Dataset Information

Differential response to intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naive and previously treated diabetic macular edema eyes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To identify different response patterns to intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI) in naïve and previously treated (PT) diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes in a real-life setting.

Methods

342 IDI injections (203 DME eyes) were included. Number of IDI injections, percentage (%) of eyes with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 injections, time to reinjections, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated for naïve and PT DME eyes over 24 months.

Results

Mean number of injections was significantly lower in naïve vs PT DME eyes (1.40 ± 0.9 vs 1.82 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The percentage of eyes receiving 1 injection was significantly higher in naïve vs PT DME eyes (76.1 vs 47.7), (p < 0.001). However, it was significantly lower for 2 (16.4 vs 29.4), or 3 injections (1.4 vs 17.6) (both p < 0.001), with no differences in eyes receiving ≥4 injections (5.9 vs 5.1 respectively, p = 0.80). Mean time to reinjection was not significantly different between both groups for the second, third and fourth injection (9.6 ± 4.0 vs 10.0 ± 5.5, p = 0.75, 13.2 ± 4.0 vs 16.0 ± 3.5, p = 0.21 and 21.7 ± 3.8 vs 19.7 ± 5.8, p = 0.55). VA scores were consistently better in naïve vs PT DME eyes at all studied timepoints, with no significant differences in CRT reduction or adverse effect rates.

Conclusion

Naïve DME eyes received lower number of IDI injections and showed better VA levels than PT DME eyes for 24 months in a real-world setting. This data supports the IDI use in early DME stages and provide further evidence of better IDI response when used as first-line therapy.

SUBMITTER: Zarranz-Ventura J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7659223 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differential response to intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated diabetic macular edema eyes.

Zarranz-Ventura Javier J Romero-Núñez Barbara B Bernal-Morales Carolina C Velazquez-Villoria Daniel D Sala-Puigdollers Anna A Figueras-Roca Marc M Copete Sergio S Distefano Laura L Boixadera Anna A García-Arumi Jose J Adan Alfredo A

BMC ophthalmology 20201111 1

<h4>Background</h4>To identify different response patterns to intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI) in naïve and previously treated (PT) diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes in a real-life setting.<h4>Methods</h4>342 IDI injections (203 DME eyes) were included. Number of IDI injections, percentage (%) of eyes with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 injections, time to reinjections, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated for naïve and PT DME eyes over 24 m ...[more]

PMID: 33176749

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone 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.MethodsThree-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) ≥ 300 μm 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 ≥ 15-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.ResultsBaseline 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 ≥ 15-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 μm with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 μm with sham (P < .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.ConclusionsDEX 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389, registered 12 September 2005.

Project description:PurposeThis retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a single institution.MethodsPseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve center-involved DME were enrolled, with one eye in each patient. They were divided into two groups: one group receiving IDI every 3 to 4 months and another group receiving IVR using 3 monthly plus treat-and-extend injections, all with monthly follow-up for 6 months. Switch of intravitreal drugs or deferred macular laser was not allowed. Primary outcome measures included change in central foveal thickness (CFT) in 1 mm by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at Month 6.ResultsTwenty-two eyes were included in the IDI group and 26 eyes in the IVR group. The baseline demographics, glycosylated hemoglobin level, intraocular pressure (IOP), BCVA, and CFT did not significantly differ (p > 0.05). Compared to baseline data, CFT decreased and BCVA improved significantly after either IDI or IVR at Month 6 (p < 0.05). Significantly better mean final BCVA (0.38 logMAR vs. 0.62 logMAR, p=0.04), more mean visual gain (-0.30 logMAR vs. -0.15 logMAR, p=0.02), lower mean final CFT (310.9 μm vs. 384.2 μm, p=0.04), and larger mean CFT decrease (-150.0 μm vs. -60.1 μm, p=0.03) were found in the IDI group compared to those in the IVR group. A smaller mean treatment number (2.6 vs. 5.6, p < 0.001) and higher rate of postinjection ocular hypertension requiring topical hypotensive agent therapy (27.3% vs. 0%, p=0.0002) were demonstrated in the IDI group than those in the IVR group.ConclusionWe concluded that IDI and IVR can both effectively treat vitrectomized eyes with DME. Dexamethasone implants had significantly better visual/anatomical improvement, smaller treatment number, and higher rate of elevated IOP after injection than IVR in pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with DME in a 6-month period.

Project description:Diabetic macular edema (DME) resembles a chronic, low-grade inflammatory reaction, and is characterized by blood-retinal barrier (BRB) breakdown and retinal capillary leakage. Corticosteroids are of therapeutic benefit because of their anti-inflammatory, antiangiogenic, and BRB-stabilizing properties. Delivery modes include periocular and intravitreal (via pars plana) injection. To offset the short intravitreal half-life of corticosteroid solutions (~3 hours) and the need for frequent intravitreal injections, sustained-release intravitreal corticosteroid implants have been developed. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant provides retinal drug delivery for ≤6 months and recently has been approved for use in the treatment of DME. Pooled findings (n=1,048) from two large-scale, randomized Phase III trials indicated that dexamethasone intravitreal implant (0.35 mg and 0.7 mg) administered at ≥6-month intervals produced sustained improvements in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and macular edema. Significantly more patients showed a ≥15-letter gain in BCVA at 3 years with dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.35 mg and 0.7 mg than with sham injection (18.4% and 22.2% vs 12.0%). Anatomical assessments showed rapid and sustained reductions in macular edema and slowing of retinopathy progression. Phase II study findings suggest that dexamethasone intravitreal implant is effective in focal, cystoid, and diffuse DME, in vitrectomized eyes, and in combination with laser therapy. Ocular complications of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in Phase III trials included cataract-related events (66.0% in phakic patients), intraocular pressure elevation ≥25 mmHg (29.7%), conjunctival hemorrhage (23.5%), vitreous hemorrhage (10.0%), macular fibrosis (8.3%), conjunctival hyperemia (7.2%), eye pain (6.1%), vitreous detachment (5.8%), and dry eye (5.8%); injection-related complications (eg, retinal tear/detachment, vitreous loss, endophthalmitis) were infrequent (<2%). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant offers a viable treatment option for DME, especially in cases that are persistent or treatment (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor/laser) refractory.

Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study was to explore and describe quantitatively patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), ie, health-related quality of life (QoL), visual function and treatment satisfaction, in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) receiving two different regimens of Ozurdex (intravitreal dexamethasone implant).MethodsIn this multicenter, prospective study, 100 patients with center-involving refractory DME were randomized 1:1 to either five monthly fixed dosing or optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided pro re nata (PRN) regimen of dexamethasone intravitreal implant therapy. The primary outcome was the difference between arms in change in PROMs and health-related QoL from baseline to 12 months, as measured by the Retinopathy-Dependent Quality of Life (RetDQoL) questionnaire, Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) and Retinopathy Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (RetTSQ).ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the RetDQoL score and VFQ-25 score at month 12 compared to those at baseline, whereas the total mean RetTSQ score increased significantly at the exit visit. The two treatment arms did not differ significantly regarding the change in PROMs and health-related QoL questionnaires. Logistic regression analysis showed that visual acuity (VA) of ≥55 letters, central foveal thickness <300 μm and macular volume <9.2 mm3 at the exit visit (month 12) predicted a higher change in RetTSQ.ConclusionThis study showed that there is a statistically significant improvement in treatment satisfaction, as measured by RetTSQ, in patients with DME treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant, independent of the dose regimen, namely, fixed or PRN. However, it should be noted that the clinically meaningful change could not be assessed accurately, since no thresholds for clinically meaningful change currently exist for the RetTSQ. On the other hand, there was no significant change in health-related QoL, as measured using VFQ-25 and RetDQoL. Factors affecting the patients' treatment satisfaction were the final VA, the central foveal thickness and the macular volume.

Project description:Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexa methasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) in diabetic patients.This was a prospective, non-randomized, interventional case series of 43 participants. Eighteen patients were enrolled in the DEX implant group and 25 were enrolled in an intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) group.The primary efficacy measurement was the percentage of patients who gained improvements of more than ten letters in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) during 6 months of follow-up. Other efficacy measurements included change in BCVA, change in central macular thickness (CMT), and number of retreatments. The primary safety evaluation was the percentage of patients with intraocular hypertension and variation in intraocular pressure (IOP) during 6 months of follow-up. Other adverse events, such as conjunctival hemorrhage, eye pain, secondary infection, endophthalmitis, noninfectious inflammation, retinal detachment, and implant migration, were also recorded during follow-up.At month 1, we observed that the percentage of patients gaining improvement of more than ten letters was similar in both groups (P = 0.625). As patients in the IVTA group were retreated several times, this effect persisted throughout the study (P = 0.941 at month 2, P = 0.553 at month 3, P = 0.856 at month 6). Variations in CMT were noticed at week 1 and reached their maximum at month 1. No significant difference was found between the two groups (P = 0.831 at week 1, P = 0.783 at month 1). At month 1, the variation in IOP reached its maximum in the DEX implant group and then decreased slightly. However, in the IVTA group, it increased continuously throughout the study. Conjunctival hemorrhage and eye pain were found in both groups, but both were rated as mild in severity, and no significant difference was found (P = 0.184, P = 0.766, respectively).Both IVTA and DEX implants could effectively restore visual function and recover morphological change in diabetic patients with PCME for at least 6 months, but repeated intravitreal injection was required in the IVTA group. DEX implant is well tolerated. We suggest that intravitreal injection of DEX implant is a promising new therapeutic option for diabetic patients with PCME.