammatory actions, selective migration to damaged tissues, and non-immunogenicity. MSCs are effective for the treatment of ocular surface diseases such as dry eye, corneal burns, and limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD), both in experimental models and in humans. LSCD is a pathological condition in which damage occurs to the limbal epithelial stem cells, or their niche, that are responsible for the continuous regeneration of the corneal epithelium. If LSCD is extensive and/or severe, it usually causes corneal epithelial defects, ulceration, and conjunctival overgrowth of the cornea. These changes can result in neovascularization and corneal opacity, severe inflammation, pain, and visual loss. The effectiveness of MSCs to reduce corneal opacity, neovascularization, and inflammation has been widely studied in different experimental models of LSCD and in some clinical trials; however, the methodological disparity used in the different studies makes it hard to compare outcomes among them. In this regard, the MSC route of administration used to treat LSCD and other ocular surface diseases is an important factor. It should be efficient, minimally invasive, and safe. So far, intravenous and intraperitoneal injections, topical administration, and MSC transplantation using carrier substrata like amniotic membrane (AM), fibrin, or synthetic biopolymers have been the most commonly used administration routes in experimental models. However, systemic administration carries the risk of potential side effects and transplantation requires surgical procedures that could complicate the process. Alternatively, subconjunctival injection is a minimally invasive and straightforward technique frequently used in ophthalmology. It enables performance of local treatments using high cell doses. In this review, we provide an overview of the current status of MSC administration by subconjunctival injection, analyzing the convenience, safety, and efficacy for treatment of corneal failure due to LSCD in different experimental models. We also provide a summary of the clinical trials that have been completed, are in progress, or being planned.

Research Progress of Drug Prophylaxis for Lens Capsule Opacification after Cataract Surgery

Phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is the international standard operation procedure for cataract and has been generalized worldwide. However, lens capsule opacification, one of the common complications after cataract surgery, impacts the recovery of patients' visual function to a large extent. Lens capsule opacification has two types, anterior capsule opacification (ACO) and posterior capsule opacification (PCO), according to the location. There is not an accepted approach to treat ACO. Nd : YAG laser capsulotomy, the common treatment of PCO, can effectively improve the vision, but may cause a series of complications and is inappropriate for children who are too young to cooperate with this treatment. It is generally known that the responses of lens epithelial cells (LECs) after cataract surgery, including cell proliferation, migration, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), play a key role in the pathogenesis of lens capsule opacification. Scholars found that substantial drugs can reduce the occurrence of lens capsule opacification by inhibiting, clearing, or killing LECs, and made great efforts as well as innovations on the exploration of drug species or modes of administration. This article is a systematic interpretation and elaboration about how to prevent lens capsule opacification after cataract surgery via different drugs.