Intraoperative dexamethasone implant in uveitis patients with cataract undergoing phacoemulsification

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Intravitreal injection versus systematic treatment in patients with uveitis undergoing cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cataract surgery in patients with uveitis is challenging, and postoperative inflammation control is crucial for successful outcomes. No consensus exists regarding the optimal method of controlling postoperative inflammation. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcome of intravitreal injection (IVI), including steroid (triamcinolone acetonide) or steroid implant (dexamethasone), with systemic anti-inflammatory therapy (ST), such as systemic steroids with or without immunomodulatory therapy, in patients with uveitis undergoing cataract surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative cohort studies, and case-control studies published through May 2021 that compared intraoperative IVI of triamcinolone acetonide or steroid implant with ST with or without immunomodulatory therapy. The following outcomes were evaluated: preoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, laser flare photometry, central macular thickness and cystoid macular edema rate.

RESULTS

Five studies were selected. Our analysis indicated that compared with ST, IVI treatment may be associated with less anterior chamber inflammation and a lower cystoid macular edema rate, but the difference in best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, or central macular thickness was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

IVI of steroid or steroid implants might be beneficial in controlling postoperative inflammation for uveitis cataract, especially in patients who cannot tolerate ST. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of intraoperative IVI of steroids with standard-of-care treatment as a prophylaxis for uveitis cataract. However, large-scale RCTs are warranted to compare the IVI of steroid implants and steroids.

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

Sympathetic ophthalmia: A comprehensive update

Sympathetic ophthalmia is a rare, bilateral, granulomatous, panuveitis following penetrating trauma or surgery to one eye. Clinical presentation commonly occurs within the first year of trauma occurrence but can be delayed by several years. It manifests as acute/chronic granulomatous uveitis with yellowish-white choroidal lesions or Dalen-Fuchs nodules. Initially, patients respond rapidly to corticosteroid therapy, but a majority require long-term use of corticosteroid-sparing agents to prevent recurrences. The purpose of this review is to elaborate on the current understanding of the pathophysiology, the importance of multimodal imaging in early diagnosis, and the role of newer immunomodulatory and biological agents in recalcitrant cases.

Structural Endpoints and Outcome Measures in Uveitis

Most uveitis entities are rare diseases but, taken together, are responsible for 5-10% of worldwide visual impairment which largely affects persons of working age. As with many rare diseases, there is a lack of high-level evidence regarding its clinical management, partly due to a dearth of reliable and objective quantitative endpoints for clinical trials. This review provides an overview of available structural outcome measures for uveitis disease activity and damage in an anatomical order from the anterior to the posterior segment of the eye. While there is a multitude of available structural outcome measures, not all might qualify as endpoints for clinical uveitis trials, and thorough testing of applicability is warranted. Furthermore, a consensus on endpoint definition, standardization, and "core outcomes" is required. As stipulated by regulatory agencies, endpoints should be precisely defined, clinically important, internally consistent, reliable, responsive to treatment, and relevant for the respective subtype of uveitis. Out of all modalities used for assessment of the reviewed structural outcome measures, optical coherence tomography, color fundus photography, fundus autofluorescence, and fluorescein/indocyanine green angiography represent current "core modalities" for reliable and objective quantification of uveitis outcome measures, based on their practical availability and the evidence provided so far.

Utilizing dexamethasone intravitreal implant to control postoperative inflammation in refractory uveitis undergoing cataract surgery

AIM

To report the effectiveness of intravitreal implantation of dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in refractory uveitis patients.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study conducted for refractory pan-uveitis patients who underwent cataract surgery combined with intravitreal Ozurdex implantation. The main outcome measurements were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), grade of anterior chamber cell (AAC), intraocular pressure (IOP), and systemic/ocular adverse events.

RESULTS

Ten eyes of 7 patients were included. BCVA showed significant improvement at 1mo (P=0.004), 3mo (P=0.0004), and 6mo (P=0.001) post operation. There were no statistically significant differences in the postoperative CRT among follow-up groups (P>0.05). No significant differences were observed in the baseline IOP when compared to 1, 3, and 6mo (all P>0.05) post operation. One patient developed a transient elevated IOP post injection. Two eyes (20%) developed posterior capsular opacifications and underwent neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser capsulotomy. In six patients (8 eyes, 71.4%), the systemic steroid usage was reduced to below 10 mg/d. The patients experienced a mean of 1.4±0.52 recurrences of inflammation in the 6mo before operation and 0.7±0.48 in the 6mon post operation. The mean recurrence time was 13±0.58wk (range 12-14wk) post operation. In five of seven patients (7 out of 10 eyes), inflammation relapse was developed postoperatively. Only one patient (2 eyes) needed increased amounts of oral corticosteroids. Intraocular inflammation recurrence in the remaining patients was controlled by topical steroids.

CONCLUSION

Ozurdex is considered a safe and effective approach to control postoperative inflammation in cataract surgery for patients with refractory uveitis in our study. After the disappearance of Ozurdex's anti-inflammatory effects over time, in most cases the recurrent inflammation can be controlled by topical steroids.

Combined Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant and Glaucoma Drainage Device Placement for Uveitic Glaucoma

PRECIS

At 1-year postoperative follow-up, concurrent placement of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant and glaucoma drainage device effectively controlled intraocular pressure (IOP) and inflammation in eyes with uveitic glaucoma with no changes in systemic immunomodulatory therapy.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess 1-year postoperative outcomes in eyes with uncontrolled uveitic glaucoma following concurrent placement of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant and glaucoma drainage device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational case series of patients with chronic, noninfectious uveitis and uveitic glaucoma uncontrolled on maximal tolerated medical therapy with at least 1-year postoperative follow-up. The main outcomes were visual acuity, IOP, number of glaucoma medications, recurrent inflammation, frequency of topical steroids, systemic immunomodulatory therapy, and adverse events. Success was defined as IOP <21 mm Hg and IOP reduced by >20% from baseline on at least 2 consecutive visits after 3 months either with or without glaucoma medications (ie, partial or complete success, respectively).

RESULTS

Eight eyes in 6 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average age was 44.1±19.7 years (range: 10 to 68 y) and 50% were female. At 1-year, there was no significant change in visual acuity. No eyes lost ≥3 lines of vision. The majority of eyes (87.5%) achieved complete (n=2) or partial success (n=5) with a decrease in average IOP from 36.5 to 11.8 mm Hg (P=0.002). Glaucoma medication use decreased from 3.0 to 1.3 medications (P=0.04). There was a significant decrease in the number of episodes of recurrent inflammation in the 6 months following surgery compared with the 6 months before surgery (P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

In this small case series, dexamethasone intravitreal implant combined with Ahmed glaucoma drainage device appears to be an effective approach for the management of uncontrolled uveitic glaucoma.

Perioperative Management of Uveitic Cataracts

Uveitis patients represent a unique subset of the population undergoing cataract surgery and pose several challenges that require special consideration and strategy. Maintenance of disease quiescence for at least three months prior to surgery maximizes postoperative outcomes, though these patients remain at increased risk for pseudophakic cystoid macular edema, which can be refractory to the traditional steroid treatments. In this review, we detail the pillars of preoperative optimization, intraoperative considerations, and postoperative management of uveitic cataracts, with special attention on the evidence surrounding prevention and treatment of refractory postoperative cystoid macular edema.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant as an alternative to systemic steroids as prophylaxis for uveitic cataract surgery: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

To determine the utility of the dexamethasone implant (IVD) as an alternative to systemic steroids as prophylaxis against cystoid macular edema (CMO) in patients with chronic, recurrent CMO associated intermediate or posterior uveitis (IU/PU), and cataract undergoing cataract surgery.

METHODS

This was a randomized, parallel design, and clinical trial. Patients with IU/PU and cataract scheduled for cataract surgery were randomly assigned to receive the IVD concurrently with cataract surgery (Group 1: 20 patients) or systemic steroids (Group 2: 23 patients) tapered over 4-6 weeks along with uneventful cataract surgery and routine postoperative care. Patients with glaucoma/contraindications to steroids were excluded. All patients were followed up for 6 months.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary-incidence of postoperative CMO. Secondary-the change in BCVA (corrected distance visual acuity) and Central Subfield thickness (CST) and complications. Appropriate statistical analysis was done.

RESULTS

The median age was 47.3 ± 4.23 years (group 1) and 49.12 ± 5.32 years (Group 2). One patient (Group 1) and two (Group 2) developed CMO. The BCVA improved significantly in both groups (p = 0.013). The CST change was insignificant. Four patients (Group 1) required intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering medications. Three patients (Group 2) required early steroid taper.

CONCLUSIONS

IVD is a good alternative as prophylaxis in IU/PU and cataract in preventing postoperative CMO.

Safety and efficacy of dexamethasone implant along with phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of intraoperative intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-associated uveitis undergoing phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens (PCIOL) implantation.

METHODS

Retrospectively, data of patients with JIA-associated uveitis undergoing phacoemulsification with PCIOL implantation with intraoperative dexamethasone implant injection were analyzed. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. Primary outcome measures were ocular inflammation, intraocular pressure (IOP), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and worsening of uveitis.

RESULTS

8 eyes of 6 patients were included. BCVA was significantly improved at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively 0.20 ± 0.09, P = 0.008; 0.18 ± 0.11, P = 0.008; and 0.24 ± 0.11, P = 0.01, respectively. No statistical difference noted in mean IOP at various follow-up visits. None developed worsening of uveitis or Cystoid macular edema.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative intravitreal dexamethasone implant is a safe and effective in preventing and managing the postoperative inflammation in children with JIA-associated uveitic cataract.

Efficacy of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in Patients of Uveitis Undergoing Cataract Surgery

Purpose: To assess postoperative inflammation using laser flare photometer, following phacoemulsification with or without single intraoperative intravitreal dexamethasone implant in addition to standard of care, in patients of uveitis with cataract.Methods: Prospectively, 30 eyes with uveitic cataract were randomized into 2 groups (i) standard of care (SOC group) (ii) Dexamethasone implant (DEXA group). Both the groups underwent phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation and standard of care treatment for uveitis, but DEXA group additionally received intraoperative intravitreal dexamethasone implant. Patients were followed at least till 6 months.Results: DEXA group had significantly less postoperative flare (LFP values) (P<0.05) as compared to SOC group and also recovery of flare to preoperative value occurred much early in DEXA group. 37.5% cases developed CME in SOC group but none in DEXA group. Mean CMT (267.81±34.26μm) and final logMar BCVA (0.036±0.063) was significantly better in DEXA group (p<0.04).Conclusions: Intraoperative intravitreal dexamethasone implant is a safe and effective option for preventing and managing the postoperative inflammation in uveitic cataract.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira^®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex^®; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; p = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; p = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness.

LIMITATIONS

The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Post-cataract eye drops can be avoided by depot steroid injections

There are over 400 000 cataract operations now being performed annually in the UK. With the majority of those patients being older people, comorbidities such as dementia or arthritis can prevent patients putting in their own post-operative eye drops. Where there is a lack of family or other support, district nursing services are often called upon to administer these eye drops, which are typically prescribed four times a day for 4 weeks, thus potentially totalling 112 visits for drop instillation per patient. To reduce the burden of these post-operative eye drops on district nursing services, administration of an intra-operative sub-Tenon's depot steroid injection is possible for cataract patients who then do not require any post-operative drop instillation. As a trial of this practice, 16 such patients were injected in one year, thus providing a reduction of 1792 in the number of visits requested. Taking an estimated cost of each district nurse visit of £38, this shift in practice potentially saved more than £68 000; the additional cost of the injection over the cost of eye drops was just £8.80 for the year. This practice presents an opportunity to protect valuable community nursing resources, but advocacy for change in practice would be needed with secondary care, or via commissioners.

Perioperative prophylaxis to prevent recurrence following cataract surgery in uveitic patients: a two-centre, prospective, randomized trial

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative risk of inflammatory relapse in two groups of uveitic patients who underwent cataract surgery: one group had perioperative topical steroids alone and the other used topical and oral steroids.

METHODS

Prospective, randomized, unmasked, duocentric clinical trial conducted at the University of Parma (Italy), and the Jules Gonin Eye Hospital of Lausanne (Switzerland). Patients with a history of non-infectious uveitis requiring cataract surgery in 2009-2013 were assigned to two groups of perioperative prophylaxis: (A) intensive topical steroids alone; (B) the same topical regimen combined with oral steroids. Uveitis relapse over a period of 6 months was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 52 eyes in 50 patients were randomized: 28 eyes were assigned to group A (topical) and 24 eyes to group B (topical + oral). Mean relapse-free survival time was 131 ± 11 days in group A and 150 ± 13 days in group B. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.42). At the end of follow-up, the groups were also comparable in terms of significant improvement in visual acuity (p < 0.01), mean central macular thickness (CMT) and IOP variation.

CONCLUSIONS

Absolute and long-lasting control of ocular, and possibly systemic, inflammation predisposes uveitis patients to satisfactory results after cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation. Despite a lower rate of recurrences following oral steroid supplementation, the efficacy of an intensive perioperative topical steroid regimen alone in preventing postoperative uveitis relapse was statistically comparable. Secondary outcomes were also comparable between the two groups. Transient IOP elevation should be expected until treatment discontinuation.

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis

BACKGROUND

Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary body, choroid). Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, accounting for 5% to 20% of legal blindness, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population.Corticosteroids are the mainstay of acute treatment for all anatomical subtypes of non-infectious uveitis and can be administered orally, topically with drops or ointments, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 10, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 15 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for studies. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 November 2015.We also searched reference lists of included study reports, citation databases, and abstracts and clinical study presentations from professional meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from two studies (619 eyes of 401 participants) that compared FA implants with standard-of-care therapy. Both studies used similar standard-of-care therapy that included administration of prednisolone and, if needed, immunosuppressive agents. The studies included participants from Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We assessed both studies at high risk of performance and detection bias.Only one study reported our primary outcome, recurrence of uveitis at any point during the study through 24 months. The evidence, judged as moderate-quality, showed that a FA implant probably prevents recurrence of uveitis compared with standard-of-care therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.59; 132 eyes). Both studies reported safety outcomes, and moderate-quality evidence showed increased risks of needing cataract surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 371 eyes) and surgery to lower intraocular pressure (RR 7.48, 95% CI 3.94 to 14.19; 599 eyes) in the implant group compared with standard-of-care therapy through two years of follow-up. No studies compared dexamethasone implants with standard-of-care therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

After considering both benefits and harms reported from two studies in which corticosteroids implants were compared with standard-of-care therapy, we are unable to conclude that the implants are superior to traditional systemic therapy for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis. These studies exhibited heterogeneity in design and outcomes that measured efficacy. Pooled findings regarding safety outcomes suggest increased risks of post-implant surgery for cataract and high intraocular pressure compared with standard-of-care therapy.