The Effects of Intravitreal Ranibizumab, Aflibercept or Dexamethasone Implant Injections on Intraocular Pressure Changes

Clinical Features Associated with Acute Elevated Intraocular Pressure After Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injections

Purpose

To study the effects of intravitreal injection (IVI) of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) agents on intraocular pressure (IOP) and find associations with acute pressure spikes.

Methods

This was a three-month, prospective study of patients receiving outpatient IVI of anti-VEGF agents for diabetic retinopathy (DR), age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) at the Acuity Eye Group Medical Centers. IOP was measured pre- and post-injection at 10-minute intervals up to 50 minutes after injection with a handheld tonometer. Patients with an IOP greater than 35 mmHg at 30 minutes received an anterior chamber paracentesis (ACP), while patients below 35 mmHg were monitored without intervention.

Results

A total of 617 patients (51% female, 49% male) received IVI for DR (n = 199), AMD (n = 355), and RVO (n = 63). ACP was performed in 17 patients. Average pre-injection IOP was 16 ± 4 compared to 24 ± 7 mmHg for the non-ACP vs ACP group, respectively (mean ± standard deviation), p < 0.0001. IOP returned to baseline in 98% of patients at 50 minutes. A diagnosis of glaucoma and glaucoma suspect was more prevalent in the ACP group compared to the non-ACP group, 82.3% vs 14.2% and 17.6% vs 9.0%, respectively, p < 0.0001 and p > 0.05. Patients with a pre-injection IOP >25 mmHg and a history of glaucoma had a 58.3% rate of ACP. A 31-gauge needle had a higher mean increase in IOP from baseline compared to 30-gauge needle, p < 0.0001.

Conclusion

IOP spikes are most significant in the first 10 minutes after IVI but typically resolve within the first hour. However, utilizing a smaller 31-gauge IVI in patients with a glaucoma history and pre-injection IOP >25 mmHg may be associated with significant IOP spikes lasting longer than 30 minutes.

Efficacy and safety profile of intravitreal dexamethasone implant versus antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment in diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To better understand the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) versus antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). A systematic review and meta-analysis. The study included randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-randomized control trials (Non-RCTs) before December 2021 that compare the efficacy of Ozurdex-related therapyand anti-VEGF therapy. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The quality of the included studies was assessed carefully. 30 studies were included. Regarding BCVA change, the overall result revealed no significant differences between Ozurdex and anti-VEGF therapies in patients with nonresistant DME, but Ozurdex group had significantly more VA improvement than anti-VEGF therapies in patients with resistant DME (MD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.21). In terms of central retinal thickness (CRT) decrease, there was a significant difference between Ozurdex therapy and anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nonresistant DME (MD 48.10, 95% CI 19.06-77.13) and resistant DME (MD 65.37, 95% CI 3.62-127.13). Overall, Ozurdex therapy resulted in significantly greater VA improvement and CRT decrease than anti-VEGF therapy in resistant DME patients. Ozurdex therapy was not inferior to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nonresistant DME.

Comparison of risks of arterial thromboembolic events and glaucoma with ranibizumab and aflibercept intravitreous injection: A nationwide population‐based cohort study

Background

To compare intravitreal aflibercept injection with intravitreal ranibizumab injection for the risk of major arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs) and glaucoma.

Methods

This retrospective, nationwide cohort study investigated 15 611 and 3867 patients aged >50 years with at least one pharmacy claim for intravitreal ranibizumab injection and aflibercept injection between 2011 and 2016, respectively. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method was performed to adjust the baseline difference between the two groups and the hazard risk of adverse events was estimated using the Cox proportional regression model.

Results

No significant difference was noted between intravitreal ranibizumab and aflibercept injection for arterial thromboembolic risk, including ischemic stroke and acute myocardial infarction, during a 2-year follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53–1.42; P = .583). Subgroup analyses revealed that patients age >65 years (adjusted HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.45–0.92) and those without coronary artery disease (adjusted HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.37–0.95) had significantly lower arterial thromboembolic risk in the aflibercept group than in the ranibizumab group. Additionally, the risk of glaucoma development after intravitreal injection did not significantly differ between the two groups (adjusted HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.37–1.06; P = .084).

Conclusions

No significant differences in the risk of major ATEs and glaucoma were found between ranibizumab and aflibercept, and aflibercept might be safe for use in elderly patients.

Intraocular Pressure Elevation Following Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injections: Short- and Long-term Considerations

Published studies agree that transient intraocular pressure (IOP) spikes are common after intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Currently, there is no standard of care guiding if and when to prevent these IOP spikes. Furthermore, there are challenges in determining the impact of postinjection IOP elevation on the health of the retinal ganglion cells, particularly given the often-existing comorbidities of retinal and glaucoma pathology. This review highlights the current literature regarding both acute and chronic postinjection IOP elevations and discusses management of postinjection IOP elevation, especially in patients at high risk for glaucomatous damage.

Effect of antiglaucoma agents on short-term intraocular pressure fluctuations after intravitreal bevacizumab injections

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of prophylactic pressure-lowering medications on intraocular pressure (IOP) spikes after intravitreal injections (IVIs) METHODS: In this randomized double-blind clinical trial, 74 eyes that were candidates for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection (IVI) (0.05 mL, 1.25 mg of bevacizumab) were enrolled and sorted randomly into five groups, group 1: topical timolol 0.5% (n = 16); group 2: topical brimonidin (n = 15); group 3: oral acetazolamide 250 mg (n = 14); group 4: intravenous mannitol (1.5 gr/kg) (n = 16); group 5: no intraocular pressure-lowering medication (n = 13). Medications were administered 30-60 min prior to injection. None of the patients had history of glaucoma. Intraocular pressure was measured before (baseline), 5 min after (T5), 10 min after (T10), 15 min after (T15) and 30 min after (T30) IVI using Goldmann Tonometer.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant, but relatively weak negative correlation between the amount of vitreous reflux post-IVI intraocular pressure elevation (Spearman's rho = -0.315, p = 0.006). There was no difference of the amount of vitreous reflux (P = 0.196) between study groups. The baseline mean IOP for Groups 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 were 11.19 ± 3.7, 10.07 ± 2.19, 11 ± 2.98, 10.13 ± 3.48 and12.54 ± 2.60 mmHg, respectively. (P = 0.214) There was no difference of peak IOP spike between groups at T5: 37 ± 19.7, 34.80 ± 15.76, 33.43 ± 18.29, 33.56 ± 16.88, 34.92 ± 9.99 mmHg (P = 0.977). There was also no difference of IOP at T10, T15 and T30 between study groups: P = 0.979, P = 0.994 and P = 0.692, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although it is advisable to prevent IOP spikes, our study showed that use of prophylactic pressure-lowering medications with every mechanism of action has no effect in IOP spikes following intravitreal bevacizumab injections in non-glaucomatous eyes. Trial registrationThe study was registered with clinicaltrails.gov (ID# NCT02140450). Trial registration date: 05.09.2014.

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I² = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.

The effects of intravitreal injections on intraocular pressure and retinal nerve fiber layer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The number of eye diseases treated with intravitreal injections is increasing. Obviously, an injection of fluid into the eye results in an increase of intraocular pressure (IOP), the main risk factor for glaucoma. However, the effect of these repeated IOP increases on the eye is unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review with meta-analyses. PubMed, Embase and Clinical Trials Registries were searched for articles investigating the relationship between intravitreal injections (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF] or steroids) and either IOP, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL)-thickness and glaucoma. Multiple meta-analyses were performed, combining data on intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF medication and dexamethasone implants. A total of 74 articles were eligible for meta-analyses. The short-term effect of an intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF showed a statistically significant increase in IOP. One day after injection of anti-VEGF, however, IOP was significantly lower than baseline. The long-term time-intervals showed no significant difference in IOP. After intravitreal injection of a dexamethasone implant, IOP was significantly higher than baseline 1 month post-injection. RNFL-thickness was significantly reduced 6 and 12 months post-injection of anti-VEGF, as well as at end of follow up. Caution is advised when using intravitreal medication, especially when treating patients with advanced glaucoma; in these cases, prophylactic IOP-lowering medication may be considered.