Real-world assessment of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) in patients with macular edema: The CHROME study

© 2015 Lam et al.Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world use, efficacy, and safety of one or more dexamethasone intravitreal implant(s) 0.7 mg (DEX implant) in patients with macular edema (ME). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with ME secondary to retinal disease treated at ten Canadian retina practices, including one uveitis center. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), intraocular pressure (IOP), glaucoma and cataract surgery, and safety data were collected from the medical charts of patients with ≥3 months of follow-up after the initial DEX implant.Results: One hundred and one patient charts yielded data on 120 study eyes, including diagnoses of diabetic ME (DME) (n=34), retinal vein occlusion (RVO, n=30; branch in 19 and central in 11), and uveitis (n=23). Patients had a mean age of 60.9 years, and 73.3% of the study eyes had ME for a duration of ≥12 months prior to DEX implant injection(s). Baseline mean (± standard error) BCVA was 0.63±0.03 logMAR (20/86 Snellen equivalents) and mean CRT was 474.4±18.2 μm. The mean number of DEX implant injections was 1.7±0.1 in all study eyes; 44.2% of eyes had repeat DEX implant injections (reinjection interval 2.3–4.9 months). The greatest mean peak changes in BCVA lines of vision occurred in study eyes with uveitis (3.3±0.6, P0.05). Significant decreases in CRT were observed: -255.6±43.6 µm for uveitis, -190.9±23.5 µm for DME, and -160.7±39.6 µm for RVO (P<0.0001 for all cohorts). IOP increases of ≥10 mmHg occurred in 20.6%, 24.1%, and 22.7% of DME, RVO, and uveitis study eyes, respectively. IOP-lowering medication was initiated in 29.4%, 16.7%, and 8.7% of DME, RVO, and uveitis study eyes, respectively. Glaucoma surgery was performed in 1.7% of all study eyes and cataract surgery in 29.8% of all phakic study eyes receiving DEX implant(s). onclusion: DEX implant(s) alone or combined with other treatments and/or procedures resulted in functional and anatomic improvements in long-standing ME associated with retinal disease.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Guidance on noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory therapy in noninfectious uveitis: fundamentals of care for uveitis (focus) initiative

Topic: An international, expert-led consensus initiative to develop systematic, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis in the era of biologics. Clinical Relevance: The availability of biologic agents for the treatment of human eye disease has altered practice patterns for the management of noninfectious uveitis. Current guidelines are insufficient to assure optimal use of noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory agents. Methods: An international expert steering committee comprising 9 uveitis specialists (including both ophthalmologists and rheumatologists) identified clinical questions and, together with 6 bibliographic fellows trained in uveitis, conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol systematic reviewof the literature (English language studies from January 1996 through June 2016; Medline [OVID], the Central Cochrane library, EMBASE,CINAHL,SCOPUS,BIOSIS, andWeb of Science). Publications included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies with sufficient follow-up, case series with 15 cases or more, peer-reviewed articles, and hand-searched conference abstracts from key conferences. The proposed statements were circulated among 130 international uveitis experts for review.Atotal of 44 globally representativegroupmembersmet in late 2016 to refine these guidelines using a modified Delphi technique and assigned Oxford levels of evidence. Results: In total, 10 questions were addressed resulting in 21 evidence-based guidance statements covering the following topics: when to start noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory therapy, including both biologic and nonbiologic agents; what data to collect before treatment; when to modify or withdraw treatment; how to select agents based on individual efficacy and safety profiles; and evidence in specific uveitic conditions. Shared decision-making, communication among providers and safety monitoring also were addressed as part of the recommendations. Pharmacoeconomic considerations were not addressed. Conclusions: Consensus guidelines were developed based on published literature, expert opinion, and practical experience to bridge the gap between clinical needs and medical evidence to support the treatment of patients with noninfectious uveitis with noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory agents