Contralateral eye-to-eye comparison of intravitreal ranibizumab and a sustained-release dexamethasone intravitreal implant in recalcitrant diabetic macular edema

Comparative Efficacy of Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (Anti-VEGF) Agents and Corticosteroids in Managing Diabetic Retinopathy-Associated Diabetic Macular Edema: A Meta-Analysis and Comprehensive Systematic Review

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a significant condition linked to diabetes that can result in visual loss. In recent times, there has been a notable change in the desire for treatment, with a shift toward anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy and intravitreal steroids while moving away from conventional laser therapies. This comprehensive meta-analysis explicitly compares the efficacy of two therapies for DME: anti-VEGF therapy and corticosteroid. We conducted a thorough search using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify publications that compare the effects of anti-VEGF therapy and corticosteroid implants on DME. Using Review Manager 5.0 (RevMan), we incorporated data from nine research studies, which involved a total of 877 people. The group was split into two factions: 453 patients were administered corticosteroids, while 466 patients underwent treatment with anti-VEGF therapy. Our investigation demonstrated that both corticosteroid and anti-VEGF therapy positively improved the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and reduced the central macular thickness (CMT). Nevertheless, comparing the mean BCVA on the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) scale revealed no statistically significant changes between the two treatments. This indicates considerable inconsistency, as evidenced by the weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.13 (-0.41, 0.16) with a P-value of 0.39 and an I2 value of 99%. In addition, both treatments improved BCVA compared to the initial measurement. However, there was no statistically significant benefit for corticosteroid over anti-VEGF therapy, as indicated by the WMD of 0.03 (-0.07, 0.13) with a P-value of 0.55 and an I2 value of 80%. The examination of the average CMT also yielded findings that lacked statistical significance, displaying a significant amount of variation (WMD -36.37, 95% confidence interval [-127.52, 54.78], P = 0.43, I2 = 98%). Remarkably, there were no significant alterations among the anti-VEGF therapy group despite a rise in CMT from the initial measurement. The main conclusion drawn from our research is that corticosteroid demonstrates encouraging immediate enhancements in BCVA and CMT. However, anti-VEGF therapy seems to provide more significant long-term advantages. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the corticosteroid group had a greater susceptibility to acquiring elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and the possibility of glaucoma.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Given Either First-Line or Second-Line in Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the leading cause of severe visual impairment among the working-age population. Several therapeutic options are available for the management of DME, including intravitreal corticosteroids. They have been traditionally used as second-line treatment, due to the risk of intraocular pressure increase and cataract-related adverse events. However, attention has recently been focused on the primary or early use of intravitreal corticosteroids, due to growing evidence of the crucial role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME. Furthermore, intravitreal steroid implants offer the additional advantage of a longer duration of action compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGF). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, with a specific focus on clinical scenarios in which it might be considered or even preferred as first-line treatment option by adequate selection of patients, considering both advantages and possible adverse events. Patients with contraindications to anti-VEGF, DME with high inflammatory OCT biomarkers, pseudophakic patients and phakic patients' candidates to cataract surgery as well as vitrectomized eyes may all benefit from first-line DEX implant. Additionally, DME not responders to anti-VEGF should be considered for a switch to DEX implant and a combination therapy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF could be a valid option in severe and persistent DME.

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.

Anti-VEGF-Resistant Retinal Diseases: A Review of the Latest Treatment Options

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy currently plays a central role in the treatment of numerous retinal diseases, most notably exudative age-related macular degeneration (eAMD), diabetic retinopathy and retinal vein occlusions. While offering significant functional and anatomic benefits in most patients, there exists a subset of 15–40% of eyes that fail to respond or only partially respond. For these cases, various treatment options have been explored with a range of outcomes. These options include steroid injections, laser treatment (both thermal therapy for retinal vascular diseases and photodynamic therapy for eAMD), abbreviated anti-VEGF treatment intervals, switching anti-VEGF agents and topical medications. In this article, we review the effectiveness of these treatment options along with a discussion of the current research into future directions for anti-VEGF-resistant eyes.

Dexamethasone implant in the management of diabetic macular edema from clinician's perspective

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of characteristics and principles of use of dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). The condensed information about patient selection, dosing, and postinjection management is provided to make the clinician’s decisions easier in real-life practice. DME is a common complication of diabetes and the leading cause of visual loss in the working-age population. Inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis of DME. The breakdown of the blood–retinal barrier involves the expression of inflammatory cytokines and growth factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Steroids have proved to be effective in the treatment of DME by blocking the production of VEGF and other inflammatory cytokines, by inhibiting leukostasis, and by enhancing the barrier function of vascular endothelial cell tight junctions. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of DME resistant to anti-VEGF therapy and in vitrectomized eyes. Data from clinical trials suggest that dexamethasone implant can be considered as first-line treatment in pseudophakic eyes. Dexamethasone implant is also the first-line therapy in patients not suited for anti-VEGF therapy, pregnant women, and patients unable to return for frequent monitoring. It has been shown that the maximum effect of dexamethasone implant on visual gain and retinal thickness occurs approximately 2 months after injection. Various treatment regimens are used in real-life situations, and reported reinjection intervals were usually <6 months. The number of retreatments needed decreased over time. Treatment algorithms should be personalized. Postinjection management and follow-up should consider potential adverse events such as intraocular pressure elevation and cataract.

Dexamethasone Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema Resistant to Anti-VEGF Therapy

Objectives:

To investigate the efficacy of single dose intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) resistant to anti-VEGF therapy.

Materials and Methods:

Twenty eyes of 14 patients (8 male, 6 female; mean age, 65±5.7 years) with DME resistant to intravitreal ranibizumab injections were studied. A single intravitreal dexamethasone implant was injected into each eye and patients were followed up for 6 months. Response to therapy was assessed monthly by measuring intraocular pressure (IOP), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central foveal thickness (CFT).

Results:

Baseline (before injection) IOP was 14.9±2.7 mmHg and did not change significantly in the six months following injection. Baseline BCVA was 1.04±0.35 LogMAR and improved to 0.86±0.31 at month 1 without statistical significance (p=0.056). CFT was significantly lower in all monthly measurements compared to its baseline value of 682.2±229.2 μm. During the follow-up period, endophthalmitis, significant cataract, or rhegmatogenous retinal detachment were not detected.

Conclusion:

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection is associated with significant CFT reduction for up to six months without causing any complications. Although BCVA did not improve in parallel with the CFT reduction, intravitreal dexamethasone implant should be considered as an effective and safe treatment option in the management of DME patients resistant to anti-VEGF injections.

Intravitreal corticosteroid implant vs intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of macular edema: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid implant and intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of macular edema (ME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implant with ranibizumab in patients with ME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze the data, and the modified Jadad assessment tool was used to access the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our analysis. The types of causes of ME include central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), and diabetic retinopathy (DR). The ranibizumab treatment group had significantly better BCVA compared with the corticosteroid treatment group (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.80; 95% CI -1.08, -0.53; P<0.00001). The ranibizumab treatment group also had higher CST reduction compared with the corticosteroid treatment group, and there was a significant difference (weighted mean difference [WMD] 167.58; 95% CI 125.21-209.95; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference in serious adverse effects between the two groups (SMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.69, 4.05; P=0.26). However, the use of corticosteroid implant had a higher risk of intraocular pressure (IOP) (OR 6.88; 95% CI 4.53-10.44; P<0.00001) elevation and cataract (OR 3.98; 95% CI 1.89-8.37; P=0.0003) than ranibizumab treatment and fewer injections.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ranibizumab, corticosteroid implant did not have greater improved BCVA, but corticosteroid implant had less CST reduction. The advantages of corticosteroids are fewer injections, while the advantages of ranibizumab include fewer side effects.

A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov website and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing DEX implant with anti-VEGF in patients with DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 for Mac was used to analyze the data and GRADE profiler were used to access the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Based on four randomized clinical trials assessing a total of 521 eyes, the DEX implant can achieve visual acuity improvement for DME at rates similar to those achieved via anti-VEGF treatment (mean difference [MD] = - 0.43, P = 0.35), with superior anatomic outcomes at 6 months (MD = - 86.71 μm, P = 0.02), while requiring fewer injections, in comparison to anti-VEGF treatment. Although the mean reduction in CST did not showed significant difference at 12 months (MD = - 33.77 μm, P = 0.21), the significant in BCVA from baseline to 12 months supported the anti-VEGF treatment (MD = - 3.26, P < 0.00001). No statistically significant differences in terms of the serious adverse events. However, use of the DEX implant has higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract than anti-VEGF treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with anti-VEGF, DEX implant improved anatomical outcomes significantly. However, this did not translate to improved visual acuity, which may be due to the progression of cataract. Therefore, the DEX implant may be recommended as a first chioce for select cases, such as for pseudophakic eyes, anti-VEGF-resistant eyes, or patients reluctant to receive intravitreal injections frequently.

Aflibercept in diabetic macular edema refractory to previous bevacizumab: outcomes and predictors of success

PURPOSE

To evaluate functional and anatomical outcomes after aflibercept in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) with poor response to bevacizumab.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with DME recalcitrant to bevacizumab who were switched to aflibercept between January and December 2015. All patients had a minimal follow-up of three months before the conversion and underwent at least three injections of bevacizumab. Functional outcome consisted in best corrected visual acuity (VA). Anatomical outcomes were demonstrated through central macular thickness (CMT) measured by optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

Forty-nine eyes of 34 subjects were reviewed. Mean VA improved from 0.55 ± 0.32 logMAR to 0.46 ± 0.33 logMAR (p = 0.038). Mean CMT decreased from 473 ± 146 μm to 349 ± 85 μm (p < 0.001). Twelve eyes (24%) demonstrated absence of macular edema after aflibercept. Previous bevacizumab exposure did not correlate with different outcomes. The variation of VA in response to aflibercept was significantly superior in the group with poorer VA before the switch (mean variation of -0.097 ± 0.21 logMAR) when compared to eyes with VA < 0.4 logMAR (mean variation of +0.019 ± 0.090 logMAR; p = 0.036). The same scenario was verified for anatomical outcomes as eyes with poor vision before the switch (≥0.4 logMAR) achieved superior reduction in CMT in response to aflibercept (mean CMT variation of -157 ± 171 μm versus -49.5 ± 39.9 μm; p < 0.01). Pre-switch CMT was a predictor of CMT reduction after switching (B = -0.945; confidence interval 95% -1.1; -0.76; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to aflibercept for persistent DME resulted in functional and anatomical improvements and these outcomes were not influenced by previous bevacizumab exposure. Pre-switch CMT was a predictor of anatomical changes after aflibercept.