The combination of intravitreal triamcinolone and phacoemulsification surgery in patients with diabeticfoveal oedema and cataract

BACKGROUND: The management of diabetic patients with refractory macular oedema or patients with no adequate pre-operative view to administer laser treatment provide a challenge to the ophthalmologist. We wished to assess the use, safety and effect of intravitreal triamcinolone injection at the time of cataract surgery in patients with diabetic foveal oedema and sight limiting lens opacities. METHOD: This was a longitudinal non-randomised prospective pilot study in 18 eyes (12 patients). All patients had visually significant lens opacities and either persistent diabetic foveal oedema unresponsive to laser treatment-group A, or foveal oedema with no adequate pre-operative view for laser treatment- group B. The cataract surgery was carried out under full aseptic technique using a self-sealing temporal incision and a foldable acrylic lens. Intravitreal triamcinolone was given infratemporally pars plana at the completion of the cataract surgery. The patients were reviewed at day 5, 2 weeks, 2 months and then every 3 months as required. The Wilcoxin matched-pairs test was used to assess the significance of the improvement in visual acuity at 2 months. RESULTS: Twelve patients with a total of 18 eyes were included in the study. There were 10 patients (15 eyes) in group A and 3 patients (3 eyes) in group B. Preoperatively 16 of the 18 eyes had a visual acuity of 6/24 or worse. Postoperatively 83% of patients had completely dry foveae at 2 weeks. Best-corrected visual acuities at two months review ranged from 6/6 to CF with 9 eyes (50%) achieving 6/12 or better (7 eyes (47%) in group A and 2 eyes (67%) in group B). Three eyes had no recorded improvement in visual acuity, but no eyes had deterioration in acuity. The improvement in visual acuity was significant at p = 0.001. There were no significant sight threatening complications. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal triamcinolone has been shown to lead to an improvement in macular oedema and visual improvement in diabetic patients not undergoing cataract surgery but has not, to our knowledge, been previously used in a study like this one. We suggest that intravitreal injection at the time of cataract surgery could be carried out safely with encouraging visual outcomes in patients with diabetic foveal oedema and cataract

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema : Subgroup analysis of the MEAD study

Background: Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) was approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) after demonstration of its efficacy and safety in the MEAD registration trials. We performed subgroup analysis of MEAD study results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX 0.7 treatment in patients with previously treated DME. Methods: Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled phase 3 study in patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 34.68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (20/200.20/50 Snellen equivalent), and central retinal thickness (CRT) 65300 \u3bcm measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of DEX (0.7 mg or 0.35 mg), or to sham procedure, with retreatment no more than every 6 months. The primary endpoint was 6515-letter gain in BCVA at study end. Average change in BCVA and CRT from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) and adverse events were also evaluated. The present subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients randomized to DEX 0.7 (marketed dose) or sham based on prior treatment for DME at study entry. Results: Baseline characteristics of previously treated DEX 0.7 (n = 247) and sham (n=261) patients were similar. In the previously treated subgroup, mean number of treatments over 3 years was 4.1 for DEX 0.7 and 3.2 for sham, 21.5 % of DEX 0.7 patients versus 11.1 % of sham had 6515-letter BCVA gain from baseline at study end (P = 0.002), mean average BCVA change from baseline was +3.2 letters with DEX 0.7 versus +1.5 letters with sham (P = 0.024), and mean average CRT change from baseline was -126.1 \u3bcm with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 \u3bcm with sham(P < 0.001). Cataract-related adverse events were reported in 70.3 % of baseline phakic patients in the previously treated DEX 0.7 subgroup; vision gains were restored following cataract surgery. Conclusions: DEX 0.7 significantly improved visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME previously treated with laser, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or a combination of these therapies. The safety profile of DEX 0.7 in previously treated patients was similar to its safety profile in the total study population

Effect of Intravitreous Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor vs Sham Treatment for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy: The Protocol W Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The role of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections for the management of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) has not been clearly established. Objective: To determine the efficacy of intravitreous aflibercept injections compared with sham treatment in preventing potentially vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR. Design, setting, and participants: Data for this study were collected between January 15, 2016, and May 28, 2020, from the ongoing DRCR Retina Network Protocol W randomized clinical trial, conducted at 64 US and Canadian sites among 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity level, 43-53), without CI-DME. Analyses followed the intent-to-treat principle. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg of aflibercept injections (n = 200) or sham (n = 199) given at baseline; 1, 2, and 4 months; and every 4 months through 2 years. Between 2 and 4 years, treatment was deferred if the eye had mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was administered in both groups if CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or 5-9 letters at 2 consecutive visits) or high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) developed. Main outcomes and measures: Development of CI-DME with vision loss or PDR through May 2020, when the last 2-year visit was completed. Results: Among the 328 participants (57.6% men [230 of 399 eyes]; mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years), the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss or PDR was 16.3% with aflibercept vs 43.5% with sham. The overall hazard ratio for either outcome was 0.32 (97.5% CI, 0.21-0.50; P < .001), favoring aflibercept. The 2-year cumulative probability of developing PDR was 13.5% in the aflibercept group vs 33.2% in the sham group, and the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss was 4.1% in the aflibercept group vs 14.8% in the sham group. The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 2 years was -0.9 (5.8) letters with aflibercept and -2.0 (6.1) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, 0.5 letters [97.5% CI, -1.0 to 1.9 letters]; P = .47). Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, among eyes with moderate to severe NPDR, the proportion of eyes that developed PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME was lower with periodic aflibercept compared with sham treatment. However, through 2 years, preventive treatment did not confer visual acuity benefit compared with observation plus treatment with aflibercept only after development of PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME. The 4-year results will be important to assess longer-term visual acuity outcomes