Rates of Suspected Endophthalmitis Following Intravitreal Injections in Clinical Practices in the United States

Clinical Outcomes and Experiences with Prefilled Syringes Versus Vials for Intravitreal Administration of Anti-VEGF Treatments: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have been the standard treatment for retinal diseases for almost two decades. These treatments are administered via intravitreal injection using single-use vials or prefilled syringes (PFS). In this systematic review, we evaluate health care resource use and clinical outcomes and experiences with PFS for intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF treatments.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2015 to February 8, 2024 to identify literature reporting outcomes regarding procedural efficiency, health care resource use, patient and clinician experiences, and safety for currently approved anti-VEGFs (ranibizumab, aflibercept, brolucizumab) administered using PFS. Comparators were vial-based injections of the same anti-VEGFs.

RESULTS

A total of 36 publications met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic literature review; the majority were non-randomized studies, with a small number of reviews, case series, survey studies, and opinion articles. Publications reported that preparation times were significantly shorter for PFS (40.3-57.9 s) versus vials (ranibizumab, 62.8-98.0 s; aflibercept, 71.9-79.5 s), with no differences in product stability between PFS and vials. Clinicians expressed a preference for PFS and thought PFS were faster, easier to use, and had increased safety versus vials. Publications consistently reported significantly lower rates of endophthalmitis per injection with PFS versus vials (ranibizumab PFS, 0-0.02%; aflibercept PFS, 0.01-0.02%; ranibizumab vial, 0.02-0.05%; aflibercept vial, 0.02-0.06%). Four publications reported increased rates of transient vision loss after aflibercept PFS injection versus vial-based injection. No publications reported outcomes regarding health care resource use or patient experiences.

CONCLUSION

The available literature supports the increased procedural efficiency of PFS versus vial-based intravitreal injection of anti-VEGFs. PFS are positively perceived by clinicians and have a safety benefit in the form of a decreased risk of endophthalmitis versus vials.

Endophthalmitis after Anti-VEGF Intravitreal Injections with Aqueous Chlorhexidine versus Povidone-Iodine as Ocular Antiseptics

PURPOSE

To compare the rates and outcomes of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections (IVIs) for patients pretreated with 5% povidone-iodine (PI) and 0.05% chlorhexidine (CHX).

DESIGN

A retrospective, single-center, comparative cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 8686 patients were included in the study, and a total of 67 695 anti-VEGF injections were performed from January 1, 2019, to November 30, 2021.

SETTING

A private retina practice of 13 retina specialists in Colorado.

METHODS

Using electronic health records, patients with preinjection preparation with PI or CHX were compiled retrospectively. Use of prefilled versus nonprefilled syringes was also tabulated. Patients with postinjection endophthalmitis (PIE) were identified among the 2 groups. Postinjection endophthalmitis is defined as an inflammation of the eye from infectious agents after an IVI. Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA) was determined at the time of causative anti-VEGF injection, endophthalmitis presentation, and 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 67 695 IVIs were administered by 13 retina specialists during the study period. A total of 13 of 32 802 (0.0396%; 1 in 2523 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the PI group, and 9 of 34 893 (0.0258%; 1 in 3877 injections) cases in the CHX group (P = 0.395). For the PI group, there were 2 culture-positive endophthalmitis cases (0.0061%, 1 in 16 401), compared with 2 cases in the CHX group (0.00573%, 1 in 17 447) (P = 1.000). No significant difference was observed in the average logMAR VA of PI and CHX at causative injection (P = 0.3851), endophthalmitis encounter (P = 0.7718), and 3-month follow-up (P = 0.6152). A significant reduction in presumed endophthalmitis (P = 0.0445) and culture-positive cases (P = 0.0130) was present for prefilled IVI compared with nonprefilled injections.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in the rate of endophthalmitis or visual outcomes were found in the CHX group compared with the PI group. Prefilled syringes were associated with a significant reduction in endophthalmitis rate. Further multicenter studies are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of CHX compared with PI for IVI preparation.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Bevacizumab (Avastin) Injections: An Outbreak Investigated

Purpose To investigate an endophthalmitis outbreak in different eye hospitals after intravitreal (IVT) bevacizumab (Avastin) injections over two days. Place and duration of the study Mughal Eye Hospital, Nov 2022 to Jan 2023. Materials and methods All cases reported with endophthalmitis in Mughal Eye Hospital after administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor IVT injections in different hospitals on November 8-9, 2022, were studied. In all endophthalmitis cases, one to five IVT injections of antibiotics (vancomycin, ceftazidime, and dexamethasone) were given depending on the clinical picture. Results Thirty-six eyes of 34 patients who developed endophthalmitis were included in the study. Age (mean 53 years) ranged from 44 years to 70 years. There were 18 males and 16 females. Two patients had bilateral endophthalmitis. Thirty-three patients were given two to four IVT injections of antibiotics depending on the clinical response. Five cases of vitreous tap done before injecting antibiotics were found to have Pseudomonas. Anterior chamber wash was done in 15 cases to improve visualization for doing pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). In 24 patients PPV with silicon oil was done. Eighteen patients showed improvement as their hypopyon disappeared after IVT antibiotic injections. One patient developed corneal sloughing (she refused IVT antibiotic injections). One patient developed malignant/pupil block glaucoma. In two eyes, early PPV was done. Four eyes developed no perception of light. In our series, endophthalmitis patients started reporting one day after the injection. One patient who developed bilateral endophthalmitis developed bilateral cataracts with subluxations. One patient developed retinal detachment. One eye developed choroidal detachment. Conclusion IVT bevacizumab (Avastin) may be associated with an outbreak of endophthalmitis. Pseudomonas endophthalmitis is a very grave condition associated with severe morbidity.

Infectious Endophthalmitis vs Noninfectious "Pseudohypopyon" After Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide

Introduction: To describe a patient who presented with visual loss and an apparent hypopyon but none of the other symptoms or signs most common with infectious endophthalmitis. Methods: A case and its findings were analyzed. Results: A 73-year-old woman was treated with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for cystoid macular edema. The eye had 12 previous injections without complication. After the 13th injection, the patient noted painless visual loss. An examination showed a visual acuity (VA) of finger counting and an apparent hypopyon, which shifted after a head-tilt test, suggesting a noninfectious "pseudohypopyon." Two days later, the VA worsened to hand motions and the hypopyon had increased in size. The eye was treated with a vitreous tap and injection with vancomycin and ceftazidime. The inflammation resolved, VA improved to 20/40, and cultures showed no growth. Conclusions: Distinguishing infectious endophthalmitis from noninfectious inflammation remains challenging. There is no definitive technique by which to distinguish between the 2 conditions; thus, clinicians must use their best judgment and follow the patient closely.

Complications of intravitreal injections: 2022

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights the complications of both intravitreal injection procedure as well as different intravitreal medications including antivascular endothelial growth factors, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, methotrexate, and steroids. Techniques for reducing rates of endophthalmitis will also be discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intravitreal vancomycin can cause hemorrhagic occlusive retinal vasculitis resulting in severe vision loss. Intravitreal brolucizumab is associated with intraocular inflammation and retinal vasculitis resulting in significant vision loss. Face mask use by both patient and physician is not associated with increased risk of endophthalmitis and may decrease culture positive endophthalmitis.

SUMMARY

Intravitreal injections continue to be one of the most commonly performed procedures by ophthalmologists. Although the injections are generally well tolerated, sight-threatening complications can occur including endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, and/or retinal vasculitis. Adverse events associated with specific medications are outlined below. Several safety measures have been shown to reduce rates of endophthalmitis, the most concerning complication of this procedure.

Update on the Management of Uveitic Macular Edema

Uveitic macular edema (ME) is a frequent complication in 8.3% of uveitis patients and is a leading cause of serious visual impairment in about 40% of cases. Despite the numerous available drugs for its treatment, at least a third of patients fail to achieve satisfactory improvement in visual acuity. First-line drugs are steroids administered by various routes, but drug intolerance or ineffectiveness occur frequently, requiring the addition of other groups of therapeutic drugs. Immunomodulatory and biological drugs can have positive effects on inflammation and often on the accompanying ME, but most uveitic randomized clinical trials to date have not aimed to reduce ME; hence, there is no clear scientific evidence of their effectiveness in this regard. Before starting therapy to reduce general or local immunity, infectious causes of inflammation should be ruled out. This paper discusses local and systemic drugs, including steroids, biological drugs, immunomodulators, VEGF inhibitors, and anti-infection medication.