Clinical Outcome and Drug Expenses of Intravitreal Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Retrospective Study in Sardinia, Italy

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.

Switching to an Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant after Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review

Among working-age people, diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema are currently considered the main causes of blindness. Nowadays, intravitreal injections are widely acknowledged as a significant milestone in ophthalmology, especially for the treatment of several retinal diseases, including diabetic macular edema. In particular, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are typically the first line of treatment; however, monthly injections are required, at least, during the loading dosage. Notably, an intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (DEX) implant (Ozurdex®, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) is considered a legitimate substitute treatment for diabetic eyes that have not responded to anti-VEGF treatment. In fact, clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of an intravitreal DEX implant in treating such conditions over a period of three to six months. For this reason, wisely selecting diabetic patients might be crucial to decreasing the load of injections in clinics and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to analyze the available scientific literature to highlight the benefits, efficacy, and clinical criteria for choosing whether to switch from intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy to an intravitreal DEX implant in diabetic macular edema.

Predictive effect of TCED-HFV grading and imaging biomarkers on anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the predictive effect of TCED-HFV grading and imaging biomarkers on anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment in diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

81 eyes of 81 DME patients who were treated with anti-VEGF were included in this retrospective cohort study. All patients underwent a comprehensive ophthalmic examination at baseline and follow-up, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), fundus photography, and spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Baseline imaging biomarkers were qualitatively and quantitatively graded according to the TCED-HFV classification protocol, and DME was divided into early stage, advanced stage, severe stage, and atrophy stage.

RESULTS

Six months post treatment, central subfield thickness (CST) in 49 eyes (60.5%) had decreased by 10% from baseline, 30 eyes (37.0%) had achieved CST < 300 μm, and 45 eyes (55.6%) had BCVA improved by more than five letters. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that eyes with baseline CST ≥ 390 μm had a higher probability of ≥ 10% reduction in CST from baseline, and eyes with abundant hyperreflective dots (HRD) had a lower probability of 10% reduction in CST (all P < 0.05). Eyes with vitreomacular traction (VMT) or epiretinal membrane (ERM) at baseline were less likely to reach the end point of CST < 300 μm (P < 0.05). BCVA increases of more than five letters were less likely in eyes with baseline BCVA ≥ 69 letters, complete or partial destruction of ellipsoid zone (EZ) at baseline (all P < 0.05). TCED-HFV staging was negatively correlated with BCVA at both baseline and 6 months (Kendall's tau-b=-0.39 and - 0.55, all P < 0.01). TCED-HFV staging was positively correlated with CST at 6 months (Kendall's tau-b = 0.19, P = 0.049) and negatively correlated with the reduction of CST (Kendall's tau-b=-0.32, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The TCED-HFV grading protocol facilitates a comprehensive assessment of DME severity, standardizes the grading of multiple imaging biomarkers, and predicts the anatomical and functional outcomes of anti-VEGF treatment.

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.

Economic Aspects in the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema in Italy

Background

Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) is the most common cause of vision loss in diabetic patients. Currently, the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) are used as the first line of DME treatment and corticosteroid implants are usually used as a second-line treatment. These implants are a safe and effective therapeutic option that can improve the quality of life of DME patients by reducing the intravitreal injections number. We determined the economic impact related to DME, also from the social perspective, and the consequences of the increased use of the dexamethasone implant.

Methods

The analysis compares two scenarios: the first based on the current rate of recourse to the therapeutic alternatives available in the Italian healthcare setting (as is) and the second based on the assumption of an increased recourse to dexamethasone implants (to be). The results are expressed both in terms of the resource absorption associated with the two scenarios and in terms of the cost differential yielded by their comparison.

Results

The increased use of the dexamethasone implant allows considerable savings in terms of healthcare professionals' time, follow-up and productivity lost by patients/caregivers. These savings would reduce healthcare costs for the management of DME patients in Italy by €2,058,238 in 5 years.

Conclusions

To optimize the healthcare resources allocation, it is necessary to implement treatments that yield not only cost reductions but also a clinical benefit for patients. The dexamethasone implant use is an example of DME management that generates value for patients, health system and society.