Intravitreal Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: An Update

Diabetic macular edema (DME) represents a prevalent and disabling eye condition. Despite that DME represents a sight-Threatening condition, it is also among the most accessible to treatment. Many different treatment options including photocoagulation, intravitreal medical treatment (either vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors or corticosteroids therapies), and surgical removal are currently available. Although laser has been considered as the gold standard for many years, over the past several years vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) have become first-line therapy. However, many patients do not adequately respond to them. With the development of sustained-release corticosteroid devices, steroids have gained a presence in the management of the DME. We review and update the role of anti-VEGF and intravitreal sustained-release corticosteroid management of DME. According to the currently available scientific evidence, the choice of one anti-VEGF over another critically depends on the baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). While aflibercept may be the drug of choice in low baseline BCVA, the three anti-VEGFs (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept) provided similar functional outcomes when the baseline BCVA was higher. DEX implants are a valuable option for treating DME, although they are usually seen as a second choice, particularly in those eyes that have an insufficient response to anti-VEGF. The new evidence suggested that, in eyes that did not adequately respond to anti-VEGF, switching to a DEX implant at the time to 3 monthly anti-VEGF injections provided better functional outcomes

INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT FOR REFRACTORY MACULAR EDEMA SECONDARY TO VITRECTOMY FOR MACULAR PUCKER.

Purpose: To study the efficacy of a single 0.7 mg dexamethasone intravitreal implant in vitrectomized eyes with refractory macular edema secondary to combined cataract extraction and macular pucker removal. Methods: In 8 eyes of 8 consecutive patients with refractory macular edema secondary to combined cataract extraction and 25-gauge vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling for macular pucker removal, the injection of the 0.7 mg dexamethasone implant was performed. Best-corrected visual acuity, central retinal thickness measured by spectral domain optical coherence tomography, and intraocular pressure were evaluated at baseline, 1 month, and 6 months. Results: After a mean follow-up of 6.75 +/- 0.71 months, best-corrected visual acuity was significantly increased (P < 0.0001) from 20/50 to 20/23 (P < 0.0001), mean central retinal thickness decreased significantly from 439 +/- 45 [mu]m to 296 +/- 49 [mu]m (P < 0.0001), and intraocular pressure changed significantly (P = 0.02) from 14.63 +/- 1.19 to 16 +/- 0.93. In no case postoperative hypotony or other complication was observed. Conclusion: A single injection of the 0.7 mg dexamethasone intravitreal implant resulted effective in the treatment of refractory macular edema secondary to combined cataract extraction and vitrectomy for macular pucker removal allowing a stable visual acuity recovery

Efficacy of Intravitreal dexamethasone implant in different patterns of diabetic macular edema

Purpose: Different patterns of diabetic macular edema (DME) suggest different pathogenesis and drug response. We evaluated the outcomes after intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for DME with or without serous retinal detachment (SRD). Methods: In this retrospective study, 22 naïve patients (23 eyes) with DME who underwent a single DEX implant were evaluated. Based on the optical coherence tomographic pattern of DME, 12 eyes had a cystoid macular edema pattern (Group 1) and 11 eyes had an SRD pattern (Group 2). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (R), central retinal volume (CRV), SRD height (SRDh), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded before and at two and four months after the treatment. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups regarding demographic, clinical data and outcomes at baseline. In Group 1, the CRT and CRV significantly decreased at two months (P = 0.002 and P = 0.01, respectively), while the BCVA significantly improved at four months (P = 0.03). In Group 2, the CRT and CRV significantly improved (P < 0.01 and P ≤ 0.01, respectively) during the follow-up period. At four months, both groups showed a recurrence of DME, Group 1 in particular (two-month CRT reduction, -149 ± 127 μm vs four-month CRT reduction, -72 ± 174 μm; P = 0.04). The mean reduction in CRV was significantly different at four months (Group 1, -0.49 ± 1.7 mm3vs Group 2, -1.3 ± 1.3 mm3; P = 0.04). In Group 2, the SRDh significantly decreased at two (P = 0.01) and four months (P = 0.01). Four cases with elevated IOP were managed. Conclusion: DEX implants were found to be effective in different patterns of DME. The SRD pattern may predict a longer-lasting morphologic efficacy

Visual functional changes after ocriplasmin injection for vitreomacular traction: A microperimetric analysis

PURPOSE: The purpose is to evaluate functional changes after ocriplasmin injection to treat vitreomacular traction (VMT) by microperimetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective interventional study on patients underwent an intravitreal ocriplasmin injection. Optical coherence tomography, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) test, and microperimetry were performed at baseline, 1 week, 1 and 3 months. Microperimeter recorded retinal sensitivity (RS) and central retinal sensitivity (CRS) at central 12° and 4°, respectively, and fixation as bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA) at 68%, 95%, and 99% of fixation points. Functional parameters were analyzed in patients who had (Group A) or not (Group B) VMT release. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients including 18 with VMT and 3 with VMT plus macular hole (MH) were treated. Eleven patients achieved VMT resolution including all cases with MH that achieved hole closure. An impairment of BCVA, RS and CRS (P < 0.01; P < 0.001; P = 0.001, respectively) was reported at 1 week followed by a significant improvement (BCVA, P = 0.001; RS, CRS, P = 0.02) at 3 months. The early impairment of visual acuity and sensitivity significantly occurred in Group B (P ≤ 0.01) while their recovery significantly occurred in Group A (P < 0.01). BCEA significantly increased in dimension (68%, P = 0.01; 95%, P = 0.03) at 1 week, subsequently returning to near baseline values over follow-up. Only in Group A, fixation stability significantly improved at 3 months. CONCLUSION: Microperimetry confirms an early and reversible functional impairment after ocriplasmin injection regardless VMT resolution. If a greater decrease in function could occur in the eyes without VMT resolution, a better functional recovery could occur in the event of VMT resolution

Efficacy of Three Different Prophylactic Treatments for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Vitrectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after vitreoretinal surgery may potentially be associated with severe complications, such as suprachoroidal hemorrhage. The purpose of the present multicenter clinical trial (NCT02386059) was to assess the efficacy of three different prophylactic treatments for PONV after vitrectomy under local anesthesia. Patients undergoing primary vitrectomy were randomized to the control arm or to one of the treatment arms (4 mg ondansetron, 4 mg dexamethasone, combination of the two drugs). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of complete response (no nausea, no vomiting, no retching, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication) during 24 h after vitrectomy. Secondary outcomes included the severity standardized score of PONV, postoperative pain standardized score, and rate of ocular and non-ocular adverse events. Baseline demographics of the 1287 patients were comparable between the four arms. The combined therapy group showed a statistically significant lower incidence of PONV compared to the placebo and monotherapy (p < 0.001). PONV severity was also reduced in the combination group compared to the others (p < 0.001). Postoperative pain scores and adverse events were comparable among the four groups. Combined therapy with dexamethasone and ondansetron was the most effective treatment for reducing the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing vitrectomy under local anesthesia

Comparison of perioperative parameters in one-handed rotational phacoemulsification versus conventional phacoemulsification and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

AIM: To compare perioperative parameters of one-handed rotational phacoemulsification technique (one-handed phaco-roll) with each of other two techniques, “Divide et Conquer” and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) METHODS: In this retrospective and comparative cohort study, eyes with uncomplicated cataract (nuclear density grade 2 to 3) treated routinely with one-handed phaco-roll (n=23; Group 1) or “Divide et Conquer” (n=23; Group 2) or FLACS (n=23; Group 3) were enrolled. Intraoperative parameters including effective phaco-time (EPt), ultrasound time (USt), aspiration time, surgical time, phacoemulsification (phaco)-power, balanced salt solution (BSS) use, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) were recorded and compared. Clinical outcomes including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), corneal endothelial cell density (ECD), endothelial cell loss (ECL), central corneal thickness (CCT) and central macular thickness (CMT), were assessed and compared pre-operatively and at 1mo after surgery. RESULTS: Aspiration and surgical time, and BSS used were lower in Group 1 (P<0.01) than other groups. EPt, phaco-power and CDE were lower in Group 1 (P<0.05) than Group 2 but not significantly different from Group 3. In Group 1, USt was lower (P<0.05) than Group 2 but higher (P<0.05) than Group 3. BCVA improved in all groups without significant difference between Group 1 and the other ones. No significant differences regarding all post-operative morphologic outcomes (ECD, ECL, CCT, CMT) were reported. No clinical complications occurred. CONCLUSION: One-handed phaco-roll seems to be less time-consuming than “Divide et Conquer” and FLACS and less energy-consuming than “Divide et Conquer”. Furthermore, one-handed phaco-roll seems to have an equal safety profile compared to the other two techniques

Fluocinolone acetonide vitreous insert for chronic diabetic macular oedema: a systematic review with meta-analysis of real-world experience

We conducted a meta-analysis of real-world studies on the 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant for chronic diabetic macular oedema (DMO), comparing these findings with the Fluocinolone Acetonide for Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) study. The primary outcome was mean change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were 36-month mean BCVA, mean central macular thickness (CMT) change, rates of eyes receiving supplementary intravitreal therapy, cataract surgery, intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering drops and glaucoma surgery. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Nine real-world studies were included. The FAc implant yielded a significantly improved BCVA at 24 and 36 months (24-month MD = 4.52; 95% CI 2.56–6.48; 36-month MD = 8.10; 95% CI 6.34–9.86). These findings were comparable with the FAME study. The FAc implant yielded significantly reduced 24- and 36-month CMT. Pooled proportions of cataract surgery, IOP-lowering drops and glaucoma surgery were 39%, 27% and 3%, respectively, all lower than the FAME study. Pooled estimate of supplementary intravitreal therapy was 39%, higher than the 15.2% of the FAME study. This meta-analysis of real-world studies confirms favorable visual and anatomical outcomes following FAc insert for chronic DMO. In real-life studies more than one third of patients received supplementary intravitreal therapy, an issue that needs to be further explored