Relationship between duration and extent of oedema and visual acuity outcome with ranibizumab in diabetic macular oedema: A post hoc analysis of Protocol I data

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This post hoc analysis explores the relationship between residual oedema exposure after ranibizumab treatment initiation and long-term visual acuity outcome in eyes with centre-involved diabetic macular oedema (DMO). SUBJECTS/METHODS: Eyes randomised to the ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser treatment arms in the Protocol I trial and with observed central retinal thickness (CRT) readings at baseline and ≥1 follow-up visits (n = 367) were stratified by 1) oedema duration (number of study visits with CRT ≥ 250 µm during the first 52 weeks of ranibizumab treatment); and 2) oedema extent (amount of excess CRT [≥ 250 µm] at each study visit, averaged over the first 52 weeks). Associations between measures of residual oedema and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were assessed in multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: Oedema duration and oedema extent during the first 52 weeks of ranibizumab treatment showed significant negative associations with BCVA improvement at weeks 52, 104 and 156. Eyes with the most persistent oedema gained (mean) 4.4 (95% CI 0.1─8.7) fewer Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters at week 156 than eyes with the least persistent oedema (P = 0.044). Eyes with the greatest amount of oedema gained (mean) 9.3 (95% CI 4.0─14.5) fewer ETDRS letters at week 156 than eyes with the least amount of oedema (P \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Macular oedema exposure over the first 52 weeks of ranibizumab treatment is a negative prognostic factor for long-term visual acuity improvement in centre-involved DMO

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant as Adjunctive Therapy to Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) as adjunctive therapy to ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD). Procedures: This was a 6-month, single-masked, multicenter study. Patients were randomized to DEX implant (n = 123) or sham procedure (n = 120) and received 2 protocol-mandated intravitreal ranibizumab injections. The main outcome measure was injection-free interval to first as-needed ranibizumab injection. Results: DEX increased the injection-free interval versus sham (50th percentile, 34 vs. 29 days; 75th percentile, 85 vs. 56 days; p = 0.016). 8.3% of DEX versus 2.5% of sham-treated patients did not require rescue ranibizumab (p = 0.048). Visual acuity and retinal thickness outcomes were similar in DEX and sham-treated patients. Only reports of conjunctival hemorrhage (18.2 vs. 8.5%) and intraocular pressure elevation (13.2 vs. 4.2%) were significantly different in the DEX versus the sham treatment groups. Conclusion: DEX reduced the need for adjunctive ranibizumab treatment and showed acceptable tolerability in nvAMD patients

Three-Year, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, DEX implant) 0.7 and 0.35 mg in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).Design: Two randomized, multicenter, masked, sham-controlled, phase III clinical trials with identical protocols were conducted. Data were pooled for analysis.Participants: Patients (n = 1048) with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/50 to 20/200 Snellen equivalent, and central retinal thickness (CRT) of >= 300 mu m by optical coherence tomography.Methods: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, or sham procedure and followed for 3 years (or 39 months for patients treated at month 36) at = 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end. Safety measures included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP).Results: Mean number of treatments received over 3 years was 4.1, 4.4, and 3.3 with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham, respectively. the percentage of patients with >= 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (22.2%) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (18.4%) than sham (12.0%; P <= 0.018). Mean average reduction in CRT from baseline was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (-111.6 mu m) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (-107.9 mu m) than sham (-41.9 mu m; P < 0.001). Rates of cataract-related adverse events in phakic eyes were 67.9%, 64.1%, and 20.4% in the DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham groups, respectively. Increases in IOP were usually controlled with medication or no therapy; only 2 patients (0.6%) in the DEX implant 0.7 mg group and 1 (0.3%) in the DEX implant 0.35 mg group required trabeculectomy.Conclusions: the DEX implant 0.7 mg and 0.35 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint for improvement in BCVA. the safety profile was acceptable and consistent with previous reports. (C) 2014 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.Allergan, Inc.Retina Vitreous Associates Med Grp, Los Angeles, CA 90017 USAUniv Ulsan, Asan Med Ctr, Seoul, South KoreaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Vis Inst, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Vita Salute, Hosp San Raffaele, Milan, ItalyMidwest Eye Inst, Indianapolis, in USAStaedt Klinikum Karlsruhe, Dept Ophthalmol, Karlsruhe, GermanyAllergan Pharmaceut Inc, Irvine, CA USAUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Vis Inst, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

A Randomized, Masked, Crossover Trial of Acetazolamide for Cystoid Macular Edema in Patients with Uveitis

Purpose: To study the effect of acetazolamide on cystoid macular edema in patients with uveitis. Methods: Forty patients with chronic intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis associated cystoid macular edema were randomized into a masked, cross-over trial comparing acetazolamide versus placebo. Patients received an initial 4-week course of either acetazolamide or placebo (course A) followed by a 4-week washout period. They then received a 4-week course of the opposite study medication (course B). Primary endpoints included area of cystoid macular edema measured on late-phase views of fluorescein angiography and visual acuity. Results: Thirty-seven patients completed the trial and were available for analysis; 17 (46%) were randomized to receive acetazolamide and 20 (54%) to receive placebo during course A. Acetazolamide resulted in a 0.5-disc area (25%) decrease in cystoid macular edema over that of placebo (P = 0.01; estimated treatment effect = -0.5 disc areas; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to -0.1 ). However, there was no statistically significant effect of acetazolamide on visual acuity (P = 0.61; estimated treatment effect = 0.6 letters; 95% confidence interval, -2 to 3). Conclusions: A 4-week course of acetazolamide therapy results in a statistically significant but small decrease in cystoid macular edema in patients with chronic uveitis, and does not improve visual acuity. In contrast to previous studies in the literature, acetazolamide may have a more limited clinical benefit in patients with long-standing cystoid macular edema associated with chronic uveitis