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

Autoimmune and autoinflammatory mechanisms in uveitis

The eye, as currently viewed, is neither immunologically ignorant nor sequestered from the systemic environment. The eye utilises distinct immunoregulatory mechanisms to preserve tissue and cellular function in the face of immune-mediated insult; clinically, inflammation following such an insult is termed uveitis. The intra-ocular inflammation in uveitis may be clinically obvious as a result of infection (e.g. toxoplasma, herpes), but in the main infection, if any, remains covert. We now recognise that healthy tissues including the retina have regulatory mechanisms imparted by control of myeloid cells through receptors (e.g. CD200R) and soluble inhibitory factors (e.g. alpha-MSH), regulation of the blood retinal barrier, and active immune surveillance. Once homoeostasis has been disrupted and inflammation ensues, the mechanisms to regulate inflammation, including T cell apoptosis, generation of Treg cells, and myeloid cell suppression in situ, are less successful. Why inflammation becomes persistent remains unknown, but extrapolating from animal models, possibilities include differential trafficking of T cells from the retina, residency of CD8(+) T cells, and alterations of myeloid cell phenotype and function. Translating lessons learned from animal models to humans has been helped by system biology approaches and informatics, which suggest that diseased animals and people share similar changes in T cell phenotypes and monocyte function to date. Together the data infer a possible cryptic infectious drive in uveitis that unlocks and drives persistent autoimmune responses, or promotes further innate immune responses. Thus there may be many mechanisms in common with those observed in autoinflammatory disorders

Myeloid cells expressing VEGF and arginase-1 following uptake of damaged retinal pigment epithelium suggests potential mechanism that drives the onset of choroidal angiogenesis in mice

Whilst data recognise both myeloid cell accumulation during choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) as well as complement activation, none of the data has presented a clear explanation for the angiogenic drive that promotes pathological angiogenesis. One possibility that is a pre-eminent drive is a specific and early conditioning and activation of the myeloid cell infiltrate. Using a laser-induced CNV murine model, we have identified that disruption of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and Bruch's membrane resulted in an early recruitment of macrophages derived from monocytes and microglia, prior to angiogenesis and contemporaneous with lesional complement activation. Early recruited CD11b(+) cells expressed a definitive gene signature of selective inflammatory mediators particularly a pronounced Arg-1 expression. Accumulating macrophages from retina and peripheral blood were activated at the site of injury, displaying enhanced VEGF expression, and notably prior to exaggerated VEGF expression from RPE, or earliest stages of angiogenesis. All of these initial events, including distinct VEGF (+) Arg-1(+) myeloid cells, subsided when CNV was established and at the time RPE-VEGF expression was maximal. Depletion of inflammatory CCR2-positive monocytes confirmed origin of infiltrating monocyte Arg-1 expression, as following depletion Arg-1 signal was lost and CNV suppressed. Furthermore, our in vitro data supported a myeloid cell uptake of damaged RPE or its derivatives as a mechanism generating VEGF (+) Arg-1(+) phenotype in vivo. Our results reveal a potential early driver initiating angiogenesis via myeloid-derived VEGF drive following uptake of damaged RPE and deliver an explanation of why CNV develops during any of the stages of macular degeneration and can be explored further for therapeutic gain

Diagnostic techniques for inflammatory eye disease: past, present and future: a review

Investigations used to aid diagnosis and prognosticate outcomes in ocular inflammatory disorders are based on techniques that have evolved over the last two centuries have dramatically evolved with the advances in molecular biological and imaging technology. Our improved understanding of basic biological processes of infective drives of innate immunity bridging the engagement of adaptive immunity have formed techniques to tailor and develop assays, and deliver targeted treatment options. Diagnostic techniques are paramount to distinguish infective from non-infective intraocular inflammatory disease, particularly in atypical cases. The advances have enabled our ability to multiplex assay small amount of specimen quantities of intraocular samples including aqueous, vitreous or small tissue samples. Nevertheless to achieve diagnosis, techniques often require a range of assays from traditional hypersensitivity reactions and microbe specific immunoglobulin analysis to modern molecular techniques and cytokine analysis. Such approaches capitalise on the advantages of each technique, thereby improving the sensitivity and specificity of diagnoses. This review article highlights the development of laboratory diagnostic techniques for intraocular inflammatory disorders now readily available to assist in accurate identification of infective agents and appropriation of appropriate therapies as well as formulating patient stratification alongside clinical diagnoses into disease groups for clinical trials

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