Cost Advantage of Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant (ILUVIEN®) versus Ranibizumab in the Treatment of Chronic Diabetic Macular Oedema

Real-World Outcomes in Diabetic Macular Edema for the 0.2 µg/Day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant: Case Series from the Midlands, UK

Aim

To investigate real-world effectiveness and safety of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant over three years of treatment in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a population with large ethnic diversity.

Methods

This audit of three large treatment centres in the UK involved retrospective collection of outcome data (best recorded visual acuity [BRVA] by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters, central retinal thickness [CRT], intraocular pressure [IOP] and use of supplementary treatments) from patients with DME treated with 0.2 µg/day FAc intravitreal implant with three-year follow-up expected.

Results

A total of 96 eyes were included. Ninety (93.8%) eyes had received prior intravitreal treatment. Increases in mean BRVA were significant at one, two and three years (p<0.05). Overall, 78.1% of eyes gained or maintained BRVA; just over 50% gained ≥5 letters, representing a functional response. Eleven (11.6%) patients lost ≥10 letters by year three. Decreases in central retinal thickness (CRT) nearing 200 µm in the first year were sustained to three years (p < 0.0001). Patients with baseline VA ≥60 letters maintained their BRVA throughout follow-up, while significant improvements at month 12 (p<0.0001) in those with baseline BRVA <60 letters were maintained through month 36 (p < 0.005). Fifty-three (55.2%) eyes required no supplementary therapy during follow-up. Increases in IOP to ≥30 mmHg and ≥25 mmHg were seen in 12 (12.5%) and 23 (24.0%) eyes, respectively.

Conclusion

This study confirms the effectiveness and tolerability of FAc implant up to 36 months in a real-world setting, highlighting the importance of early treatment for sustaining functional vision for patients.

Retinal Morpho-Functional Changes Following 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Chronic Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To evaluate morpho-functional outcomes of the intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant.

Methods

Retrospective, observational, single-center study. Primary endpoint was the mean change in central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to month 1–3. Secondary endpoints included mean CMT change from baseline to month 4–8 and 9–14 and mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), photopic negative response (PhNR) and b-wave of flash full-field electroretinogram (ERG) changes from baseline to month 1–3, 4–8, and 9–14.

Results

Fourteen patients (18 eyes) were included. Mean (standard deviation) CMT decreased from 473 (196) µm at baseline to 371 (163) µm at month 1–3 (mean difference − 102.3 ± 98.35 µm, 95% CI ± 46.4 µm; p < 0.0001) and this decrease tended to endure up to month 9–14. BCVA did not change significantly. There was an improvement in mean PhNR amplitude from 2.76 (1.65) µV at baseline to 3.73 (2.32) µV at month 1–3 (mean difference 0.91 (1.14) µV, 95% CI ± 0.54 µV, p = 0.003); b-wave amplitude improved from 8.83 (4.52) µV at baseline versus 10.05 (5.04) µV at month 1–3 (mean difference 1.22 (2.23) µV, 95% CI ± 1.08 µV, p = 0.0384). These ERG positive changes tended to endure up to month 9–14, although they did not reach statistical significance after month 3.

Conclusions

Intravitreal FAc implant significantly improved anatomic as well as functional outcomes related to middle and inner retinal layers, known to be altered in diabetic retinopathy. Our findings support the hypothesis that intravitreal FAc implant may exert a protective effect in diabetic retinas with diabetic macular edema.

Clinical-Decision Criteria to Identify Recurrent Diabetic Macular Edema Patients Suitable for Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Therapy (ILUVIEN®) and Follow-Up Considerations/Recommendations

Current management of diabetic macular edema (DME) predominantly involves treatment with short-acting intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs) and/or corticosteroids; however, short-acting therapies (lasting between 1 and 6 months) require frequent injections to maintain efficacy, meaning a considerable treatment burden for diabetic patients with multiple comorbidities. Continuous injections needed in some cases are an economic burden for patients/healthcare system, so real-life clinical practice tends to adopt a reactive approach, ie, watch and wait for worsening symptoms, which consequently increases the risk of undertreatment and edema recurrence. On March 7th 2019, a group of experts in retinal medicine and surgery held a roundtable meeting in Madrid, Spain to discuss how to (1) optimize clinical outcomes through earlier use of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant (ILUVIEN^®) in patients with persistent or recurrent DME despite therapy; and, (2) to provide guidance to assist physicians in deciding which patients should be treated with ILUVIEN. In this regard, a 36-month follow-up consensus protocol is presented. In conclusion, patients that achieve a complete or partial anatomical, and preferably functional, response following one or two intravitreal dexamethasone implants, but with recurrence of edema after 3-4 months, are deemed by the authors most likely to benefit from ILUVIEN, and the switch to FAc implant should not be delayed more than 12 months after the initiation of at least the first dexamethasone implant.

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.

Iluvien™ (Fluocinolone Acetonide 0.19 mg Intravitreal Implant) in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review

Diabetic macular edema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in the working age population. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy provided a major advance in treatment of DMO for many patients, there is a significant proportion of patients who maintain persistent DMO and have minimal response to anti-VEGF treatment. Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg [FAc]) is an important additional treatment option for DMO. In this review we describe the clinical context and the evidence for the use of the FAc implant in treating DMO, from pilot to randomized controlled studies, to later phase real world data. These studies indicate that the FAc implant is effective, well tolerated and a cost-effective option in the treatment of insufficiently responsive DMO.

Treating Diabetic Macular Oedema (DMO): real world UK clinical outcomes for the 0.19mg Fluocinolone Acetonide intravitreal implant (Iluvien™) at 2 years

BACKGROUND

To compare visual function and structural improvements in pseudophakic eyes with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) treated with the 0.19mg Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (Iluvien^TM) in a 'real world' setting.

METHODS

A single centre retrospective evaluation of patients with DMO unresponsive to conventional treatment treated with the FAc implant according to UK guidelines. Primary efficacy endpoint was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA); secondary endpoints included optical coherence tomography evaluations of the macula (a) central retinal and (b) peak macular thickness collected at annual time points. Primary safety endpoint was new rise in IOP >27mmHg or glaucoma surgery. Patients with <1 year follow-up were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine eyes were included, with mean(SD) follow up of 792(270) days. Improvement in BCVA and reduction in macular oedema was noted at all timepoints. Mean improvement in BCVA from baseline was 6 ETDRS letters at year 1(n=29), 6.5L at year 2(n=22) and 11L at year 3(n=6). Mean central retinal thickness at baseline was 451 microns, 337 microns at year 1, 342 microns at year 2 and 314 microns at year 3. Two eyes required IOP-lowering drops post implant. Supplementary treatment for persistence or recurrence of DMO was necessary in 18 eyes over the total study period of 3 years with mean time to supplementary treatment being 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation of the 0.19mg FAc implant delivered in a real-world setting, provides additional evidence that it is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with DMO, and can provide sustained benefit for patients with previously refractory disease.