Efficacy and Safety of an Indian Bevacizumab BIOSimilar (BEVATAS) for Retinal Vein Occlusion (BIOS-RVO Study)

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bevatas®, an Indian bevacizumab biosimilar, in the management of both Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO) and Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (BRVO) (BIOS-RVO).

Patients and Methods

The BIOS-RVO study was a retrospective interventional study conducted at a single tertiary eye care facility in India. 154 treatment-naïve eyes with RVO (CRVO: 62 eyes; BRVO: 92 eyes) received intravitreal bevacizumab biosimilar (IVBb) therapy. Data on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were collected at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-therapy.

Results

The average age of participants was approximately 55.99 (+12.56) years, with a nearly equal gender distribution (M:F = 49.4:50.6). Age differences between BRVO and CRVO groups were not significant (P=0.501), but gender distribution varied significantly (P=0.035), with more males in the CRVO group. Significant improvements in BCVA were observed in both CRVO and BRVO groups at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year compared to baseline (P<0.001). Both groups showed significant reductions in CMT throughout the follow-up period (P<0.001). The mean number of injections was higher in the CRVO group (5.27[±1.45]) compared to the BRVO group (4.27 [±1.28]) (P<0.001). Significant IOP increases were observed at 1 month (P<0.001) and 6 months (P<0.001) in both BRVO and CRVO groups, although not clinically significant. Safety analysis revealed no additional ocular or systemic adverse events during the study period.

Conclusion

The BIOS-RVO study demonstrates that Bevatas is an effective and safe treatment option for both CRVO and BRVO. These findings support the use of Bevatas as a cost-effective alternative to branded anti-VEGF agents, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Acetazolamide and bevacizumab combination therapy versus bevacizumab monotherapy in macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and oral acetazolamide (OA) combination therapy versus IVB monotherapy in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial included 54 eyes of 52 patients with RVO central macular thickness (CMT) of more than 300μm, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 20/400 and 20/40. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to two groups: (I) IVB and OA (250mg twice daily) combination therapy or (II) IVB monotherapy. Ocular injections were repeated monthly for up to three months; BCVA and CMT were measured monthly.

RESULTS

Both regimens resulted in significant reduction in CMT (534±150μm to 352±90μm in the IVB+OA group, P<0.001; and 580±175μm to 362±90μm in the IVB group, P<0.001); neither showed superiority in this regard. Likewise, BCVA showed significant improvement in both groups (0.87±0.56 to 0.53±0.28 LogMAR in the IVB+OA group, P=0.001; and 0.85±0.62 to 0.46±0.4 LogMAR in the IVB group, P<0.001), with no intergroup difference.

CONCLUSION

Addition of oral acetazolamide to IVB in eyes with macular edema secondary to RVO may not result in additional short-term benefits regarding functional and anatomical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05290948, registered on March 22, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05290948.

Topographic patterns of retinal edema in eyes with branch retinal vein occlusion and their association with macular edema recurrence

In this study, we evaluated the topographic pattern of retinal edema in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) using a widefield retinal thickness map of optical coherence tomography and its association with ME recurrence. In 87 eyes with ME secondary to BRVO who were treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections and followed up for ≥ 1 years, 12 × 9 mm macular volume scans of swept-source optical coherence tomography (DRI-OCT Triton; Topcon Inc, Japan) were performed and retinal thickness maps were automatically generated at baseline and follow-up visits. Topographic patterns of retinal edema on the maps at baseline and 1 month after the first anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment were classified as extramacular (outside the ETDRS grid), macular (within the grid), and combined pattern and correlated with ME recurrences. Seventy-five of 87 (86.2%) eyes with BRVO ME showed combined edema at baseline. There were 4 topographic patterns of edema at 1 month following anti-VEGF injection as follows: no residual edema, extramacular only, macular only, and combined edema. In contrast to the baseline pattern, the pattern of retinal edema 1 month following anti-VEGF therapy showed significant association with 6-month recurrence, number of ME recurrences during a 1-year period, and time to first recurrence. (all P < 0.05) An automatically generated widefield retinal thickness map could be used to effectively visualize the topographic patterns of retinal edema in eyes with BRVO. The map can be used as a valuable tool for detection of retinal edema on widefield retinal areas and prediction of ME recurrence in eyes with BRVO.

Efficacy of intravitreal ziv-aflibercept in patients with macular edema following retinal vein occlusion in Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, Ghana: a retrospective case series

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of ziv-aflibercept in Ghanaian patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODOLOGY

In this retrospective study, the medical records of patients with ME secondary to RVO who had been treated with intravitreal ziv-aflibercept (IVZ) (1.25 mg/0.05 ml), as part of routine clinical practice, on pro re nata basis with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were retrieved and analyzed. The main outcome measures are mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield foveal thickness (CSFT) measured on optical coherence tomography from baseline to 12 months post-IVZ, and ocular and systemic safety.

RESULTS

Forty-three eyes were included in this study. Their mean age was 62.8 ± 11.9 years, 67.4% had at least 12-month duration of follow-up, 50% had primary open-angle glaucoma and 38 (88.4%) eyes were treatment naive. There was significant improvement in mean BCVA in LogMAR at 1 month post-initiation of IVZ (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 1.1 ± 0.6), and visual improvement was maintained up to 12 months (p < 0.001). Eyes with ME following BRVO had better mean BCVA at baseline and on subsequent visits compared to eyes with CRVO/HRVO (p = 0.01). There was significant reduction in mean CSFT up to 12 months post-IVZ injection compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Ocular complications observed were consistent with complications associated with RVO.

CONCLUSION

We have observed significant improvement in functional and anatomic outcomes 12 months post-initiation of IVZ. There is the need to confirm long-term efficacy and safety of IVZ in a large prospective study.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

BACKGROUND

Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most commonly occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The most common cause of visual loss in people with BRVO is macular oedema (MO). Grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss. Limitations to this treatment exist, however, and newer modalities may have equal or improved efficacy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has recently been used successfully to treat MO resulting from a variety of causes.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and gather evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the potential harms of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for the treatment of macular oedema (MO) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was 12 June 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating BRVO. Eligible trials had to have at least six months' follow-up where anti-VEGF treatment was compared with another treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We excluded trials where combination treatments (anti-VEGF plus other treatments) were used; and trials that investigated the dose and duration of treatment without a comparison group (other treatment/no treatment/sham).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with an improvement from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Chart at six months and 12 months of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants who lost greater than or equal to 15 ETDRS letters (3 lines) and the mean visual acuity (VA) change at six and 12 months, as well as the change in central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography from baseline at six and 12 months. We also collected data on adverse events and quality of life (QoL).

MAIN RESULTS

We found eight RCTs of 1631 participants that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These studies took place in Europe, North America, Eastern Mediterranean region and East Asia. Included participants were adults aged 18 or over with VA of 20/40 or worse. Studies varied by duration of disease but permitted previously treated eyes as long as there was sufficient treatment-free interval. All anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) and steroids (triamcinolone and dexamethasone) were included. Overall, we judged the studies to be at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Four of the eight studies did not mask participants or outcome assessors, or both. One trial compared anti-VEGF to sham. At six months, eyes receiving anti-VEGF were significantly more likely to have a gain of 15 or more ETDRS letters (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.49; 283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months compared with control (mean difference (MD) 7.50 letters, 95% CI 5.29 to 9.71; 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGF also proved more effective at reducing CRT at six months (MD -57.50 microns, 95% CI -108.63 to -6.37; 281 participants; lower CRT is better; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. Mean change in QoL (measured using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire VFQ-25) was better in people treated with anti-VEGF compared with people treated with sham (MD 7.6 higher score, 95% CI 4.3 to 10.9; 281 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three RCTs compared anti-VEGF with macular laser (total participants = 473). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.05; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA in the anti-VEGF groups was better than the laser groups at six months (MD 9.63 letters, 95% CI 7.23 to 12.03; 3 studies, 473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a greater reduction in CRT in the anti-VEGF group compared with the laser group at six months (MD -147.47 microns, 95% CI -200.19 to -94.75; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse events. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. QoL outcomes were not reported. Four studies compared anti-VEGF with intravitreal steroid (875 participants). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more ETDRS letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.10; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.28; 1 study, 307 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months (MD 8.22 letters, 95% CI 5.69 to 10.76; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (MD 9.15 letters, 95% CI 6.32 to 11.97; 2 studies, 343 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean CRT also showed a greater reduction in the anti-VEGF arm at 12 months compared with intravitreal steroid (MD -26.92 microns, 95% CI -65.88 to 12.04; 2 studies, 343 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). People receiving anti-VEGF showed a greater improvement in QoL at 12 months compared to those receiving steroid (MD 3.10, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.98; 1 study, 307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested increased risk of cataract and raised IOP with steroids. There was only very low-certainty evidence on APTC events. No cases of endophthalmitis were observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available RCT evidence suggests that treatment of MO secondary to BRVO with anti-VEGF improves visual and anatomical outcomes at six and 12 months.

Use of Anti-VEGF Drugs in Retinal Vein Occlusions

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is one of the most prevalent causes of visual loss in the Western World. Its pathogenesis is still not completely known. Chronic macular edema and ischemia compromise the functional and anatomical status of the retina. Antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections have demonstrated better results than other previous options, including observation or laser therapy. This narrative review aims to analyze the current aspects related to these drugs.

A systematic review of real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

This review assessed the real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). A meta-analysis of 2530 eyes from 48 real-world studies of therapies for macular oedema secondary to BRVO was conducted. Baseline characteristics, visual, anatomical and safety outcomes were recorded. The weighted mean and weighted estimates from random-effects models were calculated for visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) changes at 6, 12 and 24 months. Primary outcome was change in VA (logMAR letters) at 12 months. Study quality was assessed using the quality appraisal checklist for case series developed by Institute of Health Economics. The mean baseline VA for the pooled data was 54.0 (51.5, 56.5) letters and the mean baseline CST was 501.3 (483.5, 519.1) µm. The random-effects estimate for mean (95% CI) change in VA was 14.6 (12.5, 16.7) letters at 12 months (n = 1727). The random-effects estimate for mean (95% CI) change in CST was -181.7 (-230.7, -132.7) µm at 12 months (n = 1325). The quality of studies varied considerably. Ocular and systemic adverse events were discussed in 79% and 42% of treatment arms respectively, with possible under-reporting. Visual and anatomical gains achieved in the real-world for anti-VEGF therapy were not as impressive as seminal RCTs, possibly due to reduced injection frequency in the real world and differences in baseline characteristics. There is an urgent need for consensus on the minimum efficacy, treatment burden and safety data to collect to strengthen the real-world evidence base.

Intravitreal Medications for Retinal Vein Occlusion: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes of different intravitreal injections for the treatment of retinal vein occlusion including central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, the metaRegister of ControlledTrials, and ClinicalTrials were searched for intravitreal anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and steroids with relevant keywords and date limitation of 2009-2018. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that met the defined inclusion criteria. Main outcomes were visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT).

Results

Out of 681 studies, 36 articles (including 21 reporting CRVO and 15 dealing with BRVO) were selected for systematic review. All five intravitreal drugs including triamcinolone, dexamethasone, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept showed improvement of CMT and VA as compared to placebo or laser treatment. Six randomized controlled trials were selected for meta-analysis in RVO patients. The pooled mean difference of visual improvement between sham and ranibizumab was 12.7 Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (95%CI: 11.00 to 13.2), and the pooled mean difference in CMT reduction was 221μm (95%CI: 153 to 284); both changes were significantly in favor of ranibizumab. The pooled mean difference of visual improvement between bevacizumab and triamcinolone was 5.3 ETDRS letters in favor of bevacizumab (95%CI: 16 μm to 17.5 μm). Triamcinolone led to 68.1 μm greater CMT reduction than bevacizumab (95%CI: 58 μm to 76 μm). However, none of these differences were statistically significant.

Conclusion

Treatment with anti-VEGF agents in RVO is superior to observation. No significant difference was seen between the eyes treated with bevacizumab or triamcinolone based on these results.

Intravitreal dexamethasone implants versus intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment in treating patients with retinal vein occlusion: a meta-analysis

Background

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common retinal venous disorder that causes vision loss. No specific therapy has been developed. Controversy exists regarding two treatments: intravitreal dexamethasone implants and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone implants and anti-VEGF treatment for RVO.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implants with anti-VEGF in patients with RVO. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), intraocular pressure changes, conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema were extracted from the final included studies. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct the quantitative analysis and bias assessment.

Results

Four randomised controlled trials assessing 969 eyes were included. The anti-VEGF treatment showed better BCVA improvement (mean difference [MD] = − 10.59, P < 0.00001) and more CST decrease (MD = − 86.71 μm, P = 0.02) than the dexamethasone implants. However, the dexamethasone implants required fewer injections. As for adverse effects, the dexamethasone implants showed significantly higher intraocular pressure (IOP) and more cataracts than the anti-VEGF treatment. No significant differences were found in conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema.

Conclusions

Anti-VEGF treatment showed better functional and anatomical improvement with less risk of IOP elevation and cataract formation compared to dexamethasone implants. Thus, anti-VEGF treatment is the first choice for treating RVO patients.

Real-World Outcomes of Anti-VEGF Treatment for Retinal Vein Occlusion in Portugal

PURPOSE

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is an important cause of visual disability in the modern world. We aim to evaluate the real-world outcomes of patients with RVO treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in Portugal.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, observational, multicenter study including 8 centers across Portugal and 200 patients treated with either ranibizumab or bevacizumab. Data were collected at 3 time points: time of diagnosis (0 time point) and 6 and 12 months after initiating treatment. Demographic and clinical data were collected.

RESULTS

Median visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT) improved in the branch RVO (BRVO), central RVO (CRVO), bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline, with CMT improving further only in the CRVO and ranibizumab groups between 6 and 12 months (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001, respectively). The CMT was lower in the ranibizumab group compared to the bevacizumab group both at 6 and 12 months (p<0.02). Median CMT improved in both the good and poor baseline VA groups at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline (p<0.001). Median VA only improved for the group with poor baseline VA at 6 and 12 months of follow-up (p<0.001). Regression analysis identified several baseline variables as predictors of visual outcomes at 6 and 12 months, with different results depending on the analyzed group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatments were effective, although less effective than results reported in clinical trials. The morphologic response was better with ranibizumab compared to bevacizumab, although functionally there were no differences.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for three retinal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are widely used to treat ocular conditions but the benefits and harms of these treatments are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to compare the effects of aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, quality of life and ocular or systemic adverse events in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME) and central or branch retinal vein occlusion (RVO). We searched published and unpublished literature sources to February 2017 for randomised controlled trials and cohort or modelling studies reporting comparative costs in the USA. Two reviewers extracted data and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. Of 17 included trials, none reported a clinically important difference (≥ 5 letters) in visual acuity gains between agents. Nine trials provide high-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD. Three trials provide moderate-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for DME. There was low-strength evidence of similar effects between aflibercept and ranibizumab for NVAMD, aflibercept and bevacizumab for RVO and all three agents for DME. There was insufficient evidence to compare bevacizumab and ranibizumab for RVO. Rates of ocular adverse events were low, and systemic harms were generally similar between groups, although 1 DME trial reported more arterial thrombotic events with ranibizumab versus aflibercept. Overall, no agent had a clear advantage over another for effectiveness or safety. Aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly less cost-effective than repackaged bevacizumab in two trials. Systematic review registration number: CRD42016034076.

Evolution of Intravitreal Therapy for Retinal Diseases-From CMV to CNV: The LXXIV Edward Jackson Memorial Lecture

PURPOSE

To present the evolution of intravitreal therapy for retinal diseases and its impact on clinical practice.

DESIGN

Retrospective literature review and personal perspective.

METHODS

Retrospective literature review and personal perspective.

RESULTS

Pharmacotherapeutic advances in retinal disease have been remarkable over the last 25 years. Almost all of the new drugs developed have required intravitreal administration to be highly effective, leading to an exponential increase in the annual number of intravitreal injections given. The use of intravitreal antibiotic injections to treat endophthalmitis, usually on a one-time basis, first familiarized ophthalmologists with this method of drug delivery. Ganciclovir was the first widely available, relatively inexpensive compounded drug that was used for repeat intravitreal injection to treat a chronic retinal disease, followed by triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ganciclovir was formulated for sustained-release drug delivery to avoid frequent intravitreal injections, a goal that has been more elusive for anti-VEGF drugs. Political obstacles encountered while conducting some of the trials to evaluate these treatments were substantial. Addressing the issues they raised led to important national policy changes that will impact the conduct of future clinical trials. The first comparative efficacy trial of intravitreal therapies was the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT). The primary results from CATT and the many publications that followed continue to shape the use of intravitreal therapy today.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal therapy has proven highly effective for the treatment of many retinal diseases. The treatment burden for patients from numerous injections, the cost to health care systems, and the impact on workflows in clinical practice have been substantial. Efforts to develop effective intravitreal therapies with reduced treatment burden and cost are ongoing.

Anti-VEGF treatment of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion: patterns of use and effectiveness in clinical practice (ECHO study report 2)

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and injection frequency of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antagonists in the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in clinical practice.

Patients and methods

A multicenter retrospective study of the medical records of 165 patients (95 branch RVO, 70 central RVO) treated with at least three anti-VEGF injections in the study eye was conducted. Available data collected for at least 6 months after the first injection included Snellen best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) by time-domain optical coherence tomography (TD-OCT) or spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), anti-VEGF injections, other treatments/procedures for RVO, and adverse events.

Results

At baseline prior to anti-VEGF treatment, mean BCVA was 20/80 Snellen equivalent and mean CRT was 499 μm. Mean number of anti-VEGF injections received was 7.1 during the first year, 5.4 during the second year, and 5.9 during the third year; 51.3% (842/1,641) of injections were ranibizumab, 44.1% (724/1,641) were bevacizumab, and 4.6% (75/1,641) were aflibercept. One in five patients received concomitant focal laser treatment. The percentage of patients achieving both BCVA of 20/40 or better and CRT ≤250 μm on TD-OCT or ≤300 μm on SD-OCT at the same visit (primary endpoint) was 26.1% (30/115) after the first anti-VEGF injection and ranged from 20.0% (7/35) to 36.7% (11/30) after the first 16 injections. After each anti-VEGF injection from the 1st to the 16th, <60% of patients achieved 20/40 or better BCVA and ≤70% of patients achieved CRT ≤250 μm on TD-OCT or ≤300 μm on SD-OCT. The most common treatment-related adverse event was blurry or cloudy vision.

Conclusion

In this real-world study, a mean of five to seven anti-VEGF injections was administered yearly, and the response to anti-VEGF therapy was suboptimal in many patients. Anti-VEGF therapy was well tolerated.

Update on the Use of Anti-VEGF Intravitreal Therapies for Retinal Vein Occlusions

The use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy in ophthalmology has profoundly changed our management and treatment of conditions such as cystoid macular edema, diabetic macular edema, choroidal neovascularization, and other proliferative retinopathies. Although initially used for the treatment of choroidal neovascularization in neovascular age-related macular degeneration, their application has spread rapidly for other indications as their outcomes have often outperformed previously existing treatments. Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) continues to be one of the leading causes of vision loss secondary to macular edema, in addition to macular ischemia and neovascularization in more severe cases. Before the availability of anti-VEGF therapy, the use of macular grid laser and panretinal photocoagulation was the mainstay of treatment of macular edema and neovascularization, respectively, in patients with RVOs. Two landmarks studies established the guidelines of these treatments for nearly a quarter century. Since the availability of anti-VEGF agents, there has been a paradigm shift in the treatment of RVO. Most importantly, there has also been a significant improvement in visual outcomes in these patients. The goal of this article is to provide a review of the pertinent clinical studies that have investigated the use of anti-VEGF in patients with retinal vein occlusions.

Aflibercept for Previously Treated Macular Edema Associated with Central Retinal Vein Occlusions: 1-Year Results of the NEWTON Study

PURPOSE

To determine whether aflibercept (Eylea; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY) can extend the macular edema-free interval in patients with nonischemic central retinal vein occlusions (CRVOs) previously treated with ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) or bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA).

DESIGN

Prospective, single-arm, interventional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients with chronic nonischemic CRVOs.

METHODS

Patients with nonischemic CRVOs previously treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab were switched to aflibercept. The inclusion criteria included treatment for ≥6 months with ≥3 initial loading doses and evidence of recurrence of edema when treatment with either ranibizumab or bevacizumab extended beyond 4 weeks. Intravitreal aflibercept was administered with a treat-and-extend dosing regimen. Injection frequencies were extended 2 weeks if there were no signs of disease activity on OCT or change in visual acuity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Macular edema-free interval at week 52.

RESULTS

Twenty patients had an average duration of a CRVO for 22 months (range, 7-90 months) and averaged an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment every 42 days (range, 28-60 days). These patients received a mean of 15 treatments (range, 5-47 treatments) of ranibizumab or bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to nonischemic CRVO. Among the 17 patients who completed 1 year of follow-up, 94% had a greater macular edema-free interval with aflibercept treatment. The macular edema-free interval increased from 5.4 weeks to 9.1 weeks when treatment was switched to aflibercept (P = 0.000003). There was an average increase of 26 days (range, 0-63 days) in the macular edema free interval with aflibercept. There was an improvement in vision (+6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters, P = 0.02) and decreased retinal thickness (152 μm, P = 0.0002) with aflibercept treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients previously treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab for macular edema due to nonischemic CRVO, aflibercept increased the macular edema free interval. This may help minimize the treatment burden in patients with recurrent macular edema secondary to nonischemic CRVO.

Topical Squalamine 0.2% and Intravitreal Ranibizumab 0.5 mg as Combination Therapy for Macular Edema Due to Branch and Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: An Open-Label, Randomized Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of squalamine (OHR-102; Ohr Pharmaceuticals, New York, NY) and ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) on macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty consecutive, treatment-naïve patients with RVO-related ME received topical squalamine and intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg for 10 weeks, followed by randomization to continue or discontinue squalamine. Groups received as-needed ranibizumab from weeks 2 through 34. The primary endpoint was the proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters at week 38. Safety and tolerability were assessed. Data from 13 treatment-naïve control eyes previously enrolled in three similar trials evaluating monthly ranibizumab 0.5 mg for RVO-related ME were included for comparison.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measures were 55.6 ETDRS letters and 55.0 ETDRS letters in the squalamine and control groups, respectively. At week 38, BCVA improved 25.6 letters in the squalamine group; at month 9, BCVA improved 16.3 letters in the control group. This corresponds to a between-treatment-group difference of 9.2 letters. Squalamine and ranibizumab combination therapy was well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RVO-related ME, topical squalamine combined with early, as-needed ranibizumab appears to enhance visual recovery versus ranibizumab alone. Combination therapy appears safe and was well-tolerated. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2016;47:914-923.].

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.

Update in the Management of Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusions

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common retinal vascular disease classified according to the anatomical location of the occlusion in central (CRVO) or branch (BRVO) retinal vein occlusion. RVO is an important cause of visual loss worldwide and frequently results in visual impairment and ocular complications. Major causes of vision loss in BRVO and CRVO include macular edema (ME), capillary non-perfusion, and neovascularization, causing glaucoma, vitreous hemorrhage and/or tractional retinal detachment.[1-4] Macular edema is the leading cause of decreased central visual acuity in RVO.[5] Recently, there was a paradigm shift in the treatment of ME due to RVO with the advent of new pharmacotherapy treatment strategies and combination therapies. This paper reviews the current thinking and discusses the evidence behind the emerging treatment options for ME following RVO, including laser photocoagulation, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), intravitreal corticosteroid-based pharmacotherapies, and surgical management.