Anti-VEGF and steroid combination therapy relative to anti-VEGF mono therapy for the treatment of refractory DME: A systematic review of efficacy and meta-analysis of safety

The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy and safety of combined anti-VEGF and steroid therapy in treatment refractory DME patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles reporting on visual, anatomical and adverse outcomes to compare the efficacy and safety of combined intravitreal anti-VEGF/steroids versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for refractory DME. Seven studies (4 RCTs and 3 observational studies) reporting on 452 eyes were included. Our systematic review showed that combination therapy is significantly more effective for anatomical outcomes in the treatment of resistant DME compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy in six studies. Two studies found that addition of intravitreal steroids promoted faster visual improvement, but not significantly better final visual outcomes compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy. Combination therapy was associated with a higher incidence of IOP-related adverse events (RR = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.42], p = 0.002) and cataract-related adverse events (RR = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.71], p = 0.02). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of seven studies and 452 eyes revealed that combination therapy of anti-VEGF and steroid intravitreal drugs in the management of treatment refractory DME resulted in superior anatomical outcomes in all but one study. Combination therapy led to superior short-term visual outcomes in two studies, while others reported no difference between treatment groups. Meta-analysis revealed that combination therapy was associated with more adverse events. Future research should provide guidance on the standard definitions for treatment resistance and therapeutic alternatives for DME patients with sub-optimal response to anti-VEGF treatment.

Emerging Therapies in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in 2020

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the most common causes of vision loss. Advanced forms of AMD are seen in primarily 2 types-neovascular AMD (nAMD) with the presence of choroid neovascularization and nonneovascular AMD (nnAMD) with geographic atrophy. Although there are 4 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs either widely used or approved for the former, there are no current treatments for the latter. This review will highlight upcoming treatments for AMD currently in clinical trials. For nAMD: Abicipar pegol, an intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor based on designed ankyrin repeat proteins (DARP) in protein, is currently pending approval. Conbercept and Faricimab, 2 intravitreal anti-growth factors, are currently in phase 3. Nine other upcoming agents have at least produced results in the 2A phase including intravitreal injections (KSI-301, OPT-302, RGX-314, ICON-1, and DE-122), depot (GB-102), drug reservoir (PDS), topical drops (PAN-90806), and oral formulations (AKST4290). We summarize all the newer molecules.

Progression characteristics of ellipsoid zone loss in macular telangiectasia type 2

PURPOSE

To investigate the progression characteristics of ellipsoid zone (EZ) loss in eyes with macular telangiectasia type 2 (MacTel) as reflected by area and linear measurements, and their relevance for visual acuity.

METHODS

Participants were selected from the MacTel Study cohort. Linear and area measurements of EZ loss were performed in Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomograph (SD-OCT) volume scans. Progression characteristics and correlations between linear and area measurements were analysed using linear mixed effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 134 eyes of 70 patients were included (85 eyes with follow-up, mean 4.7 years, range: 1.4-8 years). Ellipsoid zone (EZ) loss significantly progressed at a mean annual increment of 0.057 mm² (p = 0.005). The progression rate was non-linear and interacted significantly with initial EZ lesion size indicating an exponential growth before reaching a plateau. There was a strong heterogeneity in area sizes between fellow eyes. EZ break length had a significant linear effect on EZ break area (b = 1.06, p < 0.001) and could predict it. The location of the EZ break had a significant impact on visual acuity.

CONCLUSION

Ellipsoid zone (EZ) loss in MacTel has a non-linear progression characteristic, and its rate depends on area size at baseline, which must be taken into account at sample selection in clinical trials. Our results show a good correlation of linear and area measures of EZ loss and a segregation of best-corrected visual acuity by EZ location, which may help routine clinical practice.