Ocular side effects associated with peribulbar injections of triamcinolone acetonide for diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term effects of anterior and posterior peribulbar injections of triamcinolone acetonide on intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation and cataract development. METHODS: This study reports on IOP and cataract progression through 2 years in 96 eyes with diabetic macular edema randomized to focal/grid photocoagulation, 20 mg triamcinolone acetonide anterior injection, anterior injection followed by laser, 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide posterior injection, or posterior injection followed by laser. RESULTS: Intraocular pressure increased from baseline by ≥ 10 mmHg at ≥ 1 visit through 2 years in 2 eyes (8%) in the laser group, 11 eyes (31%) in the anterior groups, and 6 eyes (17%) in the posterior groups. Among phakic eyes at baseline, 0, 5 (17%), and 1 (3%) in the 3 groups, respectively, underwent cataract surgery before the 2-year visit. CONCLUSION: Based on this small randomized trial, it appears that over 2 years, anterior peribulbar triamcinolone acetonide injections are associated with an increased incidence of IOP elevation and an increased risk of cataract development compared with laser or posterior peribulbar injections. The association of posterior injections with IOP elevation is less certain. Although the study involved eyes with diabetic macular edema, the results should be relevant to other conditions treated with peribulbar corticosteroids.

Patient-Reported Visual Function Outcomes After Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Macular Edema Due to Central Retinal or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion: Preplanned Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is the standard-of-care first-line treatment for macular edema associated with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO), and information is needed to assess the effect of anti-VEGF therapy on patient-reported visual function. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of intravitreal aflibercept or bevacizumab on patient-reported visual function in patients with macular edema secondary to CRVO or HRVO. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This preplanned secondary analysis of the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2, a randomized clinical trial, included 346 participants from 66 private practice or academic centers in the United States. Participants had CRVO- or HRVO-associated macular edema and month 6 outcome information. Data were collected from September 17, 2014, through November 18, 2015, and analyzed from February 7, 2018, through February 26, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Eyes were randomly assigned to receive an intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or aflibercept (2.0 mg) at baseline and every 4 weeks through month 5. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Difference between treatment arms at month 6 in the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) composite and subscale scores. RESULTS: Among the 346 participants (56.1% men; mean [SD] age, 69 [12] years), significant improvements occurred from baseline to month 6 in the NEI VFQ-25 composite score in the aflibercept (mean [SE] change, 7.5 [0.9]; P < .001) and bevacizumab (mean [SE], 6.1 [0.9]; P < .001) arms and in 10 of 12 subscale scores after multiplicity adjustment. No differences were observed at month 6 in NEI VFQ-25 composite or subscale scores between participants randomized to aflibercept or bevacizumab treatment. Weak positive correlations were seen between the change in the study eyes' visual acuity and the changes in the NEI VFQ-25 composite score (r = 0.22; P < .001) and the Distance Activities (r = 0.24; P < .001) and Driving (r = 0.19; P = .03) subscale scores. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Significant improvement occurred from baseline to month 6 in patient-reported visual function as assessed by the NEI VFQ-25. The lack of difference in NEI VFQ-25 scores between study participants treated with monthly intravitreal aflibercept and bevacizumab for macular edema due to CRVO or HRVO at month 6 is consistent with the primary outcome finding that showed bevacizumab was noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity improvement from baseline to month 6. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01969708.

Treatment of Geographic Atrophy with Intravitreal Sirolimus: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Ancillary Study.

OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of monthly intravitreal injections of sirolimus, an immunosuppressive drug, for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration associated geographic atrophy (GA). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, single-masked multi-center phase 2 clinical trial of intravitreal sirolimus vs. sham therapy in AREDS2 clinical centers. SUBJECTS: Participants with GA. METHODS: Participants eligible in one eye were randomly assigned to a monthly intravitreal injection of sirolimus (20 µL [440 µg]) or sham treatment while participants with two study eyes were assigned to a monthly intravitreal injection in a randomly-selected eye. Best-corrected visual acuities (BVCA), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), fundus color photography and fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images were obtained at baseline and every 6 months until visit month 24. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of progression of GA (mm2/year) measured on color fundus photograph from baseline to 24 months. Secondary outcome measures include change in BVCA, worsening of vision by ≥3 lines, and changes in area of GA measured on FAF and OCT. RESULTS: 52 participants (mean age 79 years) were enrolled with 27 study eyes assigned to sirolimus from May 2012 to March 2014. The baseline median area of GA was 4.73 DA (12.01 mm2). The mean (standard deviation) growth rates of GA detected on color fundus photographs were 2.27 (2.17) mm2 and 1.91 (2.27) mm2 at month 12, and 4.94 (2.96) mm2 and 5.72 (3.97) mm2 at month 24, for the sirolimus and sham groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the GA growth rates between the two treatment groups (P=0.33). Median visual acuity changes and incidence of 15-letter loss from baseline were not different between the 2 treatment groups (p=0.19). The intervention was stopped early because of sterile endophthalmitis that occurred in 3 participants in the sirolimus group. Participants were followed for safety until the study was closed in May 2015 due to lack of efficacy. CONCLUSION: Sirolimus did not result in different rates of GA growth in this phase 2 study. Immunosuppression may be important for some stages of the AMD process but may not necessarily be the main pathway for the development of GA.

Docosahexaenoic Acid Slows Visual Field Progression in X-Linked Retinitis Pigmentosa: Ancillary Outcomes of the DHAX Trial.

PURPOSE: Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) was supplemented in a single-site, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial designed to slow vision loss associated with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP); the DHAX Trial. We previously reported no significant differences between supplemented and placebo groups in intent-to-treat analysis of primary ERG outcomes. Assessed herein are hypothesis-generating measures of ancillary visual function outcomes in participants fully adhering to trial protocol. METHODS: Male participants with XLRP (range, 7-31 years) received 30 mg DHA/kg/d (n = 29) or placebo (n = 22) for 4 years. Visual outcomes were measured annually and red blood cell (RBC) DHA determined every 6 months. RESULTS: Oral DHA supplementation increased mean RBC-DHA levels by 4-fold (P < 0.0001) over placebo. No group differences in progression were found for visual acuity (P = 0.11), shape discrimination (P = 0.18), or fundus appearance (P = 0.70). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) became available during year 2 of the trial; no group differences were seen in ellipsoid zone constriction (P = 0.87) over 2 years. Yearly rates of progression were reduced for dark-adapted thresholds (P = 0.06) and visual field sensitivity for foveal, macular, peripheral, total, and ellipsoid zone regions by DHA supplementation (P = 0.039, P = 0.031, P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.033). Rates of visual field sensitivity decline were dependent on RBC-DHA (P = 0.046 to <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation of DHA significantly elevated blood DHA levels and reduced the rate of progression in final dark-adapted thresholds and visual field sensitivity. From the relationship between RBC-DHA and the rate of field sensitivity loss, we can extrapolate that an RBC-DHA level of 17% could minimize the decline in field sensitivity. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00100230.)

Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in patients with age-related macular degeneration: additional information regarding baseline lesion composition's impact on vision outcomes-TAP report No. 3.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how baseline lesion composition influenced vision outcomes in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) undergoing photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne) for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy Investigation. METHODS: Patients with subfoveal lesions secondary to AMD with evidence of classic CNV were categorized into 2 subgroups based on baseline color photographs and fluorescein angiograms assessed by graders at the Wilmer Photograph Reading Center (The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) before any outcome analyses as follows: (1) predominantly classic CNV (area of classic CNV >/=50% of the area of the entire lesion) or (2) minimally classic CNV (area of classic CNV <50% but >0% of the area of the entire lesion). Additional exploratory analyses were performed in the predominantly classic subgroup to investigate the effects of visual acuity, lesion size, prior laser photocoagulation, phakic status, micronutrient use, and presence of occult CNV on vision outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subgroup analyses of vision and fluorescein angiographic outcomes at 1 and 2 years after study enrollment were examined in an intent-to-treat analysis from 2 multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: Compared with patients who had minimally classic CNV, patients with predominantly classic CNV had a worse initial mean visual acuity and smaller lesions and were more likely to have lesions that included blood or blocked fluorescence. When evaluated by treatment assignment and lesion composition, 84% to 88% completed the month 24 examination. In the subgroup with predominantly classic lesions, visual acuity outcomes were consistently better in verteporfin-treated patients. Outcomes for patients with predominantly classic lesions without occult CNV tended to be better than outcomes for patients with predominantly classic lesions with occult CNV, although the former tended to have smaller lesions and lower levels of visual acuity at baseline. Contrast sensitivity and fluorescein angiographic outcomes (total lesion size, progression of classic CNV, and absence of classic CNV) were better in verteporfin-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients in the predominantly classic and the minimally classic CNV subgroups. In patients with predominantly classic CNV, no interaction of the treatment benefit by phakic status, micronutrient use, or prior laser photocoagulation therapy was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Verteporfin therapy can safely reduce the risk of moderate and severe vision loss in patients with subfoveal lesions that are predominantly classic CNV secondary to AMD. While this benefit seemed to be even greater in the absence of occult CNV, the effect may be related to the smaller lesions and worse visual acuity associated with predominantly classic lesions without occult CNV and not solely to the lesion composition itself. These analyses support initial reports that verteporfin therapy should be used to treat patients with AMD who have predominantly classic CNV, with or without occult CNV, but suggest that further investigations should be performed to determine if lesions with a minimally classic composition might benefit when they are smaller and have lower levels of visual acuity.

A double-blind placebo-controlled evaluation of the acute effects of sildenafil citrate (Viagra) on visual function in subjects with early-stage age-related macular degeneration.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of a single 100-mg dose of sildenafil citrate on visual function in men with early-stage age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN: Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Nine men (mean age 71 years, range 59-85 years) with early-stage (minimal visual impairment and large drusen in the macula) age-related macular degeneration and 20/40 or better-corrected visual acuity in at least one eye were prospectively randomized to receive either placebo or sildenafil citrate (Viagra; Pfizer Inc, New York, New York) 100 mg as a single oral dose. After 7-14 days, they received the alternate treatment. Subjects underwent visual acuity, Amsler grid, color discrimination (D15), traffic light, Humphrey perimetry, and photo-stress testing in each eye before and at specific intervals within 8 hours after dosing. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, no pattern of errors were evident in any visual function test following sildenafil administration. No statistically or clinically relevant changes from baseline were observed in visual acuity, Humphrey perimetry (corrected pattern standard deviation), D15 color discrimination, or photo-stress tests. No clinically relevant changes were observed in the Amsler grid or traffic light tests. Sildenafil treatment was associated with transient mild or moderate headache, flushing, and rhinitis. There were no visual adverse events spontaneously reported to the investigator. CONCLUSION: A single 100-mg dose of sildenafil was well tolerated and produced no acute visual effects or exacerbation of preexisting visual impairment in nine men with early-stage age-related macular degeneration.

A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of docosahexaenoic acid supplementation for X-linked retinitis pigmentosa.

PURPOSE: Low docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) may influence retinal function. The goals of this study were to elevate blood DHA levels and determine the effect on the rate of disease progression. DESIGN: In a 4-year prospective randomized clinical trial, male patients with XLRP (mean age = 16 years; range = 4-38 years) received DHA (400 mg/d; n = 23; +DHA group) or placebo (n = 21) capsules. METHODS: Red blood cell (RBC)-DHA concentrations were assessed every 6 months. Full-field cone electroretinograms (ERGs; the primary outcome measure), visual acuity, dark-adaptation, visual fields, rod ERGs, and fundus photos were recorded annually. RESULTS: In the +DHA group, RBC-DHA increased 2.5-fold over placebo levels (70 vs 28 mg DHA/l). Repeated measures analysis of variance for cone ERG showed a significant main effect of year (P <.0001) but not of group (P =.16). Preservation of cone ERG function correlated with RBC-DHA (P =.018), and there was less change in fundus appearance in the +DHA group (P =.04). Neither visual acuity nor visual fields were changed. In subset analysis, DHA supplementation was beneficial in reducing rod ERG functional loss in patients aged <12 years (P =.040) and preserving cone ERG function in patients > or =12 years (P =.038). CONCLUSIONS: Although DHA-supplemented patients had significantly elevated mean RBC-DHA levels, the rate of cone ERG functional loss was not significantly different between groups. Supplemental analyses provided evidence for a DHA benefit and a direction for subsequent investigations.

Safety assessment of docosahexaenoic acid in X-linked retinitis pigmentosa: the 4-year DHAX trial.

PURPOSE: Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) continues to be evaluated and recommended as treatment and prophylaxis for various diseases. We recently assessed efficacy of high-dose DHA supplementation to slow vision loss in patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) in a randomized clinical trial. Because DHA is a highly unsaturated fatty acid, it could serve as a target for free-radical induced oxidation, resulting in increased oxidative stress. Biosafety was monitored during the 4-year trial to determine whether DHA supplementation was associated with identifiable risks. METHODS: Males (n = 78; 7-31 years) meeting entry criteria were enrolled. The modified intent-to-treat cohort (DHA = 33; placebo = 27) adhered to the protocol ≥ 1 year. Participants were randomized to an oral dose of 30 mg/kg/d DHA or placebo plus a daily multivitamin. Comprehensive metabolic analyses were assessed for group differences. Treatment-emergent adverse events including blood chemistry metabolites were recorded. RESULTS: By year 4, supplementation elevated plasma and red blood cell-DHA 4.4- and 3.6-fold, respectively, compared with the placebo group (P < 0.00001). Over the trial duration, no significant differences between DHA and placebo groups were found for vitamin A, vitamin E, platelet aggregation, antioxidant activity, lipoprotein cholesterol, or oxidized LDL levels (all P > 0.14). Adverse events were transient and not considered severe (e.g., gastrointestinal [GI] irritability, blood chemistry alterations). One participant was unable to tolerate persistent GI discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term, high-dose DHA supplementation to patients with XLRP was associated with limited safety risks in this 4-year trial. Nevertheless, GI symptoms should be monitored in all patients taking high dose DHA especially those with personal or family history of GI disturbances. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00100230.).

Four-year placebo-controlled trial of docosahexaenoic acid in X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (DHAX trial): a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: X-linked retinitis pigmentosa is a severe inherited retinal degenerative disease with a frequency of 1 in 100,000 persons. Because no cure is available for this orphan disease and treatment options are limited, slowing of disease progression would be a meaningful outcome. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether high-dose docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), an ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, slows progression of X-linked retinitis pigmentosa measured by cone electroretinography (ERG). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 4-year, single-site, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked phase 2 clinical trial at a research center specializing in medical retina. Seventy-eight male patients diagnosed as having X-linked retinitis pigmentosa were randomized to DHA or placebo. Data were omitted for 2 patients with non-X-linked retinitis pigmentosa and 16 patients who were unable to follow protocol during the first year. The remaining participants were tested annually and composed a modified intent-to-treat cohort (DHA group, n = 33; placebo group, n = 27). INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a multivitamin and were randomly assigned to oral DHA (30 mg/kg/d) or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of loss of cone ERG function. Secondary outcomes were rod and maximal ERG amplitudes and cone ERG implicit times. Capsule counts and red blood cell DHA levels were assessed to monitor adherence. RESULTS: Average (6-month to 4-year) red blood cell DHA levels were 4-fold higher in the DHA group than in the placebo group (P < .001). There was no difference between the DHA and placebo groups in the rate of cone ERG functional loss (0.028 vs 0.022 log µV/y, respectively; P = .30). No group differences were evident for change in rod ERG (P = .27), maximal ERG (P = .65), or cone implicit time (no change over 4 years). The rate of cone loss (ie, event rate) was markedly reduced compared with rates in previous studies. No severe treatment-emergent adverse events were found. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Long-term DHA supplementation was not effective in slowing the loss of cone or rod ERG function associated with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa. Participant dropout and lower-than-expected disease event rate limited power to detect statistical significance. A larger sample size, longer trial, and attainment of a target blood DHA level (13%) would be desirable. While DHA supplementation at 30 mg/kg/d does not present serious adverse effects, routine monitoring of gastrointestinal tolerance is prudent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00100230.

Secondary analyses of the effects of lutein/zeaxanthin on age-related macular degeneration progression: AREDS2 report No. 3.

IMPORTANCE: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) formulation for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) contains vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene, and zinc with copper. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) assessed the value of substituting lutein/zeaxanthin in the AREDS formulation because of the demonstrated risk for lung cancer from beta carotene in smokers and former smokers and because lutein and zeaxanthin are important components in the retina. OBJECTIVE: To further examine the effect of lutein/zeaxanthin supplementation on progression to late AMD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 is a multicenter, double-masked randomized trial of 4203 participants, aged 50 to 85 years, at risk for developing late AMD; 66% of patients had bilateral large drusen and 34% had large drusen and late AMD in 1 eye. INTERVENTIONS: In addition to taking the original or a variation of the AREDS supplement, participants were randomly assigned in a factorial design to 1 of the following 4 groups: placebo; lutein/zeaxanthin, 10 mg/2 mg; omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty 3 acids, 1.0 g; or the combination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE: S Documented development of late AMD by central, masked grading of annual retinal photographs or by treatment history. RESULTS In exploratory analysis of lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratio of the development of late AMD was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.99; P = .04). Exploratory analyses of direct comparison of lutein/zeaxanthin vs beta carotene showed hazard ratios of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02) for development of late AMD, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64-0.94; P = .01) for development of neovascular AMD, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.70-1.26; P = .67) for development of central geographic atrophy. In analyses restricted to eyes with bilateral large drusen at baseline, the direct comparison of lutein/zeaxanthin vs beta carotene showed hazard ratios of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61-0.96; P = .02) for progression to late AMD, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.85; P = .002) for neovascular AMD, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.69-1.39; P = .91) for central geographic atrophy. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The totality of evidence on beneficial and adverse effects from AREDS2 and other studies suggests that lutein/zeaxanthin could be more appropriate than beta carotene in the AREDS-type supplements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00345176.

Lutein/zeaxanthin for the treatment of age-related cataract: AREDS2 randomized trial report no. 4.

IMPORTANCE: Age-related cataract is a leading cause of visual impairment in the United States. The prevalence of age-related cataract is increasing, with an estimated 30.1 million Americans likely to be affected by 2020. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether daily oral supplementation with lutein/zeaxanthin affects the risk for cataract surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2), a multicenter, double-masked clinical trial, enrolled 4203 participants, aged 50 to 85 years, at risk for progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to daily placebo; lutein/zeaxanthin, 10mg/2mg; omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, 1 g; or a combination to evaluate the effects on the primary outcome of progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cataract surgery was documented at annual study examination with the presence of pseudophakia or aphakia, or reported during telephone calls at 6-month intervals between study visits. Annual best-corrected visual acuity testing was performed. A secondary outcome of AREDS2 was to evaluate the effects of lutein/zeaxanthin on the subsequent need for cataract surgery. RESULTS: A total of 3159 AREDS2 participants were phakic in at least 1 eye and 1389 of 6027 study eyes underwent cataract surgery during the study, with median follow-up of 4.7 years. The 5-year probability of progression to cataract surgery in the no lutein/zeaxanthin group was 24%. For lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratios for progression to cataract surgery was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84-1.10; P = .54). For participants in the lowest quintile of dietary intake of lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratio comparing lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin for progression to cataract surgery was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03). The hazard ratio for 3 or more lines of vision loss was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.93-1.13; P = .61 for lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Daily supplementation with lutein/zeaxanthin had no statistically significant overall effect on rates of cataract surgery or vision loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00345176.