Efficacy and follow-up of anti-VEGF injections in diabetic macular edema in real-life practice at the Dijon university medical centre through the Save Sight Registries

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections (IVT) in diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-life practice using the Save Sight Registries (SSR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted an observational, single-centre, retrospective study in the department of ophthalmology of the Dijon University Hospital. We included treatment-naive patients who presented with DME between January 2016 and December 2017. Demographic and clinical data, follow-up visits, and treatments administered were entered into the SSR, an international online ophthalmic registry. Primary endpoints were the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) from baseline to 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight eyes of 43 patients with a mean [standard deviation (SD)] age of 67.1 [9.5] years were included. Forty-one eyes completed 12 months of follow-up, and 17 eyes completed 24 months of follow up. Median [SD] baseline BCVA was 56.1 [22.9] ETDRS letters and the median [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] baseline CST was 447.9 [161.0] micrometers (μm). Median [95% CI] improvement in BCVA from baseline to months 12 and 24 were respectively, +5.6 [+0.5; +10.7] ETDRS letters and +7.7 [-2.8; +18.2] ETDRS letters. The median [95% CI] decrease in CST from baseline to months 12 and 24 were respectively, -110.9 [-154.5; -67.3] μm and -125.5 [-198.0; -53.0] μm.

CONCLUSION

Our clinical practice can be evaluated easily with the SSR system. In real life, anti-VEGF IVT are an effective treatment for DME, which result in improved BCVA and decreased CST.

[Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) in patients with diabetic macular edema: Real life safety and efficacy]

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DI) for patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in real life.

METHODS

We conducted a monocentric retrospective analysis of the change in visual acuity and central macular thickness (CMT) after intravitreal injection of the DI at peak efficacy (2 months after injection) as well as the timing of reinjections and complications in patients with a loss of vision due to DME.

RESULTS

Forty eyes of 33 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 12.6 months. Thirty percent of the eyes experienced an increase in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA)>15 letters at peak efficacy (P<0.05) after each ID injection. Treatment-naive patients had a sustained response after Ozurdex injection, with better visual acuity at 3 months (P=0.02) and 4 months (P=0.04) than non-naïve patients and better visual acuity at 6 months despite identical baseline visual acuity (P<0.05). Anatomical efficacy was good, with approximately 60% of patients with CMT<300 microns at peak efficacy after each injection of ID. Thirty percent of eyes demonstrated ocular hypertension (OHT)>25mmHg at peak efficacy, and 12.5% of eyes required cataract surgery during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The DI has good functional and anatomic efficacy in these patients, with a good safety profile. Treatment-naïve patients with more recent DME had a more sustained increase in visual acuity after the injections and better visual recovery at 6 months. This encourages us to initiate DI therapy early if there is no response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment.