One-Year Outcome of Aflibercept Intravitreal Injection in Vitrectomized Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

A Comparison of Ocular Complications after 0.7 mg Dexamethasone Implant versus 2 mg of Intravitreal Triamcinolone in Vitrectomized Eyes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rates of complications in eyes that received a dexamethasone (DEX) implant (0.7 mg) or intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT) (2 mg) to treat postvitrectomy macular edema (ME).

DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative, case series.

SUBJECTS

A total of 148 eyes (147 patients); 75 eyes (75 patients) in the DEX group and 73 eyes (72 patients) in the IVT group.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who received an intravitreal DEX 0.7 mg (Ozurdex) or triamcinolone (2 mg) (Triesence) for postvitrectomy ME between July 2014 and December 2021 with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were reviewed. Ocular hypotony and ocular hypertension were defined as intraocular pressure of < 6 mmHg and > 24 mmHg, respectively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The rates of complications.

RESULTS

The follow-up duration was 2.5 ± 1.6 years, with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.398). The rate of transient ocular hypotony per eye and per injection was significantly higher in the DEX group (10 eyes [13%], 30 of 443 injections [7%]) compared with the IVT group (2 eyes [3%], 2 of 262 injections [0.8%]) (P = 0.039 and < 0.001, respectively). Mean visual acuity significantly decreased at the time of ocular hypotony (P = 0.031), but returned to preinjection level after resolution of the hypotony after a median of 12 days. The incidence of ocular hypertension was higher in the DEX group (23 eyes [31%]) than the IVT group (16 eyes [22%]), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.307). Ocular hypertension was controlled with observation or topical medication. There were no between-group differences in the incidence of vitreous hemorrhage (DEX, 3 eyes [4%]; IVT, 1 eye [1%]; P = 0.632) or rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (DEX, 3 eyes [4%]; IVT, 0 eyes [0%]; P = 0.253). Four eyes (5%) experienced migration of the DEX implant into the anterior chamber. No eye developed endophthalmitis.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of ocular hypotony, which causes transient visual impairment, was significantly higher in vitrectomized eyes treated with DEX compared with eyes treated with IVT. Injections other than the inferotemporal quadrant or rotating injection sites may be recommended.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic retinopathy: what we have learned and what should we learn further?

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the most frequent microvascular complications of diabetes that can lead to blindness. Laser treatment has been the gold standard treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) for many years. Recently, the role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has been established in the pathogenesis of DR, and the use of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy has gained popularity for the management of DR.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes a brief overview of the efficacy and safety of currently available (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept) and potential future (brolucizumab, faricimab, and KSI-301) anti-VEGF agents in patients with DR based mainly on publicly available data from phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinical trials investigating the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept injections demonstrated favorable functional and anatomical outcomes in patients with DME. Moreover, the use of these anti-VEGF agents showed a significant improvement in the severity of DR. Recent clinical research for future anti-VEGF molecules aims to provide higher target-protein binding affinity and prolonged therapeutic effect. Brolucizumab, faricimab, and KSI-301 are three novel anti-VEGF agents that demonstrate promising data for the management of DME and potentially DR.