Real-World Evidence of the Long-Term Effectiveness of 0.2 μg/Day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant in Persistent and Recurrent Diabetic Macular Edema - A Single Center Study

Purpose

To report the long-term functional, anatomical and safety outcomes of 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide 0.19mg in patients with persistent or recurrent diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

Retrospective, observational, single-center study of patients with recurrent or persistent DME. All patients received 0.2 μg/day of fluocinolone acetonide 0.19mg, and data were collected at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 after implantation. Outcomes measured included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and safety outcomes.

Results

A total of 28 eyes from 28 patients were included. The mean age was 66.5 years (95% CI 62.8-70.2) with a mean duration of DME of 8.8 years (95% CI 7.7-10.0). Only two eyes were phakic. Mean follow-up was 25.4 months (95% CI 21.2-29.6). Mean BCVA at baseline was 48.6 ETDRS letters (95% CI 41.3-55.8) and improved as early as month 1 of follow-up with a mean gain in BCVA of 7.8 (95% CI 4.3-11.3) ETDRS letters (p<0.001). Statistically significant improvements in BCVA were also observed at months 6, 12 and 24. At baseline, patients had a mean CMT of 530.5µm (95% CI 463.0-598.0), and a decrease in CMT was observed, starting at the first month of follow-up (mean CMT reduction of -170.5µm, 95% CI -223.8- -117.1; p<0.001). Statistically significant decreases in CMT were also observed at months 6, 12, 24, and 36, with the maximum decrease observed at month 12 (p<0.001). Mean IOP at baseline was 16.4mmHg (95% CI 15.3-17.5) and nine eyes (32.1%) had an IOP ≥21mmHg during follow-up.

Conclusion

Our results support the effectiveness and safety profile of fluocinolone acetonide. Although additional long-term real-world evidence is required, fluocinolone acetonide may represent a safe strategy for daily, low-dose, sustained and localized release to the posterior segment of the eye, providing both functional and anatomical benefits in DME.

PHASE 2 RANDOMIZED STUDY (ORION-1) OF A NOVEL, BIODEGRADABLE DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT (AR-1105) FOR THE TREATMENT OF MACULAR EDEMA DUE TO CENTRAL OR BRANCH RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION

PURPOSE

AR-1105 is a novel biodegradable sustained-release dexamethasone implant designed to deliver 6-month durability. This Phase 2 study evaluated two AR-1105 formulations with different release profiles in patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

Patients received a single intravitreal injection with 340 µg dexamethasone. In the initial phase, five patients received clinical formulation (CF) 1. In the randomized phase, 44 patients were randomized 1:1 to CF1 or CF2. The follow-up was 6 months. Patients had vision loss due to macular edema diagnosed ≥9 (central retinal vein occlusion) or ≥12 months (branch retinal vein occlusion) before screening, and could be treatment-naive or -experienced (if received prior steroids, must have demonstrated response).

RESULTS

Both formulations improved vision and reduced retinal thickening from baseline across all visits. At Month 6, mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity were +4.3 and +8.0 letters, and mean changes in central subfield thickness were -93 µm and -211 µm in CF1 and CF2 randomized patients, respectively. Most common adverse events were reduced visual acuity, worsening macular edema, conjunctival hemorrhage, and increased intraocular pressure. No patients required surgery or laser for intraocular pressure control.

CONCLUSION

Both formulations were well tolerated and demonstrated clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in vision and retinal thickening in patients with retinal vein occlusion with longstanding edema.

Dril Influences Short-term Visual Outcome after Intravitreal Corticosteroid Injection for Refractory Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose: Intravitreal injections (IVI) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) are considered the gold standard for diabetic macular edema (DME). Despite adequate anti-VEGF treatments, many patients present persistent DME. The aim of this study is to identify systemic, ocular and anatomical characteristics influencing functional and anatomical outcomes in refractory DME patients treated with IVI of corticosteroid.Materials and Methods: Retrospective multicenter hospital-based cohort study including type 2 diabetic adult patients with refractory DME that switched from intravitreal anti-VEGF to intravitreal corticosteroid between January 2017 and September 2018. Sociodemographic, clinical data, DME and treatment characteristics were collected at baseline (visit before switch), as well as spectral domain OCT features.Results: A total of 101 eyes were included. The median number of anti-VEGF injections before switch was 5.0 (min-max: 4.0-9.0) and the median anti-VEGF treatment duration before switch was 33.2 (min-max: 19.5-50.3) months. More than half of the patients (56; 54.9%) were diagnosed with diffuse DME. At baseline, 80 (88%) patients had cystoid DME, 55 (62.5%) patients had disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRIL) and 16 (17.6%) had subretinal fluid. Dexamethasone was the corticosteroid more commonly used (71.4%), followed by triamcinolone (24.4%) and fluocinolone (4.2%). Regarding best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), post-switch results showed no statistically significant improvement at three-month follow-up (p = .048/0.096), but the mean central macular thickness (CMT) decreased significantly from 486.3 (SD = 159) µm to 369.3 (SD = 129) µm at three-month follow-up (p < .001). DRIL was the tomographic characteristic able to influence significantly both CMT and BCVA final results (p = .02 and 0.012, respectively).Conclusions: Subfoveal DRIL on structural OCT was the DME factor influencing significantly clinical and imaging outcomes in refractory DME patients treated with intravitreal corticosteroid. Portuguese care trend towards DME shows preference for the use of dexamethasone implant after therapeutic failure with ranibizumab or bevacizumab injection.

Current Best Clinical Practices-Management of Retinal Vein Occlusion

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second most common cause of vision loss from retinal vascular diseases in adults in the United States. Visual loss arises as a result of a host of factors, including macular ischemia and macular edema. Primary antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy is the current standard of care, with level I evidence demonstrating sustained visual gains up to 2 years after treatment in both branch and central RVO. Prompt antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy is important because delays in treatment yield lesser visual gains. Steroid therapy also improves visual outcomes in RVO but with higher rates of adverse effects, including cataract formation and ocular hypertension. Although the treatment burden can be high, these drugs have collectively revolutionized treatment outcomes in this disease state, providing improved visual outcomes over previous laser therapies.

Intravitreal sustained-release dexamethasone implant for the treatment of persistent cystoid macular edema in ocular syphilis

With a resurgence of syphilis with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in last few years, various ocular manifestations of syphilis have been described in literature. This case report described an HIV-positive patient on anti-retroviral therapy who was diagnosed and treated for posterior uveitis secondary to ocular syphilis in the recent past presented to our clinic with cystoid macular edema (CME). CME, which did not respond to periocular corticosteroid, resolved with intravitreal sustained release dexamethasone implant. There was a recurrence CME 9 months later and repeat injection of intravitreal implant showed complete resolution. A long-term follow-up did not reveal reactivation of the infection with intravitreal corticosteroid. Intravitreal sustained release dexamethasone implant can be an effective treatment for refractory CME in patients with regressed syphilitic uveitis.

Corticosteroid Treatment in Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema is the most common cause of visual impairment in patients with diabetes mellitus. The pathogenesis of macular edema is complex and multifactorial. For many years, laser photocoagulation has been considered the standard therapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema; however, few patients achieve significant improvements in visual acuity. Today the intravitreal administration of anti-inflammatory or anti-angiogenic agents together with the use of laser photocoagulation represents the standard of care for the treatment of this complication. The intravitreal route of administration minimizes the systemic side effects of corticosteroids. Steroid-related ocular side effects are elevated intraocular pressure and cataract, while injection-related complications include endophthalmitis, vitreous hemorrhage, and retinal detachment. In order to reduce the risks and complications, intravitreal implants have been developed recently to provide sustained release of corticosteroids and reduce repeated injections for the management of diabetic macular edema. In this review, the efficacy, safety, and therapeutic potential of intravitreal corticosteroids in diabetic macular edema are discussed with a review of recent literature.

Efficacy and safety of sustained-delivery fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema insufficiently responsive to available therapies: a real-life study

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sustained-delivery fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema (DME).

Patients and methods

Prospective study in patients with DME insufficiently responsive to laser and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). Patients with history of rise of intraocular pressure after intravitreal corticosteroids were excluded.

Results

The macular edema rapidly decreased both in group 1 (prior laser only; n=7 eyes) and group 2 (prior laser and ≥3 monthly anti-VEGF therapy; n=10 eyes) and central subfield thickness was reduced by −299 μm (P=0.008) and −251 μm (P=0.016) at 12 months, respectively. Mean area under the curve from baseline to last value for pseudophakic eyes was +4.2 letters in group 1 and +9.5 letters in group 2. Overall, the FAc implant was well tolerated.

Conclusion

This prospective study confirms the efficacy of the FAc implant in DME patients insufficiently responsive to laser and anti-VEGF. Moreover, with a careful patient selection, our safety results would support an earlier use of FAc in the DME treatment pathway.