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 dexametha-sone 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

The role of retinal fluid location in atrophy and fibrosis evolution of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration long-term treated in real world

Purpose: To assess the effect of clinical factors on the development and progression of atrophy and fibrosis in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) receiving long-term treatment in the real world. Methods: An ambispective 36-month multicentre study, involving 359 nAMD patients from 17 Spanish hospitals treated according to the Spanish Vitreoretinal Society guidelines, was designed. The influence of demographic and clinical factors, including the presence and location of retinal fluid, on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and progression to atrophy and/or fibrosis were analysed. Results: After 36 months of follow-up and an average of 13.8 anti-VEGF intravitreal injections, the average BCVA gain was +1.5 letters, and atrophy and/or fibrosis were present in 54.8% of nAMD patients (OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 5.85-12.47, compared to baseline). Atrophy was associated with basal intraretinal fluid (IRF) (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.09-3.20), whereas basal subretinal fluid (SRF) was associated with a lower rate of atrophy (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.23-0.71) and its progression (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.26-0.75), leading to a slow progression rate (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.14-0.83). Fibrosis development and progression were related to IRF at any visit (p < 0.001). In contrast, 36-month SRF was related to a lower rate of fibrosis (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.29-0.81) and its progression (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.31-0.81). Conclusion: Atrophy and/or fibrosis were present in 1 of 2 nAMD patients treated for 3 years. Both, especially fibrosis, lead to vision loss. Subretinal fluid (SRF) was associated with good visual outcomes and lower rates of atrophy and fibrosis, whereas IRF yields worse visual results and a higher risk of atrophy and especially fibrosis in routine clinical practice

The role of retinal fluid location in atrophy and fibrosis evolution of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration long-term treated in real world

Purpose: To assess the effect of clinical factors on the development and progression of atrophy and fibrosis in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) receiving long-term treatment in the real world. Methods: An ambispective 36-month multicentre study, involving 359 nAMD patients from 17 Spanish hospitals treated according to the Spanish Vitreoretinal Society guidelines, was designed. The influence of demographic and clinical factors, including the presence and location of retinal fluid, on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and progression to atrophy and/or fibrosis were analysed. Results: After 36 months of follow-up and an average of 13.8 anti-VEGF intravitreal injections, the average BCVA gain was +1.5 letters, and atrophy and/or fibrosis were present in 54.8% of nAMD patients (OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 5.85-12.47, compared to baseline). Atrophy was associated with basal intraretinal fluid (IRF) (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.09-3.20), whereas basal subretinal fluid (SRF) was associated with a lower rate of atrophy (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.23-0.71) and its progression (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.26-0.75), leading to a slow progression rate (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.14-0.83). Fibrosis development and progression were related to IRF at any visit (p < 0.001). In contrast, 36-month SRF was related to a lower rate of fibrosis (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.29-0.81) and its progression (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.31-0.81). Conclusion: Atrophy and/or fibrosis were present in 1 of 2 nAMD patients treated for 3 years. Both, especially fibrosis, lead to vision loss. Subretinal fluid (SRF) was associated with good visual outcomes and lower rates of atrophy and fibrosis, whereas IRF yields worse visual results and a higher risk of atrophy and especially fibrosis in routine clinical practice