Efficacy and safety of intravitreal therapy in macular edema due to branch and central retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review

Visualizing dynamic alterations of vitreous viscosity during elevated intraocular pressure in glaucoma with a Near-infrared/Magnetic resonance imaging dual-modal nanoprobe

Glaucoma is a chronic progressive disease leading to irreversible visual impairment and blindness. High intraocular pressure (IOP) resulting from abnormally high outflow resistance is a major risk factor for glaucoma development, however, it is unclear how IOP elevation influences the structure and function of the retina and the optic nerve via vitreous humor located between the lens and retina in the eye. To understand vitreous biomechanical and stimulus response toward IOP elevation, we developed a novel near-infrared (NIR)/MRI dual-modal nanoprobe, DTA/P-NCA/17F@Co, which is composed of N, N-dimethyl-4(thien-2-yl)-aniline group (DTA) as NIR fluorophore and the fluorine-based polyamino acid cobalt nanoparticles (P-NCA/17F@Co) as T2 contrast agent. These nanoprobes exhibit good biocompatibility, low surface energy characteristics, and viscosity-responsive NIR emission and T2 relaxation values. The intrinsic viscosity-sensitivemechanismof nanoprobes was ascribed to constrained molecular motion in high-viscosity vitreous chamber, which causes enhanced fluorescence emission and shortened T2 relaxation times. By using its ability for dual-modal visualization of viscosity, we achieved non-invasive in vivo monitoring the changes in vitreous viscosity during elevated IOP in a glaucoma rat model. In vivo experiments validated that vitreous viscosity is very strongly correlated with IOP elevation induced by glaucoma, much earlier than structural and functional change in the retina. Our findings revealed that IOP elevation induced the increase of vitreous viscosity, indicating that monitoring vitreous viscosity is key to the glaucoma model. This study not only provides versatile nanoprobes for dual-modal visualization of biomechanical properties of the vitreous humor in its native environment, but also shows great potential in the early diagnosis of glaucoma.

Intravitreal Injection of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors Combined with Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and corticosteroid combination therapy for the management of treatment-naïve or recurrent/refractory macular edema caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in comparison with anti-VEGF monotherapy.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, the data from publications in the electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI and Scopus from January 1, 2007, through November 20, 2020, were compiled. Heterogeneity was statistically quantified by the I2 statistic, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four related studies were identified, including a total of 1280 eyes, which consisted of 685 and 507 patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), respectively. This study demonstrated a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the combination group compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy for both CRVO and BRVO cases at 6 months after initiating therapy. The improvement in vision was more notable in BRVO cases than in CRVO cases. However, the changes in central macular thickness (CMT) did not differ significantly between the different treatment approaches, and the results were inconclusive. Including all cases with RVO, there was no inferiority in terms of BCVA improvement and CMT reduction in the triamcinolone subgroup compared with the slow-release dexamethasone implant subgroup. A greater improvement was noticed in terms of BCVA in the sequentially treated subgroup compared to the simultaneous treatment subgroup, while there was a greater reduction in CMT in the simultaneous subgroup with the highest reduction recorded at 1 month after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that combination therapy with intravitreal anti-VEGF and corticosteroid (such as intravitreal or subtenon triamcinolone or dexamethasone implant) has a slightly better effect on improving BCVA in cases with BRVO or CRVO at 6 months compared to monotherapy.

The effect of baseline intraocular pressure and anterior segment parameters on intraocular pressure after intravitreal bevacizumab injection

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the predictive effect of pre-injection intraocular pressure (IOP) and anterior segment parameters on post-injection IOP values after intravitreal bevacizumab injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD) in phakic and pseudophakic patient groups.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 65 eyes of 65 treatment-naive NVAMD patients. Patients were divided into two groups according to their lens status (35 phakic and 30 pseudophakic patients). Pre-injection IOP, anterior segment parameters measured with PENTACAM, and post-injection IOP values measured at the 5th minute were recorded. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to recognise the predictive effect of pre-injection IOP and anterior segment parameters on post-injection IOP for each group.

RESULTS

Multivariate regression analyses showed that the decrease in anterior chamber depth (ACD), and the increase in pre-injection IOP were significantly correlated with higher post-injection IOP in the phakic patient group (p = 0.019 and 0.031; respectively). No correlation was found in the pseudophakic patient group.

CONCLUSION

Pre-injection ACD and IOP values may be predictive of higher post-injection IOP in phakic patients. Preoperative assessment of these parameters could be beneficial in patients at risk of glaucoma.

Timolol maleate, a β blocker eye drop, improved edema in a retinal vein occlusion model

Purpose

To investigate the therapeutic effects of eye drops, namely, timolol maleate, a β-adrenergic receptor antagonist, and latanoprost, a prostaglandin F2α analog, on retinal edema in a murine retinal vein occlusion (RVO) model.

Methods

An RVO model was established using laser-induced RVO in mice, which were administered timolol maleate and latanoprost eye drops several times after venous occlusion. Subsequently, the thickness of the inner nuclear layer (INL) and the expression levels of such genes as Vegf and Atf4, which are stress markers of the endoplasmic reticulum, were examined. Primary human cultured retinal microvascular endothelial cells (HRMECs) were treated with timolol under hypoxic conditions, after which the gene expression pattern was investigated. Importantly, an integrated stress response inhibitor (ISRIB) was used in the RVO model, he known ISRIB, which suppresses the expression of ATF4 in retinal edema.

Results

Increased INL thickness was suppressed by timolol eye drops, as were the expressions of Vegf and Atf4, in the RVO model. However, latanoprost eye drops did not induce any change in INL thickness. In HRMECs, hypoxic stress and serum deprivation increased the Vegf and Atf4 expressions; in response, treatment with timolol suppressed the Vegf expression. Furthermore, the ISRIB decreased the Vegf expression pattern and edema formation, which are associated with RVO.

Conclusions

These results indicate that timolol eye drops may be a potential option for RVO treatment.

Efficacy of as-needed intravitreal injection compared to 3-monthly loading of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for branch retinal vein occlusion

We investigated the efficacy of intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents in branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were searched on November 11, 2022. Studies comparing the pro-re-nata (PRN) regimen after the first treatment (PRN group) to three consecutive monthly injection regimens followed by the PRN regimen (3 + PRN group) were investigated. The primary outcomes were the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the change in central retinal thickness (CRT), with the secondary outcome being the injection frequency. Among 195 reports on anti-VEGF treatment, six comparative studies were included in this meta-analysis. The two groups had no statistically significant differences in terms of BCVA or CRT. However, the total number of injections during follow-up was significantly lower in the PRN group than in the 3 + PRN group (95% CI - 2.09 to - 0.83). The as-needed injection regimen is as effective as 3-monthly loading in terms of anatomical and functional improvement for BRVO, along with a lower treatment burden for patients and physicians.

The relation between serum inflammatory marker levels and serous retinal detachment in macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion Serum inflammatory marker levels in serous retinal detachment secondary to retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess blood-derived inflammatory markers in macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) with and without serous retinal detachment (SRD).

MATERIALS-METHODS

Treatment-naive patients with ME secondary to RVO were divided into two groups according to the existence of SRD in optical coherence tomography (OCT) images; group 1 consisted of 60 patients with SRD, and group 2 consisted of 60 patients without SRD. Age and gender-matched 60 patients formed group 3 as healthy controls. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and systemic inflammation index (SII) were calculated from blood samples to assess the differences in the levels of blood-derived inflammatory markers and the presence of SRD.

RESULTS

The PLR, NLR, and SII values were higher in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3 (p<0.05, each comparison). The NLR and SII values were also significantly elevated in group 1 compared to group 2 (p = 0.000 and p = 0.000, respectively). The optimal cutoff value to estimate SRD in patients with ME secondary to RVO for NLR was 2.08 with 66.7% sensitivity and 65% specificity; for SII was 530.93 with 68.3% sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

SII is a reliable and cost-effective tool for predicting SRD, an inflammatory OCT biomarker in ME secondary to RVO.

Incidence of ocular hypertension after anti-VEGF injections: examining the effect of drug filtration and silicone-free syringes

OBJECTIVE

To examine the difference in incidence of ocular hypertension (OHT) following the introduction of filtered anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medication in silicone-free syringes.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive treatment-naive patients receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections in a group practice was performed. Data from the cohort receiving nonfiltered anti-VEGF in insulin syringes (IS group) was collected from June 2015. Data from the cohort receiving filtered anti-VEGF in silicone-free syringes (SFS group) was collected from June 2019. Follow up data were collected at 1 year. Exclusion criteria included prior anti-VEGF treatment, known glaucoma or diagnosis of glaucoma suspect before anti-VEGF treatment, neovascular glaucoma, steroid use, or vitrectomy during follow-up. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of intraocular pressure (IOP) > 21 mmHg and IOP ≥ 30 mm Hg at any follow-up visit. The use of IOP lowering therapy was also recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age (71 ± 13 years), mean number of injections (9.6 ± 2.7), and median follow-up time (392 ± 57 days) were similar between groups. The incidence of IOP ≥ 21 mm Hg was 34% (34/100) in the IS group and 15% (15/100) in the SFS group (p = 0.025). The incidence of IOP ≥ 30 mm Hg was 8% (8/100) in the IS group and 0% (0/100) in the SFS group (p =0.004). The incidence of IOP-lowering therapy was 13% in the IS group and 0% in the SFS group (p =0.0002).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of OHT and treatment with IOP-lowering therapy significantly decreased after the introduction of filtered anti-VEGF medication and silicone-free syringes.

Comparison of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Intravitreal Ranibizumab Efficacy in Younger Patients with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the effects of dexamethasone (DEX) implants and ranibizumab (RAN) injections in younger patients with macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in a 6-month follow-up.

Methods

The treatment-naive patients with macular edema secondary to branch RVO were included retrospectively. Medical records of patients who were treated with intravitreal RAN or DEX implant were evaluated before and at the 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th months after the injection. Primary outcome measures were the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05/3=0.016, according to the Bonferroni correction.

Results

Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the study population was 53.82±5.08 years. Median BCVA in the DEX group (n=23) at baseline, 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th month was 1.1, 0.80 (p=0.002), 0.70 (p=0.003), and 1 (p=0.018) logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (log-MAR), respectively (p<0.05). Median BCVA in the RAN group (n=16) at baseline, 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th months was 0.90, 0.61, 0.52, and 0.46 logMAR, respectively (p<0.016 for all comparisons). Median central macular thickness (CMT) in the DEX group at baseline, 1^st, 3rd, and 6th months was 515, 260, 248, and 367 μm, respectively (p<0.016 for all comparisons). Median CMT in the RAN group at baseline, 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th months was 432.5 (p<0.016), 275 (p<0.016), 246 (p<0.016), and 338 (p=0.148) μm.

Conclusion

There is no significant difference in treatment efficacies in both visual and anatomical outcomes at the end of the 6th month. However, RAN can be considered the first choice in younger patients with macular edema secondary to branch RVO because of the lower side effect profile.

RNAapt3D: RNA aptamer 3D-structural modeling database

RNA aptamers are oligonucleotides with high binding affinity and specificity for target molecules and are expected to be a new generation of therapeutic molecules and targeted delivery materials. The tertiary structure of RNA molecules and RNA-protein interaction sites are increasingly important as potential targets for new drugs. The pathological mechanisms of diseases must be understood in detail to guide drug design. In developing RNA aptamers as drugs, information about the interaction mechanisms and structures of RNA aptamer-target protein complexes are useful. We constructed a database, RNA aptamer 3D-structural modeling (RNAapt3D), consisting of RNA aptamer data that are potential drug candidates. The database includes RNA sequences and computationally predicted RNA tertiary structures based on secondary structures and implements methods that can be used to predict unknown structures of RNA aptamer-target molecule complexes. RNAapt3D should enable the design of RNA aptamers for target molecules and improve the efficiency and productivity of candidate drug selection. RNAapt3D can be accessed at https://rnaapt3d.medals.jp.

Comparison of intravitreal ranibizumab monotherapy vs. ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone implant for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and the injection number of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) monotherapy vs. intravitreal ranibizumab plus dexamethasone (IVR + DEX) implants for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

Methods

This prospective, control trial comprised 96 eyes of 96 patients with ME due to non-ischemic RVO divided into two groups. The IVR monotherapy group consisted of 61 patients (29 with CRVO and 32 with BRVO) treated with ranibizumab with three consecutive loading doses at a monthly + pro re nata (three + PRN) regimen. The IVR + DEX implant group consisted of 35 patients (19 with CRVO and 16 with BRVO) treated with intravitreal ranibizumab plus DEX implant. All eyes underwent best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, log MAR), central foveal thickness (CFT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). In case of recurrence, each group received initial medication.

Results

At the 12-month visit, the mean log MAR BCVA that was improved from baseline was 0.23 with the IVR group and 0.30 with the IVR + DEX group. CFT decreased on average by 420 ± 292 μm with the IVR group and 393 ± 259 μm with the IVR + DEX implant group. No significant differences were detected in BCVA improvement and CFT reduction between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of injections was 5.4 in the IVR group and 3.9 in the IVR + DEX implant group (p < 0.001). The mean reinjection interval for patients with the IVR + DEX implant was 131.2 ± 8.9 days (range: 98–150). The incidence of high IOP and cataract progression were significantly higher in the IVR + DEX implant group than in the IVR group (both p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In RVO-ME, the IVR + DEX implant did not have synergistic efficacy, providing further improvement in BCVA and a reduction in CFT. However, the IVR + DEX implant still had an advantage in reducing the number of injections and prolonging the time between injections.

Development and Application of an Intelligent Diagnosis System for Retinal Vein Occlusion Based on Deep Learning

This study is aimed at developing an intelligent algorithm based on deep learning and discussing its application for the classification and diagnosis of retinal vein occlusions (RVO) using fundus images. A total of 501 fundus images of healthy eyes and patients with RVO were used for model training and testing to investigate an intelligent diagnosis system. The images were first classified into four categories by fundus disease specialists: (i) healthy fundus (group 0), (ii) branch RVO (BRVO) (group 1), (iii) central RVO (CRVO) (group 2), and (iv) macular branch RVO (MBRVO) (group 3), before being diagnosed using the ResNet18 network model. Intelligent diagnoses were compared with clinical diagnoses. The specificity of the intelligent diagnosis system under each attention mechanism was 100% in group 0 and also revealed a high sensitivity of over 95%, F1 score of over 97%, and an accuracy of over 97% in this group. For the other three groups, the specificities of diagnosis ranged from 0.45 to 0.91 with different attention mechanisms, in which the ResNet18+coordinate attention (CA) model had the highest specificities of 0.91, 0.88, and 0.83 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. It also provided a high accuracy of over 94% with a coordinate attention mechanism in all four groups. The intelligent diagnosis and classifier system developed herein based on deep learning can determine the presence of RVO and classify disease according to the site of occlusion. This proposed system is expected to provide a new tool for RVO diagnosis and screening and will help solve the current challenges due to the shortage of medical resources.

Comparison of Ranibizumab Treatment Response of Superior and Inferior Temporal Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Year Follow-Up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare ranibizumab treatment response of macular edema secondary to superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients treated with 0.5 mg/0.05 mL ranibizumab due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion were enrolled in this retrospective study. Thirty-eight eyes with superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion were classified as Group 1 and 26 eyes with inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion as Group 2. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and the number of intravitreal injections were evaluated and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean baseline, 3^rd, 6^th, 9^th, and 12^th month BCVA values in Group 1 were 0.77±0.47, 0.37±0.20, 0.37±0.22, 0.38±0.24, and 0.35±0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and in Group 2 were 0.75±0.45, 0.37±0.18, 0.35±0.19, 0.32±0.17, and 0.28±0.20 logMAR, respectively. The mean baseline, 3^rd, 6^th, 9^th, and 12^th month CMT values in Group 1 were 522.92±136.01, 318.03±66.65, 287.53±48.27, 271.95±32.47, and 280.47±91.66 µm and in Group 2 were 524.08±145.51, 289.85±53.08, 268.96±31.57, 260.77±30.22, and 244.04±44.78 µm, respectively. BCVA and CMT improved significantly within both groups after the treatment (p<0.05) and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). However, a significantly higher number of injections was needed for Group 1.

CONCLUSION

Ranibizumab improved the visual and anatomical outcomes similarly in both superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion with macular edema. However, more frequent injections were needed to achieve the same efficacy in superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.

The Efficacy of Simultaneous Injection of Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab Into Vitreous Cavity on Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous vitreous injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab on macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). We conducted a 6-month retrospective self-control study. Twenty-five patients diagnosed with macular edema secondary to CRVO were enrolled in this study. The patients received intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab. The changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and interocular pressure (IOP) before and at 2w, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 m after injection were recorded and compared. The adverse reactions in eyes and whole body were observed. The BCVA of all patients at 2 w (61.8 ± 5.42), 1 m (68.68 ± 5.23), 2 m (70.8 ± 5.8), 3 m (68.44 ± 5.61), 4 m (65.76 ± 5.76), 5 m (67.08 ± 5.57), and 6 m (70.12 ± 5.46) after surgery were significantly higher than that before surgery (52.2 ± 5.06,p < 0.01), and CRT of all patients at 2w (393.36 ± 52.66 um), 1 m (334.52 ± 32.95 um), 2 m (298.800 ± 29.97 um), 3 m (309.080 ± 28.78 um), 4 m (345.48 ± 39.81 um), 5 m (349.080 ± 29.88 um), and 6 m (309.76 ± 30.41 um) after surgery were significantly reduced than that before surgery (583.76 ± 121.09 um, p < 0.01). Macular edema recurred in an average of 4.44 ± 0.51 months after treatment, and those patients received combined treatment again. During follow-up, the most common adverse reactions were subconjunctival hemorrhage and increased intraocular pressure, with the incidence of 22% (11/50) and 18% (9/50) respectively. In all cases, the increased intraocular pressure could be controlled by a single intraocular pressure reducing drug. No patient needed to receive anti-glaucoma surgery. The overall incidence of lens opacity was 4% (2/50). After the first injection, no case showed lens opacity. After re-injection, 2 patients (2 eyes) (8%) developed lens opacity. None of the patients showed serious ocular adverse reactions or systemic complications such as vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, uveitis or ocular toxicity. The simultaneous vitreous injection of dexamethasone implant and ranibizumab can significantly improve the visual acuity and anatomical prognosis in macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO-ME) patients, exhibiting good safety and effectiveness.

The short-term effects of intravitreal bevacizumab injection on intraocular pressure, cornea, iridocorneal angle, and anterior chamber

Background:

Transient increase in intraocular pressure (IOP), changes in anterior chamber parameters, and changes in aqueous humor dynamics may occur after intravitreal injections because of intravitreal volume changes.

Objective:

In this observational study, we investigated the early effects of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injection on IOP, central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal volume (CV), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and iridocorneal angle (ICA).

Method:

The patients who had one single-dose IVB (2.5 mg/0.1 mL) injection were included in the study. The patients underwent IOP, CCT, CV, ACD, and ICA measurements before and 1 h and 1 day after the injection. Pre-injection and post-injection values were compared.

Results:

Forty-two eyes of 42 patients were included in the study, and the mean age of patients was 60.1 ± 7.4 years. The mean IOP measurements before and after injection at 1 h and day 1 were 15 ± 2.4, 17.4 ± 2.4, and 14.7 ± 2.3, respectively. The mean IOP, CCT, and CV values 1 h after injection were significantly higher than pre-injection values (p < 0.05, p < 0.05, and p = 0.02, respectively). Conversely, mean ACD and ICA values 1 h after injection were significantly lower than pre-injection values (p = 0.01 for both). There were no statistically significant differences on the first day after injection for all parameters.

Conclusion:

IVB (2.5 mg/0.1 mL) injection causes transient increases in IOP and transient decreases in ACD and ICA at the first hour after injection. Related to elevation in IOP, CCT and CV may increase transiently. These changes return to baseline values on the first day after injection.

Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarkers Predicting Visual Acuity Change after Intravitreal Bevacizumab Injections for Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) factors in branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) that predict response to bevacizumab injections.

METHODS

It is a retrospective case series of consecutive patients that underwent OCT at diagnosis, and the central macular thickness (CMT), extent of disorganized retinal inner layers, and outer retinal layers including external limiting membrane, ellipsoid zone (EZ), and cone outer segment tips (COST) were measured. Patients received 3 consecutive monthly injections of bevacizumab followed by pro re nata treatment. The main outcome measure was improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after 1 year. Results are expressed as mean ± SD, and p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Overall, 66 eyes of 66 patients, with an average age of 68.5 ± 11.4 years, were included. The mean BCVA improved significantly from 0.68 logMAR at baseline to 0.50 logMAR at 1 year (p < 0.001). Baseline logMAR BCVA (r = 0.41, p < 0.001) and CMT (r = 0.23, p = 0.04) were associated with improvement while EZ (r = -0.24, p = 0.05) and COST (r = -0.32, p = 0.01) disruption with deterioration in BCVA.

CONCLUSION

In patients with naïve BRVO treated with bevacizumab, BCVA improvement at 1 year can be predicted from baseline BCVA, CMT, extent of COST disruption, and EZ disruption.

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion.

DESIGN

This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of -5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows - ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval -2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference -1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval -6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was -3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval -8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means -1.8, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to -0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered.

FUTURE WORK

To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Comparison of intravitreal injection of conbercept and triamcinolone acetonide for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of the intravitreal injection of conbercept (IVC) and triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized clinical study. Patients with ME secondary to BRVO were randomly assigned to either IVC group or IVTA group at a ratio of 2:1 and a 12-month follow-up was performed. The efficacy outcome measures included the mean changes and differences in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the central retinal thickness (CRT). The safety profiles and the mean retreatment intervals were also compared.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference of baseline between the two groups (IVC group, n=36; IVTA group, n=17). At 12mo, the BCVA letters improved by 27.31±18.36 in the IVC group, and 13.53±11.37 in the IVTA group (P=0.0004). CRT reduction was 253.33±163.69 and 150.24±134.32 µm, respectively (P=0.0034). The mean BCVA in the IVC group was superior to that of the IVTA group for months 6-12 (P<0.01). The mean CRT at 9 and 12mo were thinner in the IVC group compared to the IVTA group (P<0.01). The mean retreatment interval in the IVC group was longer than that in the IVTA group (97.40±36.27d vs 68.71±36.38d, P=0.0030). One eye in the IVC group and seven eyes in the IVTA group developed elevated intraocular pressure (IOP; P=0.0012). The proportion of eyes with cataract new-onset or progression were 19.44% in the IVC group and 64.71% in the IVTA group (P=0.0012).

CONCLUSION

IVC could maintain or improve BCVA and reduce CRT for a longer time and have longer retreatment interval than IVTA. In addition, patients treated with IVTA are more susceptible to IOP elevation and cataract progression.

Reporting of Safety Events during Anti-VEGF Treatment: Pharmacovigilance in a Noninterventional Trial

Aim

The prospective, noninterventional OCEAN study assessed the safety of intravitreal ranibizumab injections for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, and retinal vein occlusion under real-world conditions in Germany.

Methods

Adults receiving ≥1 ranibizumab (0.5 mg) injections were recruited by 369 ophthalmologists and followed for 24 months. Information on adverse events (AEs) was reported by the treating physician or detected by the data management team. Collected information included observed AE, AE start and end date, intensity, causal relationship, outcome, severity, suspected drug, and actions taken.

Results

2,687 AEs were reported for 1,176 of the 5,781 patients who had received a total of 32,621 injections: 27.4% nonserious AEs, 30.3% serious AEs, 27.3% nonserious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and 15.0% serious ADRs. Most patients reported no AEs (79.7%) or only 1 AE (10.3%). AEs were most commonly reported in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC) Eye disorders (9.4% of patients) and General disorders and administration site conditions (5.8%). The most frequent AEs by MedDRA preferred term (PT) were visual acuity reduced (3.5% of patients), intraocular pressure increased (2.5%), and drug ineffective (2.1%). AEs occurred most frequently after 3 or 4 injections (1,129 of 2,687 AEs). The proportion of AEs in the SOC Eye disorders decreased slightly with increasing number of injections, from 39.8% of events after 1 or 2 injections to 29.1% after 5 or more injections. Rates of the most frequently reported PTs did not show any consistent increase with increasing number of injections. A decrease in overall AE rates was observed over the study course.

Conclusions

The results did not raise any new safety concerns for ranibizumab. The findings allow conclusions to be drawn on how pharmacovigilance data can be collected even more effectively in real-world studies to facilitate discussion on benefit-risk ratio.

Comparison of intravitreal dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion-induced oedema: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 10 December 2019, without language restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observation studies comparing the efficacy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of patients with RVO, naïve or almost naïve to both arms, were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data for mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and product safety. Review Manager V.5.3 and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and 12 real-world studies were included. An average lower letter gain in BCVA was determined for the DEX implant (mean difference (MD) = -6.59; 95% CI -8.87 to -4.22 letters) administered at a retreatment interval of 5-6 months. Results were similar (MD_{6 months}=-12.68; 95% CI -21.98 to -3.37 letters; MD_{12 months}=-9.69; 95% CI -12.01 to -7.37 letters) at 6 and 12 months. The DEX implant resulted in comparable or marginally less CST reduction at months 6 and 12 but introduced relatively higher risks of elevated intraocular pressure (RR=3.89; 95% CI 2.16 to 7.03) and cataract induction (RR=5.22; 95% CI 1.67 to 16.29). Most real-life studies reported an insignificant numerical gain in letters for anti-VEGF drugs relative to that for DEX implant. However, the latter achieved comparable efficacy with a 4-month dosage interval.

CONCLUSION

Compared with anti-VEGF agents, DEX implant required fewer injections but had inferior functional efficacy and safety. Real-life trials supplemented the efficacy data for DEX implant.

A systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of conbercept with ranibizumab in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

BACKGROUND

The objective of this review and meta-analysis is to investigate the efficacy of conbercept and ranibizumab, combined with or without laser photocoagulation, in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-ME).

METHODS

Several databases have been used to identify relevant publications. After screening, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare conbercept and ranibizumab with the support of RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Library Software, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

In this study, 9 randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective trials were included with a total of 1180 patients. No significant difference was found in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) or central macular thickness (CMT) in the baseline parameters [BCVA (weighted mean difference (WMD): -0.01; 95% confidence interval CI: -0.03 to 0.01; P = .17), CMT (WMD: 20.14; 95% CI: -26.70 to 66.97; P = .40). No significant differences were found in the improvements of BCVA and adverse events (AEs) between the 2 groups after injection of loading dosage [the 1st month BCVA (WMD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.02; P = .54),the 3rd month BCVA (WMD: -0.02; 95% CI: --0.05 to 0.01; P = .23), the 6th month BCVA (WMD: -0.02; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.01; P = .27), AEs (odds ratio: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.84; P = .66)]. However, there were significant differences between conbercept and ranibizumab treatment in terms of CMT [1st month CMT (WMD: -11.70; 95% CI: -19.71 to -3.68; P < .01), 3rd month CMT (WMD: -10.08; 95% CI: -15.62 to -4.53; P < .01), 6th month CMT (WMD: -15.83; 95% CI: -22.88 to -8.78; P < .01)] and the number of injections (WMD, -0.36; 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.04; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The current pooled evidence suggested that both therapies of intravitreal conbercept and intravitreal ranibizumab with or without laser photocoagulation are effective in vision function in RVO-ME patients, and confirmed that conbercept has advantages over ranibizumab in terms of CMT and the number of injections for treating RVO-ME. In addition, conbercept has the statistically same visual gains and safety as ranibizumab in RVO-ME patients. Longer-term follow-up surveys on the safety and effectiveness of these 2 treatment regimens are required.

Individualized treat-and-extend regime for optimization of real-world vision outcome and improved patients' persistence

BACKGROUND

Intravitreal injections are a mandatory treatment for macular edema due to nAMD, DME and RVO. These chronic diseases usually need chronic treatment using intravitreal injections with anti-VEGF agents. Thus, many trials were performed to define the best treatment interval using pro re nata regimes (PRN), fixed regimes or treat-and-extend regimes (TE). However, real-world studies reveal a high rate of losing patients within a 2-year interval of treatment observation causing worse results. In this study we analyzed retrospectively 2 years of real-world experience with an individualized treat-and-extend injection scheme.

METHODS

Since 2015 our treatment scheme for intravitreal injections has been switched from PRN to TE. Out of 102 patients 59 completed a follow up time of 2 years. Every patient received visual acuity testing, SD-OCT and slit lamp examination prior to every injection. At each visit an injection was performed and the treatment interval was adjusted mainly on SD-OCT based morphologic changes by increasing or reducing in 2-week steps. Individual changes of the treatment protocol by face-to-face communication between physician and patient were possible.

RESULTS

After 1 year of treatment visual acuity gain in nAMD was 7.4 ± 2.2 ETDRS letters (n = 34; injection frequency: 7.4 ± 0.4) respectively 6.1 ± 4.7 in DME (n = 9; injection frequency: 8.4 ± 1.1) and 9.7 ± 4.5 in RVO (n = 16; injection frequency: 7.6 ± 0.5). After 2 years of treatment results were as following: nAMD: visual acuity gain 6.9 ± 2.1 (injection frequency: 12.6 ± 0.7); DME: 11.1 ± 5.1 (injection frequency: 14.0 ± 1.0); RVO: 7.5 ± 5.0 (injection frequency: 11.2 ± 0.9). Planned treatment exit after 2 year was achieved in 29.4% of patients in nAMD (0% after 1 year); 0% in DME (0% after 1 year); and 31.3% in RVO (0% after 1 year). Patients' persistence was 94.1% during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Using a consequent and individualized TE regime in daily practice may lead to a high patients' persistence and visual acuity gains nearly comparable to those of large prospective clinical trials. Crucial factors are face-to-face communication with the patient as well as a stringent management regime. At this time TE may be the only instrument for proactive therapy which should therefore be regarded as a first-line tool in daily practice.

Correlation between macular vessel density and number of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for macular edema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion

We evaluated whether the reduction of macular vessel density was correlated with the number of intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents in eyes with a branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). The mean vessel density was determined by optical coherence tomography angiography in 29 eyes with macular edema associated with a BRVO. Our results showed that the mean vessel density in the group that had a resolution of the macular edema after one anti-VEGF injection was significantly higher than group that had a recurrence of the macular edema (P = 0.028). Single regression analysis showed that the number of intravitreal injections was significantly correlated with the reduction of the modified vessel density (r = −0.421, P = 0.023) and systemic hypertension (r = 0.377, P = 0.044). Multiple stepwise regression analysis showed that the reduction of the modified vessel density (β = −0.442, P = 0.009) and hypertension (β = 0.403, P = 0.016) were independent factors associated with the number of intravitreal injections. We conclude that the vessel density reduction can be used to predict whether recurrences of the macular edema will develop after the initial anti-VEGF injection in eyes with macular edema associated with a BRVO.

Ranibizumab Pro Re nata versus Dexamethasone in the Management of Ischemic Retinal Vein Occlusion: Post-hoc Analysis from the COMRADE Trials

Purpose: To compare ischemia-related clinical outcomes in patients treated with either ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) or single dexamethasone implant in the Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE-B) or Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE-C) trials.Methods: A post-hoc analysis of the Phase IIIb, 6-month, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, COMRADE-B and COMRADE-C trials. Change over 6 months in retinal ischemia status (central avascular [CA] zone and peripheral nonperfusion [PNP]), mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the development of shunt vessels and neovascularization, and frequency of laser therapy were assessed in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) patients treated with either ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN or single dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, as per European labels, in the COMRADE-B (N = 244; ranibizumab, 126, dexamethasone, 118) or COMRADE-C (N = 243; ranibizumab, 124, dexamethasone, 119) trials. BCVA progression in ischemic vs. non-ischemic patients based on the ischemia assessment at month 6 was carried out.Results: Visual acuity (VA) gains from baseline to month 6 were higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone in both patients with central ischemia and those with peripheral retinal nonperfusion, independent of the type of RVO (branch or central). The presence of CA and PNP had a significant impact on VA gain over 6 months in CRVO patients (p < .0001), while there was no significant impact in BRVO. Ranibizumab was associated with less new ischemia than dexamethasone. Central RVO patients treated with dexamethasone received more laser treatments over the 6 months than those treated with ranibizumab, while there was no difference in the frequency of laser therapy between the branch RVO treatment groups.Conclusions: VA gain over six months in ranibizumab-treated RVO patients is not affected by ischemia, and is associated with less development of new ischemia during the first 6 months of treatment and equal or fewer laser treatments than dexamethasone implant.

Risk factors for and management of anterior chamber intravitreal dexamethasone implant migration

Background

This study aimed to investigate the incidence of and risk factors for the anterior chamber migration of an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex®).

Methods

A retrospective review of 640 consecutive intravitreal dexamethasone implant injections was conducted from February 2011 through February 2018 at the University Eye Hospital in Tübingen, Germany. Those patients who experienced anterior chamber dexamethasone implant migrations were identified, as well as the reasons for the anterior chamber migration. The surgical histories were obtained and comprehensive ophthalmic examinations were conducted for all of the eyes. Cross-tabulations, chi-squared tests, and Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess the influences of different factors on the anterior chamber implant migrations.

Results

Overall, 4 eyes of four patients (0.63%) showed anterior chamber implant migrations. All four of the eyes were pseudophakic, and they had undergone prior vitrectomies. Three eyes had sclerally-fixated intraocular lenses, and one eye had a posterior chamber intraocular lens in the capsular bag, with a capsular tension ring due to partial zonular dehiscence. When comparing the vitrectomized eyes with reduced zonular/capsular bag complex integrity to the vitrectomized pseudophakic eyes with intact zonular/capsular bags, the former were significantly associated with an increased risk of anterior chamber implant migration (P = 0.008). The vitrectomized pseudophakic eyes, in contrast to the nonvitrectomized pseudophakic eyes, were significantly associated with an increased risk of anterior chamber implant migration (P = 0.009).

Conclusions

The anterior chamber migration of an intravitreal dexamethasone implant is a serious complication. To minimize the risk of permanent corneal edema, immediate removal of the implant with a 20-gauge alligator forceps over a 2.75-mm long clear corneal tunnel is important. Those patients with insufficient zonular support, defects, or missing posterior capsular membranes and vitrectomy histories present a high risk of anterior chamber dexamethasone implant migration.

Protective effects of hydrogen gas in a rat model of branch retinal vein occlusion via decreasing VEGF-α expression

Background

Oxidative stress (OS) is an essential factor in the pathogenesis of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Studies have demonstrated the role of hydrogen gas in the regulation of OS. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of hydrogen gas on the BRVO rat model.

Methods

Twenty-four BRVO rats were randomly divided into two groups: the hydrogen gas (H) group (42% H₂, 21% O₂, 37% N₂) and the model (M) group (21% O₂, 79% N₂). Rats in the H group inhaled hydrogen gas for 8 h every day up to 30 d post-occlusion. Twelve age-matched healthy rats served as the control (C) group. Retinal function and morphology were detected at 1, 7, 14 and 30 d post-occlusion. Furthermore, the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-α) was detected by immunofluorescent staining.

Results

Full-field electroretinography (ffERG) revealed that the amplitude of the b-wave (dark-adaptation 3.0 response), the amplitude of the OPs2 wave and the light-adapted flicker response in the H group were all higher than those in the M group at 7 d post-occlusion (all p < 0.05). The reopen time of occlusive retinal vessels in the H group was 2.235 ± 1.128 d, which was shorter than that in the M group (4.234 ± 2.236 d, p < 0.05). The rats in the H group had a thinner IPL + GCL + NFL and an increased total retina compared with those in the M group at 3 d post-occlusion (p < 0.05), while the rats in the H group had a thicker INL, IPL + GCL + NFL and total retina compared with those at 7, 14 and 30 d post-occlusion (p < 0.05). Moreover, the flow velocity of ear vein blood was increased in the H group compared with that in the M group (p < 0.05). The expression of VEGF-α in the H group was dramatically decreased compared with that in the M group at 1, 7 and 14 d post-occlusion (p < 0.05), while the expression kept in similar level at 30 d post-occlusion (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that inhalation of hydrogen gas could alleviate retinal oedema, shorten reopen time and improve retinal function, and the potential mechanism might be related to a decrease in VEGF-α expression.

Change in cardiac troponin T level after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment: Prospective pilot study

Background:

Evaluate subclinical myocardial injury associated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy by measuring serum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T.

Methods:

This is a prospective pilot comparative study conducted at American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. In total, 40 consecutive patients were randomized to receive either intravitreal bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Patients received three consecutive monthly injections of the assigned drug, then continued treatment as needed. Systemic concentrations of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T and vascular endothelial growth factor were obtained at baseline, week 9, and week 24. Primary endpoint measure was change in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels compared to baseline. Secondary endpoint measure was change in systemic vascular endothelial growth factor levels.

Results:

There was no significant difference in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels over time ( p = 0.227) within each treatment group and no significant difference between treatments at any time point ( p = 0.276). There was a significant decrease in plasma vascular endothelial growth factor levels at week 9 ( p = 0.001) and week 24 ( p < 0.001) compared to baseline. In the ranibizumab group, vascular endothelial growth factor levels were not significantly different at weeks 9 and 24 compared to baseline ( p = 0.708 and p = 0.117, respectively). There was a significant association between the number of bevacizumab injections from weeks 8 to 24 and the decrease in vascular endothelial growth factor levels at week 24 ( R = −0.67, p = 0.032). This correlation was not observed in the ranibizumab group ( R = −0.341, p = 0.141).

Conclusion:

Repeated intravitreal bevacizumab or ranibizumab did not influence serum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin levels. Intravitreal bevacizumab but not ranibizumab lowered free-systemic vascular endothelial growth factor levels, which was observed in this study to be inversely related to the number of bevacizumab injections.

Bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and macular grid photocoagulation for macular edema in eyes with non-ischemic branch retinal vein occlusion: results from a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was the investigation of the effects of intravitreal bevacizumab (BEV) with or without additional macular grid laser photocoagulation (GRID) for macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

METHODS

Prospective, randomized, monocentric study. Thirty-two patients were included. Initially, all eyes in both groups received three monthly injections of BEV, followed by additional injections if re-treatment criteria were met. In the BEV + GRID group, photocoagulation was performed 2 weeks after the first BEV injection and laser re-treatment was allowed. The follow-up was 38 weeks. Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Changes of foveal avascular zone (FAZ) and of retinal ischemia, as well as the number of injections were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen eyes were randomized into each group. At baseline, BCVA was similar in both groups (BEV + GRID: 20/71; BEV: 20/60; P = 0.51). At 38 weeks, BCVA significantly improved in the two groups (BEV + GRID gain of 9 ± 11.2 letters and 16.25 ± 10.08 letters in the BEV) with no difference between them (P < 0.06). With regard to anatomical findings, initial CRT in BEV + GRID was 496.2 μm ± 138.4 μm and 538.9 μm ± 156.9 μm in BEV (P < 0.1697). At 38 weeks, CRT decreased in both groups significantly, 98.2 μm in the BEV + GRID (P = 0.02) and 141.7 μm in the BEV group (P = 0.01), with no significant difference between groups (P < 0.17). The area of FAZ a significantly increased in both groups (41% (P = 0.04) in BEV + GRID; 35% (P = 0.03) in BEV) during the study and the grade of peripheral ischemia remained unchanged. The mean number of injections was 3.8 (range 3-6) with no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate a beneficial effect of bevacizumab in ME in eyes with BRVO. A loading phase of three injections led to a significant improvement in vision in both groups, which persisted at week 38. Additional grid laser photocoagulation exhibited no beneficial functional or anatomical effect during the study, nor did it reduce the number of injections. The FAZ area increased significantly in both groups, but overall retinal ischemia did not. Further studies investigating more numerous eyes and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these data.

Comparison of ranibizumab versus dexamethasone for macular oedema following retinal vein occlusion: 1-year results of the COMRADE extension study

PURPOSE

The COMRADE studies are the first randomized controlled head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab versus dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). The COMRADE extension trial was designed to provide additional 6-month data of patients who completed the core studies.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase IV study patients who completed the COMRADE core studies were prospectively enrolled. Overall, 92 branch RVO (BRVO) patients (ranibizumab 52, DEX 40) and 83 central RVO (CRVO) patients (ranibizumab 61, DEX 22) were treated, and 94.6% of BRVO patients and 97.6% of CRVO patients completed the extension study. Patients were assigned to the same treatment group as in the core studies. Patients were monitored monthly and received either 0.5 mg ranibizumab or a 0.7 mg DEX implant as needed.

RESULTS

Over the course of the extension, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of the study eye occurred in 55.8% of BRVO patients on ranibizumab and in 62.5% of those on DEX. Among CRVO patients, 65.5% in the ranibizumab group and 59.1% in the DEX group developed TEAEs. Overall, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) was more frequent with DEX than ranibizumab treatment. Mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in BRVO patients was significantly better for ranibizumab than DEX (p = 0.0249). The CRVO results were consistent with BRVO's, although not significant (p = 0.1119).

CONCLUSION

When used according to the European labels, ranibizumab revealed a better ocular safety profile and produced greater average BCVA gains than DEX. By the end of the additional 6-month study period, this difference in BCVA was more pronounced in BRVO as in CRVO patients. The main limitation of the COMRADE studies was that DEX patients received only a single intravitreal treatment during the first 6 months, which is presumably not adequate. However, frequent DEX implants could lead to more steroid-related side effects, especially to an increased intraocular pressure.

Combination of Grid Laser Photocoagulation and a Single Intravitreal Ranibizumab as an Efficient and Cost-Effective Treatment Option for Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Our prospective comparative study of 60 patients aimed to compare the efficacy and feasibility of a single injection ranibizumab versus a single grid laser photocoagulation and versus a combined treatment in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion in Asian population. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 (n = 20/group) into grid laser (LAS), the ranibizumab (RAN), and the combination (COM) group. Outcomes were measured as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). There were significant differences in mean BCVA between the three groups at 1 week and 1 month (p < 0.05) and in mean CMT at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (p < 0.05). Overall, best results were observed in the combination group. However, the RAN and COM groups achieved very similar results. At 12 months, the CMT in all three groups was decreased compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Our results allow to conclude that the effect of early treatment with a single injection of intravitreal ranibizumab (cost reduction) and the stabilizing effect of grid laser photocoagulation is indeed an effective, feasible, and safe regiment for macular edema secondary to BRVO in Chinese patients, allowing to obviate the need for repeated intravitreal injections and thus reduce the adverse events, therapy duration, patients' malcompliance, and adverse events. A single ranibizumab therapy however is a comparable alternative.

Efficacy of Multiple Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants for Refractory Retinal Vein Occlusion-Related Macular Edema and Effect of Prior Vitrectomy

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implants (DEX implant) in patients with treatment-resistant macular edema (ME) owing to branch and central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO/CRVO), and the influence of prior vitrectomy on this treatment. Methods: Multicenter retrospective chart review was performed on 40 CRVO and 32 BRVO eyes with persistent ME despite intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents and/or intravitreal triamcinolone, and/or laser therapy. Each patient received ≥1 dexamethasone 700 μg implant between March 2011 and December 2015. Thirteen patients underwent prior vitrectomy. Data were collected on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), time to relapse, and adverse events. Results: At the end of follow-up, BRVO eyes had a lesser CMT reduction from baseline compared to CRVO eyes (-122.50 ± 152.47 μm and -202.26 ± 194.09 μm, respectively). Neither BRVO nor CRVO eyes had a sustained BCVA benefit (P = 0.7041 and P = 0.7027, respectively). Vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes overall had a sustained significant CMT reduction throughout the study with -192.46 ± 172.62 μm and -164.02 ± 180.36 μm, respectively, at final follow-up. Similar time to relapse of 24.4 ± 6.5 and 23.3 ± 13.5 weeks, respectively, was observed. By the end of follow-up, BCVA had only improved in vitrectomized eyes. However, multivariable regression analyses showed no significant association between vitrectomy status and CMT or BCVA change after the first and last injection. Cataract formation and ocular hypertension occurred in 25% and 17%, respectively. Conclusions: Multiple DEX implant are effective in reducing CMT in patients resistant to previous treatments and appear to be similarly effective in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes.

The short-term efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone implant in the treatment of macular edema due to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the efficacy over 6 months of intravitreal ranibizumab (IR), aflibercept (IA) and dexamethasone implant (IDI) in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients who received pro re nata treatment of IR 0.5 mg, IA 2 mg or IDI 0.7 mg (as Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively) for the treatment of ME due to non-ischemic CRVO were included in the study. Efficacy outcomes were considered as the changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline over 6 months.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (Group 1) received IR, 16 patients received (Group 2) IA, and 24 patients (Group 3) received IDI. The mean numbers of injections were 2.56 ± 1.0, 2.68 ± 0.9, and 1.62 ± 0.5 in Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.000). In Groups 1 and 2, the mean BCVA values increased significantly after the treatment (p < 0.001). However, in Group 3, no increase in mean BCVA was statistically significant in any month (p = 0.061). The proportion of eyes gaining at least three lines in BCVA was 33.3% in Group 1, 43.8% in Group 2, and 33.3% in Group 3 (p = 0.762). In all groups, significant improvements were observed in CMT after treatment (p < 0.001). At month 6, the mean changes in CMT were - 162.7 ± 186.5 µm in Group 1, - 310.1 ± 345.9 µm in Group 2, and - 193.8 ± 228.3 µm in Group 3, with no significant difference among groups (p = 0.474). Cataract formation and IOP increase were higher in the IDI group, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.054 and p = 0.392, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IR and IA may be preferred treatment for ME due to non-ischemic CRVO as visual improvement remains the primary ophthalmological objective. The most important advantages of IDI are its effect on CMT and the need for fewer injections. The increase in IOP and the formation of cataract may be observed more in IDI-treated eyes.

Head-to-head comparison of ranibizumab PRN versus single-dose dexamethasone for branch retinal vein occlusion (COMRADE-B)

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg versus dexamethasone 0.7 mg according to their European labels in macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) in a 6-month, phase IIIb, randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients received either monthly ranibizumab for 3 months followed by Pro re nata (PRN) treatment (n = 126) or a sustained-release dexamethasone implant followed by PRN sham injections (n = 118). Main outcomes were mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 1 through month 6, mean changes in BCVA and foveal centre point thickness (FCPT), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

There was no difference in BCVA gains between the treatments prior to month 3. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain with dexamethasone declined thereafter. From month 3 to month 6, mean BCVA change from baseline was significantly higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone [raw means (standard deviation):+16.2 (±11) letters versus +9.3 (±10.1) letters]. At month 6, the difference in BCVA gains from baseline was +17.3 letters in the ranibizumab versus +9.2 letters in the dexamethasone group. Patients in the ranibizumab group received a mean of 2.94 loading injections and 1.74 PRN retreatment injections, while those in the dexamethasone group received a single loading injection. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and AEs were more frequent with dexamethasone than ranibizumab treatment.

CONCLUSION

Ranibizumab PRN resulted in greater visual acuity (VA) gains in macular oedema following BRVO compared with single-dose dexamethasone over a 6-month study period, observed from month 3, when administered according to their European label. In clinical practice, retreatment with dexamethasone may be required prior to this point.

Intravitreal Injection of Bevacizumab: Review of our previous Experience

Several ocular and systemic complications have been reported after the bevacizumab intravitreal injection. This study aims at reporting the main indications for the bevacizumab intravitreal injection in our center, the intravitreal injection method in this study, and the incidence of the post-injection complication, such as endophthalmitis.This study is a retrospective review of the consecutive intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin®) injections for 359 patients between 2011 and 2013 at a single institute (Poostchi Clinic of Ophthalmology). Before the injection, a drop containing 5 mLCiprofloxacin and 5 mL Betadine 10% was applied 3 times at the intervals of 10 min. The eye lashes, upper and lower eyelids, and caruncle were swabbed with Betadine 10% but the lid speculum, drape, and conjunctival washing were not conducted.The patients were followed up 8 weeks after the injection for the evaluation of any complications.In this study, 1376 intravitreal injection of bevacizumab in 479 eyes of 359 patients were enrolled. Among them, 141patients (39.3%) were men and 218 (60.7%) were women. The mean age ( ± SD) of the patients was 61.48 (± 11.21) years. On average, each patient received 3.83 (the range 1-13) injections. The most common indications for the bevacizumab intravitreal injection were diabetic retinopathy, choroidal neovascularization, and central retinal vein occlusion. None of the patients developed endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, or other adverse effects. This study showed that the above-mentioned method of the intravitreal bevacizumab injection is easy and safe. The future studies involving more participants are required for the evaluation of rare complications.

Integrated results from the COPERNICUS and GALILEO studies

Objectives

To report on the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in an integrated analysis of COPERNICUS and GALILEO.

Patients and methods

Patients were randomized to receive intravitreal aflibercept 2 mg every 4 weeks or sham injections until week 24. From week 24 to week 52, all intravitreal aflibercept-treated patients in both studies and sham-treated patients in COPERNICUS were eligible to receive intravitreal aflibercept based on prespecified criteria. In GALILEO, sham-treated patients continued to receive sham treatment through week 52.

Results

At week 24, mean gain in best-corrected visual acuity and mean reduction in central retinal thickness were greater for intravitreal aflibercept-treated patients compared with sham, consistent with individual trial results. At week 52, after 6 months of intravitreal aflibercept as-needed treatment in COPERNICUS, patients originally randomized to sham group experienced visual and anatomic improvements but did not improve to the extent of those initially treated with intravitreal aflibercept, while the sham group in GALILEO did not improve over week 24 mean best-corrected visual acuity scores. Ocular serious adverse events occurred in <10% of patients.

Conclusion

This analysis of integrated data from COPERNICUS and GALILEO confirmed that intravitreal aflibercept is an effective treatment for macular edema following CRVO.

Mystery of Retinal Vein Occlusion: Vasoactivity of the Vein and Possible Involvement of Endothelin-1

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common vascular disease of retina; however, the pathomechanism leading to RVO is not yet clear. In general, increasing age, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disorder, and cerebral stroke are systemic risk factors of RVO. However, RVO often occur in the unilateral eye and sometimes develop in young subjects who have no arteriosclerosis. In addition, RVO show different variations on the degrees of severity; some RVO are resolved without any treatment and others develop vision-threatening complications such as macular edema, combined retinal artery occlusion, vitreous hemorrhage, and glaucoma. Clinical conditions leading to RVO are still open to question. In this review, we discuss how to treat RVO in practice by presenting some RVO cases. We also deliver possible pathomechanisms of RVO through our clinical experience and animal experiments.

Switch of Intravitreal Therapy for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion from Anti-VEGF to Dexamethasone Implant and Vice Versa

PURPOSE

To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcome of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for macular edema secondary to central (C) or branch (B) retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in patients with persistent macular edema (ME) refractory to intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment compared to treatment naïve patients and to dexamethasone-refractory eyes switched to anti-VEGF.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational study including 30 eyes previously treated with anti-VEGF (8 CRVO, 22 BRVO, mean age 69 ± 10 yrs), compared to 11 treatment naïve eyes (6 CRVO, 5 BRVO, 73 ± 11 yrs) and compared to dexamethasone nonresponders (2 CRVO, 4 BRVO, 69 ± 12). Outcome parameters were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

Mean BCVA improvement after switch to dexamethasone implant was 4 letters (p = 0.08), and treatment naïve eyes gained 10 letters (p = 0.66), while we noted no change in eyes after switch to anti-VEGF (p = 0.74). Median CFT decrease was most pronounced in treatment naïve patients (-437 μm, p = 0.002) compared to anti-VEGF refractory eyes (-170 μm, p = 0.003) and dexamethasone-refractory eyes (-157, p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone significantly reduced ME secondary to RVO refractory to anti-VEGF. Functional gain was limited compared to treatment naïve eyes, probably due to worse BCVA and CFT at baseline in treatment naïve eyes.

Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion, Macular Ischemia, and Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy

PURPOSE

To report a case with ischemic macular edema (ME) due to an acute branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) which was treated with repeated intravitreal anti-VEGF injections.

METHODS

Retrospective case presentation.

RESULTS

A 66-year-old female patient was treated with repeated intravitreal anti-VEGF injections due to ischemic ME following an acute BRVO. Over a period of 2.5 years best corrected visual acuity increased from 0.06 to 0.6 (decimal notation) accompanied by a reduction in central retinal thickness from 546 to 292 µm. Overall 17 anti-VEGF injections were administered to treat repeated recurrence of ME. Macular ischemia did not worsen during this profound intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy can be a beneficial treatment strategy even in ischemic ME following an acute BRVO.

New Developments in the Classification, Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, Natural History, and Treatment of Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

For years, branch retinal vein occlusion is still a controversial disease in many aspects. An increasing amount of data is available regarding classification, pathogenesis, risk factors, natural history, and therapy of branch retinal vein occlusion. Some of the conclusions may even change our impression of branch retinal vein occlusion. It will be beneficial for our doctors to get a deeper understanding of this disease and improve the treatment skills. The aims of this review is to collect the information above and report new ideas especially from the past a few years.

A retrospective study of the influence of the vitreomacular interface on macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

AIMS

To compare anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment outcomes for macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) based on vitreoretinal interface (VRI) status.

METHODS

This retrospective case series includes treatment-naive eyes diagnosed with RVO and treated with anti-VEGF injections. Eyes were stratified based on international VRI classification schema at baseline into three groups-vitreomacular traction (group A), no posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) (group B) and PVD without vitreomacular attachment (group C). Fifty-two eyes were identified based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was change in central subfield thickness (CST) on optical coherence tomography at 6 months.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of patients with RVO when stratified by VRI subgroups. After 6 months of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the change in CST from baseline between VRI cohorts (p=0.11). There was a trend demonstrating the greatest improvement in CST in eyes in group A compared with eyes in groups B and C (-224.13 μm, -160.88 μm and -50.92 μm, respectively, p=0.11 between cohorts). Mean change in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity from baseline to month 6 in group A compared with groups B and C was -0.25, -0.14 and -0.13, respectively (p=0.64 between cohorts).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify an association between VRI status and treatment outcomes with anti-VEGF agents for ME secondary to RVO.

Long-term results of combination therapy using anti-VEGF agents and dexamethasone intravitreal implant for retinal vein occlusion: an investigational case series

Background

One limitation of anti-VEGF therapy is the need for monthly retreatment to maintain efficacy. The purpose of this study was to determine the duration of effect in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO) treated with anti-VEGF therapy plus sustained-release dexamethasone (DEX implant; Ozurdex).

Materials and methods

This open-label, interventional case series included 62 eyes with ME due to RVO, central foveal thickness (CFT) >300 μm, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/40 or worse. Each treatment cycle included an anti-VEGF injection followed 2 weeks later with DEX implant. Patients were eligible for retreatment if CFT increased to >290 μm or increased by >50 μm from the lowest measurement, or if BCVA decreased by six or more Snellen letters. Efficacy and safety were evaluated 2 and 4–6 weeks after the beginning of each treatment cycle and every 4 weeks thereafter until retreatment criteria were met. The primary outcome measure was time to retreatment. Secondary outcome measures included BCVA, CFT, and safety parameters.

Results

The mean reinjection interval for all patients was 135.5±36.4 days. There was no statistically significant difference in mean intertreatment interval for up to six cycles of treatment or between eyes with BRVO or CRVO (P≥0.058). Mean peak change in BCVA was 13.8 letters, and 47.6% of eyes gained three or more lines of BCVA. The mean peak decrease in CFT across all treatment cycles was 200.9 μm for eyes with BRVO and 219.2 μm for eyes with CRVO. The percentage of patients with CFT ≤300 μm at any time during a given treatment cycle ranged from 78% to 94% among eyes with BRVO and from 85% to 100% among eyes with CRVO. Intraocular pressure increased in 19 of 62 eyes, and 26 of 44 phakic eyes underwent cataract surgery.

Conclusion

In eyes with ME due to RVO, treatment with an anti-VEGF agent plus DEX implant provided a predictable duration of effect, as well as significant improvements in BCVA and CFT.

Treatment patterns of ranibizumab intravitreal injection and dexamethasone intravitreal implant for retinal vein occlusion in the USA

Purpose

Ranibizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, and dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, have been shown to be effective in treating macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) (central RVO (CRVO) and branch RVO (BRVO)). Their real-world usage, however, has yet to be compared. We therefore evaluated ophthalmology visits for both drugs using US patient-level data.

Methods

The IMS Health Real-World Data Medical Claims database was used to identify treatment-naive patients receiving ranibizumab intravitreal injections or dexamethasone intravitreal implants between June 2010 and February 2014 who had 12 months of follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was the mean number of all ophthalmology visits for the two drugs in patients with CRVO and BRVO. Secondary outcome measures included a comparison of treatment visits, non-treatment visits, and time intervals between visits.

Results

Overall, 2822 patients received ranibizumab injections (CRVO, 1178; BRVO, 1644) and 365 received dexamethasone implants (CRVO, 191; BRVO, 174). The mean number (SD) of all ophthalmology visits was higher for patients receiving ranibizumab injections than for those receiving dexamethasone implants (CRVO: 7.2 (3.6) vs 6.2 (3.1), P<0.001; BRVO: 7.1 (3.4) vs 6.3 (3.1), P=0.016).

Conclusions

Patients with RVO receiving ranibizumab injections had a mean of approximately one more visit to their ophthalmologist in the first 12 months of treatment than those treated with dexamethasone implants. The visit burden is therefore not substantially different and physicians should focus on the clinical benefits of these drugs when evaluating treatment options for RVO.

Comparison between ranibizumab and aflibercept for macular edema associated with central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

We compared the efficacy of bimonthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (IVR) with that of bimonthly intravitreal injections of aflibercept (IVA) in two prospective, consecutive groups of patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eyes with ME after CRVO received either bimonthly IVR (ranibizumab group; n = 13) or IVA (aflibercept group; n = 13) injections and were followed monthly for 6 months. Three patients in the ranibizumab group and two in the aflibercept group were lost to follow-up and excluded from the study. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT) on optical coherence tomography, and aqueous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentrations were evaluated before and after treatment.

RESULTS

From baseline to month 6, significant improvements occurred in mean logMAR BCVA (ranibizumab group: 0.78-0.47; p < 0.05; aflibercept group: 0.74-0.54; p < 0.05) and mean CFT (ranibizumab group: 685-311 µm; p < 0.05; aflibercept group: 695-230 µm; p < 0.05). Fluctuations in CFT were seen at months 2, 4, and 6 in the ranibizumab group. Mean aqueous VEGF concentration decreased from baseline to month 2 in the ranibizumab group (509.9-348.2 pg/ml) and aflibercept group (412.1 pg/ml to undetectable limits in eight of 11 eyes and to 13.6, 15.6, and 24.1 pg/ml in the other three eyes, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant improvement of visual acuity in one group compared with another; VEGF may not be completely neutralized by bimonthly injections of ranibizumab.