Timing of Switching to Steroid Implants in Cases of Recalcitrant Diabetic Macular Edema Not Responding to Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Therapy: A Real-World Study.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the timing of the steroid switch on both visual and anatomical outcomes in diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes that have shown an inadequate response to multiple intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections. In the treatment of DME, anti-VEGF injections are typically the initial course of action. However, in cases where DME persists despite anti-VEGF treatment, intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex®, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) are often utilized. Despite this, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the optimal timing for transitioning to steroid treatment. This study aims to shed light on the potential benefits of adjusting the timing of the steroid switch in cases of recalcitrant DME.  Methods The eyes (n = 105) of 77 patients with recalcitrant DME were included in this retrospective, interventional, comparative study comprising three groups: participants switched to steroid implants after three anti-VEGF injections (Group I), four to six anti-VEGF injections (Group II), and more than six anti-VEGF injections (Group III). Anti-VEGF treatment failure was defined as a central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 microns and/or a lack of visual improvement (≤1 line of visual gain according to Snellen acuity). The last follow-up took place after 10-12 weeks of Ozurdex® injections. Results Improvement was observed in 19 eyes (46%), 17 eyes (50%), and 10 eyes (33%) in Groups I, II, and III, respectively, after switching to dexamethasone implants. The best overall results (an improvement in vision and stabilization) were seen in Group II (32 eyes, 94%). The decrease in CRT was statistically significant in all three groups.  Conclusion Intravitreal dexamethasone implants improved functional and morphological outcomes in anti-VEGF-resistant DME eyes. After four to six anti-VEGF injections, switching to a steroid implant resulted in the best functional results.

Incidence of Endophthalmitis after Intravitreal Bevacizumab using Aliquots Prepared On-site in 2 Operating Rooms in Kuwait.

PURPOSE: To report the incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of bevacizumab and the outcomes of treatment of endophthalmitis at two centers in Kuwait. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The aliquots of bevacizumab were prepared under aseptic precautions and administered in the operating theater on the same day at both centers. All patients received antibiotic drops after injection of bevacizumab. Data were collected on the number of cases that received intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and those that developed endophthalmitis were identified at the two centers. All cases of endophthalmitis received an intravitreal antibiotic injection and additional treatments as warranted. Data were collected on the outcomes of endophthalmitis treatment. RESULTS: There were 5 cases of endophthalmitis among a total of 5429 injections (0.09%: Confidence interval: 0.084-0.1). The incidence was 3 cases among 4690 (0.06%) and 2 cases among 739 injections (0.027%) at each center, respectively (P = 0.08). Four cases of endophthalmitis were culture-positive and organisms isolated were, coagulase negative Staphylococcus in 2 cases, Staphylococcus lugdunensis and Streptococcus pneumoniae in 1 case each. The final visual acuity was better than pre-IVB in 3 cases, same as pre-IVB in 1 case and worse in 1 case with streptococcal infection. No eyes developed phthisis bulbi or required enucleation. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of bevacizumab using aliquots prepared in the operating room is comparable to other studies. There were no clusters of endophthalmitis cases.

Pars plana vitrectomy versus three intravitreal injections of bevacizumab for nontractional diabetic macular edema. A prospective, randomized comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and removal of the internal limiting membrane (ILM) with three, monthly, intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections for refractory diabetic macular edema. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, comparative, interventional study. Forty-four patients were enrolled and randomized in two groups. Twenty-two eyes enrolled in Group I received three IVB injections at monthly interval. Twenty-two eyes were enrolled in Group II which underwent PPV with ILM removal. The primary outcomes measured were: (1) Best corrected logMAR visual acuity (BCVA) using Snellen's visual acuity chart. (2) Central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography. The secondary outcome measures were: Complication rates like (1) progression of lens opacities, (2) high intraocular pressure needing further treatment/procedure, (3) development of vitreous hemorrhage related to the procedure employed, (4) retinal detachment and (5) severe inflammation/endophthalmitis. RESULTS: In Group I (IVB): 3 (13.6%) eyes showed no change in BCVA; 3 (13.6%) eyes reported decrease in BCVA and 16 (72.8%) eyes showed improvement in BCVA; (P = 0.0181). In Group II (PPV): 4 (18.2%) eyes showed no change in BCVA; 5 (22.7%) eyes showed decrease and 13 (59.1%) eyes showed improvement in BCVA (P = 0.0281). Mean decrease in CMT in IVB group was 108.45 µ, whereas mean decrease in CMT in PPV group was 161.36 µ. No major complications were seen in either group. CONCLUSION: Posttreatment decrease in CMT was more in PPV group and vision improvement more in IVB group. However, no statistically significant difference between the two methods was found.