Efficacy of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Injected 1 Month after Dexamethasone Implant for Diabetic Macular Oedema: the ILUVI1MOIS Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci) injected 1 month after the last dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi) in chronic diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients.

METHODS

Retrospective multicentric study conducted in pseudophakic patients with chronic DME frequently treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi; time to DME recurrence ≤ 6 months), receiving FAci 1 month after the last DEXi, with at least a 6-month follow-up. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography, intraocular pressure (IOP) and additional treatments were assessed on the day of FAci injection (M0), 1 (M1) and 3 months (M3) later and then every 3 months.

RESULTS

A total of 41 eyes from 34 patients were included. At M0, patients' mean age was 68.7 ± 9.8 years, the mean DME duration was 63.9 ± 22.9 months, the mean interval between two DEXi was 14.2 ± 3.3 weeks. M12 data were available for 71% of patients. At baseline, the mean BCVA, CMT and IOP were 63.2 ± 16.6 letters, 299.4 ± 103.3 µm, and 16.2 ± 4.5 mmHg, respectively, and remained stable during the follow-up. At M12, 14% of patients required additional intravitreal treatments.

CONCLUSION

In pseudophakic patients with chronic DME showing good response to DEXi but requiring repeated injections every < 6 months, switching to FAci 1 month after the last DEXi was effective and safe. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings, and to determine the best interval between the last DEXi and the first FAci.

Efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of the intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes.

Methods: We performed a literature search in four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) from inception to 22 May 2022. Studies comparing the efficacy of the DEX implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with DME with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. The main outcomes included comparison of the mean change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to different follow-up endpoints between the vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized groups. The secondary outcomes were the mean duration of action for the first DEX implantation and the number of required injections throughout the follow-up period. Safety data were collected and compared.

Results: The final analysis included 7 studies involving 582 eyes, 208 vitrectomized eyes and 374 nonvitrectomized eyes. The mean between-group differences in BCVA improvement were not significant at any endpoint, with averages difference of −0.07 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (p = 0.088) at 1 month, −0.03 logMAR (p = 0.472) 3 months, −0.07 logMAR (p = 0.066) 6 months, and −0.04 logMAR (p = 0.486) 12 months. The mean between-group differences in CMT reduction were not statistically significant, with mean differences of 7.17 μm (p = 0.685) at 1 month, 20.03 μm (p = 0.632) 3 months, −1.80 μm (p = 0.935) 6 months, and −25.65 μm (p = 0.542) 12 months. However, the vitrectomized group had a significantly shorter duration of action during the first DEX implantation than the nonvitrectomized group, with a mean difference of 0.8 months (p = 0.005). No significant between-group differences were detected for the number of required injections or safety profile.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed similar efficacy and safety of the sustained-release DEX intravitreal implant for vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with DME. The intravitreal DEX implant could be considered an effective choice for DME treatment in eyes with prior vitrectomy.

Studies of the retinal microcirculation using human donor eyes and high-resolution clinical imaging: Insights gained to guide future research in diabetic retinopathy

The microcirculation plays a key role in delivering oxygen to and removing metabolic wastes from energy-intensive retinal neurons. Microvascular changes are a hallmark feature of diabetic retinopathy (DR), a major cause of irreversible vision loss globally. Early investigators have performed landmark studies characterising the pathologic manifestations of DR. Previous works have collectively informed us of the clinical stages of DR and the retinal manifestations associated with devastating vision loss. Since these reports, major advancements in histologic techniques coupled with three-dimensional image processing has facilitated a deeper understanding of the structural characteristics in the healthy and diseased retinal circulation. Furthermore, breakthroughs in high-resolution retinal imaging have facilitated clinical translation of histologic knowledge to detect and monitor progression of microcirculatory disturbances with greater precision. Isolated perfusion techniques have been applied to human donor eyes to further our understanding of the cytoarchitectural characteristics of the normal human retinal circulation as well as provide novel insights into the pathophysiology of DR. Histology has been used to validate emerging in vivo retinal imaging techniques such as optical coherence tomography angiography. This report provides an overview of our research on the human retinal microcirculation in the context of the current ophthalmic literature. We commence by proposing a standardised histologic lexicon for characterising the human retinal microcirculation and subsequently discuss the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying key manifestations of DR, with a focus on microaneurysms and retinal ischaemia. The advantages and limitations of current retinal imaging modalities as determined using histologic validation are also presented. We conclude with an overview of the implications of our research and provide a perspective on future directions in DR research.

The effect of pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling on the durability of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant in the treatment of diabetic macular edema

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling on recurrence time of diabetic macular edema in eyes under treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implant injections.

Material and methods

Twelve pseudophakic eyes of 12 patients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy and non-tractional diabetic macular edema were included. All eyes had already been treated with two or more dexamethasone intravitreal implant injections evidencing a recurrence time of three months or less (early recurrence). At baseline, they underwent pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling, ending with dexamethasone intravitreal implant injection. Patients were then followed-up monthly, treated with a second injection at the first recurrence, and followed up to the second recurrence. Measurements of best corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and central foveal thickness by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were performed at each follow-up examination.

Results

Vitrectomized eyes showed a significant extension of recurrence time of diabetic macular edema, and specifically from 3.4 (3.2–3.7) to 6.5 (5.7–8.2) months after the first injection, and to 7.0 (5.7–8.2) months (p < 0.01) after the second injection (p < 0.01).

Conclusions and importance

Pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling seems not to influence functional and anatomical results in eyes under treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implant injections for diabetic macular edema, but appears to significantly extend the benefit of the drug.

Comparison of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab in Vitrectomized Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a single institution.

Methods

Pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve center-involved DME were enrolled, with one eye in each patient. They were divided into two groups: one group receiving IDI every 3 to 4 months and another group receiving IVR using 3 monthly plus treat-and-extend injections, all with monthly follow-up for 6 months. Switch of intravitreal drugs or deferred macular laser was not allowed. Primary outcome measures included change in central foveal thickness (CFT) in 1 mm by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at Month 6.

Results

Twenty-two eyes were included in the IDI group and 26 eyes in the IVR group. The baseline demographics, glycosylated hemoglobin level, intraocular pressure (IOP), BCVA, and CFT did not significantly differ (p > 0.05). Compared to baseline data, CFT decreased and BCVA improved significantly after either IDI or IVR at Month 6 (p < 0.05). Significantly better mean final BCVA (0.38 logMAR vs. 0.62 logMAR, p=0.04), more mean visual gain (−0.30 logMAR vs. −0.15 logMAR, p=0.02), lower mean final CFT (310.9 μm vs. 384.2 μm, p=0.04), and larger mean CFT decrease (−150.0 μm vs. −60.1 μm, p=0.03) were found in the IDI group compared to those in the IVR group. A smaller mean treatment number (2.6 vs. 5.6, p < 0.001) and higher rate of postinjection ocular hypertension requiring topical hypotensive agent therapy (27.3% vs. 0%, p=0.0002) were demonstrated in the IDI group than those in the IVR group.

Conclusion

We concluded that IDI and IVR can both effectively treat vitrectomized eyes with DME. Dexamethasone implants had significantly better visual/anatomical improvement, smaller treatment number, and higher rate of elevated IOP after injection than IVR in pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with DME in a 6-month period.

Visual Acuity Gain Profiles and Anatomical Prognosis Factors in Patients with Drug-Naive Diabetic Macular Edema Treated with Dexamethasone Implant: The NAVEDEX Study

Brief Summary Statement

NAVEDEX (NAive diabetic macular Edema treated by DEXamethasone implant) study is a real-life multi-center study on drug-naive diabetic macular edema treated by Dexamethasone-implant. Two different visual acuity gain (VA) profiles were identified, based on baseline visual acuity (VA). Baseline disorganization of retinal inner layers or ellipsoid zone alterations (EZAs) negatively influence final VA but has no impact on VA gain.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the visual acuity (VA) gain profiles between patients with drug-naive diabetic macular edema (DME) treated by dexamethasone implant (DEX-implant) and assess the baseline anatomical and functional factors that could influence the response to the treatment in real-life conditions. A retrospective, multi-center observational study included 129 eyes with drug-naive DME treated by DEX-implant. The Median follow-up was 13 months. Two groups of VA gain trajectories were identified—Group A, with 71% (n = 96) of patients whose average VA gain was less than five letters and Group B, with 29% (n = 33) of patients with an average gain of 20 letters. The probability of belonging to Group B was significantly higher in patients with baseline VA < 37 letters (p = 0.001). Ellipsoid zone alterations (EZAs) or disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRILs) were associated with a lower final VA (53.0 letters versus 66.4, p = 0.002) but without a significant difference in VA gain (4.9 letters versus 6.8, p = 0.582). Despite a low baseline VA, this subgroup of patients tends to have greater visual gain, encouraging treatment with DEX-implant in such advanced-stage disease. However, some baseline anatomic parameters, such as the presence of EZAs or DRILs, negatively influenced final vision.

Differential response to intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated diabetic macular edema eyes

Background

To identify different response patterns to intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI) in naïve and previously treated (PT) diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes in a real-life setting.

Methods

342 IDI injections (203 DME eyes) were included. Number of IDI injections, percentage (%) of eyes with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 injections, time to reinjections, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated for naïve and PT DME eyes over 24 months.

Results

Mean number of injections was significantly lower in naïve vs PT DME eyes (1.40 ± 0.9 vs 1.82 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The percentage of eyes receiving 1 injection was significantly higher in naïve vs PT DME eyes (76.1 vs 47.7), (p < 0.001). However, it was significantly lower for 2 (16.4 vs 29.4), or 3 injections (1.4 vs 17.6) (both p < 0.001), with no differences in eyes receiving ≥4 injections (5.9 vs 5.1 respectively, p = 0.80). Mean time to reinjection was not significantly different between both groups for the second, third and fourth injection (9.6 ± 4.0 vs 10.0 ± 5.5, p = 0.75, 13.2 ± 4.0 vs 16.0 ± 3.5, p = 0.21 and 21.7 ± 3.8 vs 19.7 ± 5.8, p = 0.55). VA scores were consistently better in naïve vs PT DME eyes at all studied timepoints, with no significant differences in CRT reduction or adverse effect rates.

Conclusion

Naïve DME eyes received lower number of IDI injections and showed better VA levels than PT DME eyes for 24 months in a real-world setting. This data supports the IDI use in early DME stages and provide further evidence of better IDI response when used as first-line therapy.

Effect of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes of Taiwanese patients with treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Vitrectomy may affect intravitreal drug clearance and efficacy for treating diabetic macular edema (DME). This study aimed to evaluate functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve DME in Taiwanese patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center study, we reviewed treatment-naïve patients who received DEX implant monotherapy for center-involved DME from January 2015 to May 2017. Retreatments were provided at least 4 months apart as needed. The primary outcomes included changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) at Month 6. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven eyes in 27 patients had prior vitrectomy and 43 eyes in 41 patients without vitrectomy. Baseline data were comparable. Overall, the improvements in BCVA and CFT were significant by 1 month post-treatment and sustained throughout the study (all p < 0.05). At Month 6, BCVA improved by 16.5 and 12.1 letters, and CFT reduced by 138.0 and 121.9 μm in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes, respectively, with a mean of 1.5 DEX implant injection. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were seen between the two groups (all p > 0.05). DEX implant injection was well tolerated. About 30% of patients had post-injection intraocular pressure value > 20 mmHg, and all were manageable with topical hypotensive agents, and no serious ocular complication was observed.

CONCLUSION

In this 6-month retrospective study, intravitreal DEX implant was effective in Taiwanese patients with treatment-naïve DME regardless of vitrectomy status.

Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN®) in UK patients with chronic diabetic macular oedema considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) may lead to visual loss and blindness. Several pharmacological treatments are available on the National Health Service (NHS) to United Kingdom patients affected by this condition, including intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) and two types of intravitreal steroid implants, releasing dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetonide (FAc). This study aimed to assess the value for money (cost-effectiveness) of the FAc 0.2 μg/day implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients with chronic DMO considered insufficiently responsive to other therapies.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to estimate the impact of changes in best-corrected visual acuity in DMO patients on costs and quality-adjusted life years. The model considered both eyes, designated as the "study eye", defined at model entry as phakic with an ongoing cataract formation or pseudophakic, and the "fellow eye". The model compared the FAc 0.2 μg/day implant with a 700 μg dexamethasone implant (pseudophakic patients only) or with usual care, defined as a mixture of laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGFs (phakic and pseudophakic patients). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services; full NHS prices were used for drugs.

RESULTS

In patients who were pseudophakic at baseline, at 36 months, the FAc implant provided an additional gain of 4.01 and 3.64 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters compared with usual care and the dexamethasone implant, respectively. Over the 15-year time horizon, this translated into 0.185 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an extra cost of £3066 compared with usual care, and 0.126 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £1777 compared with dexamethasone. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £16,609 and £14,070 per QALY gained vs. usual care and dexamethasone, respectively. In patients who were phakic at baseline, the FAc 0.2 μg/day implant provided an additional gain of 2.96 ETDRS letters at 36 months compared with usual care, which, over 15 years, corresponded to 0.11 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £3170, resulting in an ICER of £28,751 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

The FAc 0.2 μg/day implant provided good value for money compared with other established treatments, especially in pseudophakic patients.

Effectiveness and Safety of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant (Ozurdex) in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: A Real-World Experience

INTRODUCTION

There are few real-life studies on the intravitreal 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) conducted in Latin America. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of this implant in clinical practice.

METHODS

Twenty-seven centers from Brazil and one from Argentina provided information on patients with DME treated with Ozurdex. The efficacy outcome variables were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in Snellen and central retinal thickness (CRT). Safety was assessed by the elevation in intraocular pressure (IOP), occurrence of cataracts, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 329 eyes (both treated cases and naïve eyes) from 282 patients underwent treatment. The time since diagnosis of DME ranged from 1 to 156 months. The median BCVA was 0.7 logMAR/50 letters at baseline and 0.3 logMAR/70 letters after treatment (both p < 0.001). Median CRT values decreased from 425 µm at baseline to 270 µm after treatment (p < 0.001). Increases in IOP of at least 10 mm Hg were observed in 7.4% of eyes, and 4% of eyes had cataract evolution. No cases of endophthalmitis were reported.

CONCLUSION

These real-life results suggest that the intravitreal dexamethasone implant is effective and safe for eyes with DME.

REAL-LIFE STUDY IN DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA TREATED WITH DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT: The Reldex Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal implant of dexamethasone (Ozurdex) in diabetic macular edema in real-life practice.

METHODS

In this bicentric retrospective study, the authors reviewed 128 eyes of 89 patients. Main outcome measures included changes in best-corrected visual acuity, central macular thickness, time to retreatment, and incidence of adverse effects. Linear mixed-effects models were used to study changes in best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness over the 3-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Best-corrected visual acuity increased by a mean of 3.6 letters at Month 2 (P = 0.005), 4.2 letters at Month 12 (P = 0.006), 5.3 at Month 24 (P = 0.007), and 9.5 letters at Month 36 (P = 0.023). The proportion of eyes achieving at least a 15-letter improvement from baseline was 25.4% at Month 36. Central macular thickness decreased from 451 μm to 289 μm at Month 2 (P < 0.001), 370 μm at Month 12 (P < 0.001), 377 μm at Month 24 (P = 0.004), and 280 μm at Month 36 (P = 0.001). A mean of 3.6 injections were administered over the 3-year follow-up. Ten percent of eyes developed a transient increase in intraocular pressure (IOP ≥ 25 mmHg), and cataract was removed from 47% of phakic eyes.

CONCLUSION

This large case series study showed favorable 3-year outcomes when using Ozurdex to treat diabetic macular edema. Intravitreal Ozurdex provides substantial long-term benefits in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in real-life.

Short-term Efficacy of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in Vitrectomized Eyes with Recalcitrant Diabetic Macular Edema and Prior Anti-VEGF Therapy

Purpose:

To determine the efficacy of an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized eyes.

Methods:

This interventional retrospective consecutive case series included vitrectomized eyes undergoing IDI placement for treatment of recalcitrant DME between June 2011 and June 2014. All patients had previously received anti-VEGF therapy (ranibizumab or bevacizumab). Primary endpoints were changes in visual acuity (VA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline values one month after device implantation. Secondary endpoints were VA and CRT changes at 3 months.

Results:

A total of 8 eyes of 8 patients met the inclusion criteria. One month after IDI placement, there was a significant (p = 0.01) improvement in VA from 0.79 ± 0.52 logMAR (20/123 Snellen equivalent) to 0.64 ± 0.55 logMAR (20/88), meanwhile CRT improved from 455.75 ± 123.19 to 295.00 ± 90.39 μm (p = 0.02). These findings persisted at 3 months.

Conclusion:

In vitrectomized eyes previously treated with anti-VEGF agents for recalcitrant DME, implantation of the IDI appears to be efficacious in improving VA and CRT at 1-month with the observed benefits persisting for at least for 3 months.

Role of implants in the treatment of diabetic macular edema: focus on the dexamethasone intravitreal implant

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the leading cause of sight-threatening complication in diabetic patients, and several treatment modalities have been developed and evaluated to treat this pathology. Intravitreal agents, such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGF) or corticosteroids, have become more popular in recent years and are widely used for treating DME. Sustained release drugs appear to be mentioned more often nowadays for extending the period of intravitreal activity, and corticosteroids play a key role in inhibiting the inflammatory process in DME. A potent corticosteroid, dexamethasone (Ozurdex(®)), in the form of an intravitreal implant, has been approved for various ocular etiologies among which DME is also one. This review evaluates the role of implants in the treatment of DME, mainly focusing on the dexamethasone intravitreal implant.