Aflibercept Monotherapy or Bevacizumab First for Diabetic Macular Edema.

BACKGROUND: In eyes with diabetic macular edema, the relative efficacy of administering aflibercept monotherapy as compared with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept if the eye condition does not improve sufficiently (a form of step therapy) is unclear. METHODS: At 54 clinical sites, we randomly assigned eyes in adults who had diabetic macular edema involving the macular center and a visual-acuity letter score of 24 to 69 (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; Snellen equivalent, 20/320 to 20/50) to receive either 2.0 mg of intravitreous aflibercept or 1.25 mg of intravitreous bevacizumab. The drug was administered at randomization and thereafter according to the prespecified retreatment protocol. Beginning at 12 weeks, eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy if protocol-specified criteria were met. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity over the 2-year trial period. Retinal central subfield thickness and visual acuity at 2 years and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 312 eyes (in 270 adults) underwent randomization; 158 eyes were assigned to receive aflibercept monotherapy and 154 to receive bevacizumab first. Over the 2-year period, 70% of the eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy. The mean improvement in visual acuity was 15.0 letters in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and 14.0 letters in the bevacizumab-first group (adjusted difference, 0.8 letters; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 2.5; P = 0.37). At 2 years, the mean changes in visual acuity and retinal central subfield thickness were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events (in 52% of the patients in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and in 36% of those in the bevacizumab-first group) and hospitalizations for adverse events (in 48% and 32%, respectively) were more common in the aflibercept-monotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of treatment of moderate vision loss due to diabetic macular edema involving the center of the macula, we found no evidence of a significant difference in visual outcomes over a 2-year period between aflibercept monotherapy and treatment with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept in the case of suboptimal response. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; Protocol AC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03321513.).

Risk of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: a real-world data study from a global federated database.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: A protective role of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-ra) in the development of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema has been described in some recent studies, which may extend beyond glycaemic control. We aimed to review the clinical impact of SGLT2i and GLP1-ra therapy on the risk of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema in individuals with type 2 diabetes taking insulin. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of approximately two million people with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin across 97 healthcare organisations using a global federated health research network (TriNetX, Cambridge, USA). Two intervention cohorts (SGLT2i + insulin, n=176,409; GLP1-ra + insulin, n=207,034) were compared against a control cohort (insulin with no SGLT2i/GLP1-ra, n=1,922,312). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed and estimated HRs were reported for each outcome. Propensity score was used to 1:1 match for age, sex, ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, microvascular complications, chronic kidney disease, HbA1c, BMI and use of pioglitazone, lipid modifying agents, antilipemic agents, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II inhibitors and metformin. A sub-analysis comparing the two intervention cohorts was also performed. RESULTS: SGLT2i with insulin was associated with a reduced HR (95% CI) for diabetic macular oedema compared with the control cohort (0.835; 0.780, 0.893), while GLP1-ra with insulin demonstrated a lack of signal with no statistical significance to the HR (1.013; 0.960, 1.069). SGLT2i with insulin was not associated with a clinically significant increase in the risk of developing diabetic retinopathy (1.076; 1.027, 1.127), while GLP1-ra with insulin increased diabetic retinopathy risk (1.308; 1.261, 1.357). Compared with SGLT2i with insulin, GLP1-ra with insulin was associated with higher risk of diabetic retinopathy (1.205; 1.153, 1.259) and diabetic macular oedema (1.130; 1.056, 1.208). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our study suggests that the combination of SGLT2i and insulin is associated with lower risk of developing diabetic macular oedema. However, the use of GLP1-ra was associated with an increased risk of diabetic retinopathy in individuals with type 2 diabetes also taking insulin. A comparative analysis showed favourable outcomes with SGLT2i and insulin in the development of diabetic macular oedema and diabetic retinopathy. RCTs using dedicated  retinal imaging are required to determine the causal relationship with these therapies.

Machine learning and optical coherence tomography-derived radiomics analysis to predict persistent diabetic macular edema in patients undergoing anti-VEGF intravitreal therapy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision loss in patients with diabetes. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an OCT-omics prediction model for assessing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment response in patients with DME. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 113 eyes from 82 patients with DME was conducted. Comprehensive feature engineering was applied to clinical and optical coherence tomography (OCT) data. Logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), and backpropagation neural network (BPNN) classifiers were trained using a training set of 79 eyes, and evaluated on a test set of 34 eyes. Clinical implications of the OCT-omics prediction model were assessed by decision curve analysis. Performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: The logistic, SVM, and BPNN classifiers demonstrated robust discriminative abilities in both the training and test sets. In the training set, the logistic classifier achieved a sensitivity of 0.904, specificity of 0.741, F1 score of 0.887, and AUC of 0.910. The SVM classifier showed a sensitivity of 0.923, specificity of 0.667, F1 score of 0.881, and AUC of 0.897. The BPNN classifier exhibited a sensitivity of 0.962, specificity of 0.926, F1 score of 0.962, and AUC of 0.982. Similar discriminative capabilities were maintained in the test set. The OCT-omics scores were significantly higher in the non-persistent DME group than in the persistent DME group (p < 0.001). OCT-omics scores were also positively correlated with the rate of decline in central subfield thickness after treatment (Pearson's R = 0.44, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The developed OCT-omics model accurately assesses anti-VEGF treatment response in DME patients. The model's robust performance and clinical implications highlight its utility as a non-invasive tool for personalized treatment prediction and retinal pathology assessment.

Central subfield thickness of diabetic macular edema: Correlation with the aqueous humor proteome.

Purpose: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a sight-threatening complication of diabetes. Consequently, studying the proteome of DME may provide novel insights into underlying molecular mechanisms. Methods: In this study, aqueous humor samples from eyes with treatment-naïve clinically significant DME (n = 13) and age-matched controls (n = 11) were compared with label-free liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Additional aqueous humor samples from eyes with treatment-naïve DME (n = 15) and controls (n = 8) were obtained for validation by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was evaluated, and the severity of DME was measured as central subfield thickness (CST) employing optical coherence tomography. Control samples were obtained before cataract surgery. Significantly changed proteins were identified using a permutation-based calculation, with a false discovery rate of 0.05. A human donor eye with DME and a control eye were used for immunofluorescence. Results: A total of 101 proteins were differentially expressed in the DME. Regulated proteins were involved in complement activation, glycolysis, extracellular matrix interaction, and cholesterol metabolism. The highest-fold change was observed for the fibrinogen alpha chain (fold change = 17.8). Complement components C2, C5, and C8, fibronectin, and hepatocyte growth factor-like protein were increased in DME and correlated with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Ceruloplasmin and complement component C8 correlated with central subfield thickness (CST). Hemopexin, plasma kallikrein, monocyte differentiation antigen CD14 (CD14), and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) were upregulated in the DME. LBP was correlated with vascular endothelial growth factor. The increased level of LBP in DME was confirmed using ELISA. The proteins involved in desmosomal integrity, including desmocollin-1 and desmoglein-1, were downregulated in DME and correlated negatively with CST. Immunofluorescence confirmed the extravasation of fibrinogen at the retinal level in the DME. Conclusion: Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory proteins, including the complement components LBP and CD14, were observed in DME. DME was associated with the loss of basal membrane proteins, compromised desmosomal integrity, and perturbation of glycolysis.

Treatment of Noninfectious Uveitic Macular Edema with Periocular and Intraocular Corticosteroid Therapies: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To review the evidence on the effectiveness and complications of periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies for noninfectious uveitic macular edema. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed database was conducted last in December 2021 and a post-assessment search was conducted in March 2023. The searches were limited to articles published in English and no date restrictions were imposed. The combined searches yielded 739 citations; 53 articles were selected for inclusion because the studies (1) evaluated periocular corticosteroid injection, intraocular corticosteroid injection or implant, suprachoroidal corticosteroid injection, or a combination thereof for uveitic macular edema; (2) had outcomes that included visual acuity (VA) or macular edema assessed clinically or imaged by OCT or fluorescein angiography; and (3) included more than 20 patients. RESULTS: This assessment reviewed 23 articles that provided level I or level II evidence from 18 studies on the use of periocular, suprachoroidal, and intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injections and intravitreal dexamethasone and fluocinolone acetonide implants or inserts in noninfectious uveitic macular edema. These reports consistently demonstrated that all investigated periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies improved VA, macular structure, or both. One comparative study showed that intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection and the dexamethasone intravitreal implant had effectiveness superior to that of periocular triamcinolone acetonide injection for these outcomes. As a group, the studies highlighted the potential for these therapies to elevate intraocular pressure and to accelerate cataract formation. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature provides high-quality evidence that periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies are effective and safe for the treatment of noninfectious uveitic macular edema. However, information on the relative effectiveness and complication rates across the different therapies is limited. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Faricimab Treat-and-Extend for Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Results from the Randomized Phase 3 YOSEMITE and RHINE Trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 2-year efficacy, durability, and safety of dual angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) A pathway inhibition with intravitreal faricimab according to a personalized treat-and-extend (T&E)-based regimen with up to every-16-week dosing in the YOSEMITE and RHINE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT03622580 and NCT03622593, respectively) phase 3 trials of diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked, noninferiority phase 3 trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with visual acuity loss (best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA] of 25-73 letters) due to center-involving DME. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to faricimab 6.0 mg every 8 weeks, faricimab 6.0 mg T&E (previously referred to as personalized treatment interval), or aflibercept 2.0 mg every 8 weeks. The T&E up to every-16-week dosing regimen was based on central subfield thickness (CST) and BCVA change. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Included changes from baseline in BCVA and CST, number of injections, durability, absence of fluid, and safety through week 100. RESULTS: In YOSEMITE and RHINE (n = 940 and 951, respectively), noninferior year 1 visual acuity gains were maintained through year 2; mean BCVA change from baseline at 2 years (weeks 92, 96, and 100 average) with faricimab every 8 weeks (YOSEMITE and RHINE, +10.7 letters and +10.9 letters, respectively) or T&E (+10.7 letters and +10.1 letters, respectively) were comparable with aflibercept every 8 weeks (+11.4 letters and +9.4 letters, respectively). The median number of study drug injections was lower with faricimab T&E (YOSEMITE and RHINE, 10 and 11 injections, respectively) versus faricimab every 8 weeks (15 injections) and aflibercept every 8 weeks (14 injections) across both trials during the entire study. In the faricimab T&E arms, durability was improved further during year 2, with > 60% of patients receiving every-16-week dosing and approximately 80% receiving every-12-week or longer dosing at week 96. Almost 80% of patients who achieved every-16-week dosing at week 52 maintained every-16-week dosing without an interval reduction through week 96. Mean CST reductions were greater (YOSEMITE/RHINE weeks 92/96/100 average: faricimab every 8 weeks -216.0/-202.6 µm, faricimab T&E -204.5/-197.1 µm, aflibercept every 8 weeks -196.3/-185.6 µm), and more patients achieved absence of DME (CST < 325 µm; YOSEMITE/RHINE weeks 92-100: faricimab every 8 weeks 87%-92%/88%-93%, faricimab T&E 78%-86%/85%-88%, aflibercept every 8 weeks 77%-81%/80%-84%) and absence of intraretinal fluid (YOSEMITE/RHINE weeks 92-100: faricimab every 8 weeks 59%-63%/56%-62%, faricimab T&E 43%-48%/45%-52%, aflibercept every 8 weeks 33%-38%/39%-45%) with faricimab every 8 weeks or T&E versus aflibercept every 8 weeks through year 2. Overall, faricimab was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of aflibercept. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful visual acuity gains from baseline, anatomic improvements, and extended durability with intravitreal faricimab up to every 16 weeks were maintained through year 2. Faricimab given as a personalized T&E-based dosing regimen supports the role of dual angiopoietin-2 and VEGF-A inhibition to promote vascular stability and to provide durable efficacy for patients with DME. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Risk Factors for Meeting Criteria for Switching from Bevacizumab to Aflibercept When Treating Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema and Visual Acuity of < 20/40.

PURPOSE: To identify factors for meeting prespecified criteria for switching from bevacizumab to aflibercept in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and moderate vision loss initially treated with bevacizumab in DRCR Retina Network protocol AC. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy participants with one or both eyes harboring CI-DME with visual acuity (VA) letter score of 69 to 24 (Snellen equivalent, 20/50-20/320). METHODS: Eligible eyes were assigned to receive intravitreal aflibercept monotherapy (n = 158) or bevacizumab followed by aflibercept if prespecified criteria for switching were met between 12 weeks and 2 years (n = 154). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Meeting switching criteria: (1) at any time, (2) at 12 weeks, and (3) after 12 weeks. Associations between meeting the criteria for switching and factors measured at baseline and 12 weeks were evaluated in univariable analyses. Stepwise procedures were used to select variables for multivariable models. RESULTS: In the group receiving bevacizumab first, older participants showed a higher risk of meeting the switching criteria at any time, with a hazard ratio (HR) for a 10-year increase in age of 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.58). Male participants or eyes with worse baseline VA were more likely to switch at 12 weeks (for male vs. female: odds ratio [OR], 4.84 [95% CI, 1.32-17.81]; 5-letter lower baseline VA: OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.03-1.63]). Worse 12-week central subfield thickness (CST; 10-µm greater: HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.04-1.07]) was associated with increased risk of switching after 12 weeks. The mean ± standard deviation improvement in visual acuity after completing the switch to aflibercept was 3.7 ± 4.9 letters compared with the day of switching. CONCLUSIONS: The identified factors can be used to refine expectations regarding the likelihood that an eye will meet protocol criteria to switch to aflibercept when treatment is initiated with bevacizumab. Older patients are more likely to be switched. At 12 weeks, thicker CST was predictive of eyes most likely to be switched in the future. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab for Macular Edema due to Retinal Vein Occlusion: 24-Week Results from the BALATON and COMINO Trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 24-week efficacy and safety of the dual angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A inhibitor faricimab versus aflibercept in patients with vein occlusion. DESIGN: Phase 3, global, randomized, double-masked, active comparator-controlled trials: BALATON/COMINO (ClincalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT04740905/NCT04740931; sites: 149/192). PARTICIPANTS: Patients with treatment-naïve foveal center-involved macular edema resulting from branch (BALATON) or central or hemiretinal (COMINO) RVO. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to faricimab 6.0 mg or aflibercept 2.0 mg every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point: change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to week 24. Efficacy analyses included patients in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received ≥ 1 doses of study drug. RESULTS: Enrollment: BALATON, n = 553; COMINO, n = 729. The BCVA gains from the baseline to week 24 with faricimab were noninferior versus aflibercept in BALATON (adjusted mean change, +16.9 letters [95.03% confidence interval (CI), 15.7-18.1 letters] vs. +17.5 letters [95.03% CI, 16.3-18.6 letters]) and COMINO (+16.9 letters [95.03% CI, 15.4-18.3 letters] vs. +17.3 letters [95.03% CI, 15.9-18.8 letters]). Adjusted mean central subfield thickness reductions from the baseline were comparable for faricimab and aflibercept at week 24 in BALATON (-311.4 µm [95.03% CI, -316.4 to -306.4 µm] and -304.4 µm [95.03% CI, -309.3 to -299.4 µm]) and COMINO (-461.6 µm [95.03% CI, -471.4 to -451.9 µm] and -448.8 µm [95.03% CI, -458.6 to -439.0 µm]). A greater proportion of patients in the faricimab versus aflibercept arm achieved absence of fluorescein angiography-based macular leakage at week 24 in BALATON (33.6% vs. 21.0%; nominal P = 0.0023) and COMINO (44.4% vs. 30.0%; nominal P = 0.0002). Faricimab was well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile comparable with aflibercept. The incidence of ocular adverse events was similar between patients receiving faricimab (16.3% [n = 45] and 23.0% [n = 84] in BALATON and COMINO, respectively) and aflibercept (20.4% [n = 56] and 27.7% [n = 100], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the efficacy and safety of faricimab, a dual Ang-2/VEGF-A inhibitor, in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Efficacy of Faricimab versus Aflibercept in Diabetic Macular Edema in the 20/50 or Worse Vision Subgroup in Phase III YOSEMITE and RHINE Trials.

PURPOSE: Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol T suggests that the response to treatment among patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) may vary depending on baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). We evaluated the efficacy of faricimab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg over 2 years in patients with DME and baseline BCVA of 20/50 or worse enrolled in faricimab phase III trials. DESIGN: YOSEMITE and RHINE were identically designed, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, active comparator-controlled, noninferiority trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥18 years of age with center-involving macular edema secondary to type 1 or 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients were randomized to faricimab every 8 weeks (Q8W), faricimab personalized treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen, or aflibercept Q8W. Post hoc subgroup analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat population with baseline BCVA of 20/50 or worse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in ETDRS BCVA and central subfield thickness (CST) from baseline to years 1 and 2 were compared between treatment arms using mixed-model repeated measures analyses. RESULTS: In YOSEMITE and RHINE, respectively, 220 and 217 patients in the faricimab Q8W arm, 220 and 219 patients in the faricimab T&E arm, and 219 and 214 patients in the aflibercept Q8W arm showed baseline BCVA of 20/50 or worse. In both trials, mean change in ETDRS BCVA was comparable between treatments across trials at years 1 and 2. In YOSEMITE, adjusted mean change from baseline in CST (µm) at year 1 was greater with faricimab Q8W (-232.8; P < 0.0001) and faricimab T&E (-217.4; P = 0.0004) ) versus aflibercept Q8W (-190.4). In RHINE, this was faricimab Q8W (-214.2; P = 0.0006) and faricimab T&E (-206.6; P = 0.0116) versus aflibercept Q8W (-186.6). In both trials, change from baseline in CST at year 2 was greater with faricimab Q8W versus aflibercept. The median time to first CST of <325 µm and first absence of intraretinal fluid was shorter in the faricimab arms versus the aflibercept arm, with fewer injections on average. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DME and baseline ETDRS BCVA of 20/50 or worse, faricimab treatment resulted in comparable visual acuity, greater reduction in retinal thickness, and fewer injections compared with aflibercept. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor therapy reduces the administration frequency of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents in patients with diabetic macular oedema with a history of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent use: A cohort study using the Japanese health insurance claims database.

AIM: We assessed the effectiveness of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in reducing the administration frequency of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) using a health insurance claims database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analysed health insurance claims data covering 11 million Japanese patients between 2005 and 2019. We analysed the frequency and duration of intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents after initiating SGLT2is or other antidiabetic drugs. RESULTS: Among 2412 matched patients with DMO, the incidence rates of anti-VEGF agent injections were 230.1 per 1000 person-year in SGLT2i users and 228.4 times per 1000 person-year in non-users, respectively, and the risk ratio for events was unchanged in both groups. Sub-analysis of each baseline characteristic of the patients showed that SGLT2is were particularly effective in patients with a history of anti-VEGF agent use [p = .027, hazard ratio (HR): 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.91]. SGLT2is reduced the risk for the first (p = .023, HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.91) and second (p = .021, HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.17-0.89) anti-VEGF agent injections. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the risk ratio for the addition of anti-VEGF therapy between the two treatment groups. However, the use of SGLT2is reduced the frequency of anti-VEGF agent administration in patients with DMO requiring anti-VEGF therapy. Therefore, SGLT2i therapy may be a novel, non-invasive, low-cost adjunctive therapy for DMO requiring anti-VEGF therapy.

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs Compared With Panretinal Photocoagulation for the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs (anti-VEGFs) compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed, informed by individual participant data meta-analysis. The model captures treatment effects on best corrected visual acuity in both eyes, and the occurrence of diabetic macular edema and vitreous hemorrhage. The model also estimates the value of undertaking further research to resolve decision uncertainty. RESULTS: Anti-VEGFs are unlikely to generate clinically meaningful benefits over PRP. The model predicted anti-VEGFs be more costly and similarly effective as PRP, generating 0.029 fewer quality-adjusted life-years at an additional cost of £3688, with a net health benefit of -0.214 at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Scenario analysis results suggest that only under very select conditions may anti-VEGFs offer potential for cost-effective treatment of PDR. The consequences of loss to follow-up were an important driver of model outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGFs are unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for early PDR compared with PRP. Anti-VEGFs are generally associated with higher costs and similar health outcomes across various scenarios. Although anti-VEGFs were associated with lower diabetic macular edema rates, the number of cases avoided is insufficient to offset the additional treatment costs. Key uncertainties relate to the long-term comparative effectiveness of anti-VEGFs, particularly considering the real-world rates and consequences of treatment nonadherence. Further research on long-term visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications may be beneficial in resolving uncertainties.

Enhanced durability and evolution of retreatment criteria of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The increasing prevalence of diabetic macular edema (DME) necessitates an updated review of treatment modalities. While the shift from laser to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy has transformed patient outcomes, benefits of these agents are not fully realized in real-world implementation relative to the setting of controlled clinical trials. This review outlines the evolution of intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment extension protocols for DME that reflect efforts to address treatment adherence challenges while optimizing visual outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies highlight the efficacy of extended-interval dosing with anti-VEGF agents in managing DME. Trials such as RISE/RIDE, VISTA/VIVID, and LUCIDATE have established the foundation of these regimens by demonstrating sustained visual gains with continuous treatment. However, newer trials including PROTOCOL T, KESTREL/KITE, YOSEMITE/RHINE, and PHOTON have furthered this concept, revealing that less frequent dosing of various anti-VEGF agents can maintain similar visual acuity and anatomical outcomes to traditional monthly injections. SUMMARY: The reviewed findings suggest a paradigm shift in DME treatment toward less frequent anti-VEGF injections. This has significant implications for clinical practice, potentially leading to greater adherence to treatment regimens and sustained visual function in patients, while minimizing treatment burden and healthcare costs. Further investigation into the long-term effects of extended dosing intervals is required.

SGLT2 inhibitors and diabetic retinopathy progression.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors affect progression of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to standard of care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study compared subjects enrolled in a commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims database who filled a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor between 2013 and 2020 to unexposed controls, matched up to a 1:3 ratio. Patients were excluded if they were enrolled for less than 2 years in the plan, had no prior ophthalmologic exam, had no diagnosis of NPDR, had a diagnosis of diabetic macular edema (DME) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), had received treatment for vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR), or were younger than 18 years. To balance covariates of interest between the cohorts, an inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) propensity score for SGLT2 inhibitor exposure was used. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression modeling was employed to assess the hazard ratio (HR) for VTDR, PDR, or DME relative to SGLT2 exposure. RESULTS: A total of 6065 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor were matched to 12,890 controls. There were 734 (12%), 657 (10.8%), and 72 (1.18%) cases of VTDR, DME, and PDR, respectively, in the SGLT2 inhibitor cohort. Conversely, there were 1479 (11.4%), 1331 (10.3%), and 128 (0.99%) cases of VTDR, DME, and PDR, respectively, among controls. After IPTW, Cox regression analysis showed no difference in hazard for VTDR, PDR, or DME in the SGLT2 inhibitor-exposed cohort relative to the unexposed group [HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15 for VTDR; HR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14 for DME; HR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67 for PDR]. CONCLUSION: Exposure to SGLT2 inhibitor therapy was not associated with progression of NPDR compared to patients receiving other diabetic therapies.

Continuous glucose monitoring metrics following sub-Tenon's injection of triamcinolone acetonide for diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: This pilot study aims to comprehensively evaluate the effects of sub-Tenon's injection of triamcinolone acetonide (STTA) on glycemic control in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) using professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed changes in glycemic control in 20 patients with type 2 mellitus and DME following single STTA (20 mg/0.5 mL) using The FreeStyle Libre Pro system. Professional CGM provides core CGM metrics such as the percentage of time that glucose levels fall within a target range and include the time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL), time above range (TAR) (> 180 mg/dL), and time below range (TBR) (< 70 mg/dL). Outcome measures were the changes in CGM metrics (TIR, TAR and TBR) and the percentage of patients in whom TAR increased by at least 10 percentage points (ppt) 4 days before to 4 days after STTA administration. RESULTS: The mean CGM metrics (TIR/TAR/TBR) were 75.5%/19.9%/4.4% 4 days before STTA and 73.7%/22.4%/3.5% 4 days after STTA; the metrics 4 days before and 4 days after STTA were not significantly different (P = 0.625 for TIR, P = 0.250 for TAR, and P = 0.375 for TBR). TAR increased by more than 10 ppt in four (20%) patients treated with sulfonylurea and/or insulin. CONCLUSION: Although there were no significant changes in the CGM metrics, four patients developed CGM-measured hyperglycemia after STTA for DME.

Central subfield thickness predicts visual acuity outcomes in plaque-irradiated eyes with choroidal melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between pre-operative central subfield thickness (CST) and post-radiotherapy visual acuity (VA), cystoid macular edema (CME), and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) requirement. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with plaque-irradiated extramacular choroidal melanoma treated between 11/11/2011 and 4/30/2021. Pre-operative CST difference between the affected and unaffected eye was used. Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Of 85 patients, pre-operative CST was greater in the melanoma-affected eye (vs. fellow eye) by mean of 20.4 µm (median 14.0, range - 60.0-182.0). Greater CST at presentation (vs. fellow eye) was associated with larger tumor diameter (p = 0.02), greater tumor thickness (p < 0.001), and more frequent tumor-related Bruch's membrane rupture (p = 0.006). On univariate analysis of outcome data, greater CST at presentation (vs. fellow eye) was associated with higher 5-year risk (1.09 [1.02-1.17], p = 0.02) of VA 20/200 or worse and increased (1.10 [1.01-1.20], p = 0.03) likelihood for anti-VEGF injections after plaque irradiation. There was no significant association with CME. The association between CST and VA outcome remained significant on multivariate analysis accounting for impact of tumor thickness and radiation dose to optic disc, while tumor distance to fovea was the only significant factor on multivariate analysis for anti-VEGF injections. CONCLUSION: Greater CST at presentation (vs. fellow eye) was associated with worse VA outcome following plaque radiotherapy for choroidal melanoma. Large-sized tumors may contribute to a higher intraocular VEGF burden, potentially leading to greater preoperative CST, which correlates with poor VA outcome post-plaque radiotherapy.

Biomarkers determining treatment interval of diabetic macular edema after initial resolution by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor.

PURPOSE: To identify predictive factors that help determine the interval of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection after the initial resolution of diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: This retrospective case-control study enrolled treatment-naïve DME patients who had achieved DME resolution after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. Patients were classified into the recurrence and no-recurrence groups, depending on the development of recurrent DME after deferring intravitreal anti-VEGF injection. The demographics and clinical features, including optical coherence tomography findings, were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 105 eyes. Sixty eyes (57.1%) belonged to the no-recurrence group, and 45 (42.9%), belonged to the recurrence group. The severity of diabetic retinopathy at baseline was related to early DME recurrence (P = 0.009). At the treatment deferring point, the non-recurrence group had both thinner central subfield thickness (289.5 ± 27.2 µm vs. 307.0 ± 38.2 µm, P = 0.011) and thinner central retinal thickness (214.9 ± 41.4 µm vs. 231.8 ± 41.2 µm, P = 0.043) compared to the recurrence group. Intraretinal cyst was observed in 34 eyes (56.7%) in the no-recurrence group and 42 eyes (93.3%) in the recurrence group at the deferring point (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A low risk of early DME recurrence is anticipated in the eyes with foveal thinning and no intraretinal cyst when anti-VEGF injection is deferred. These predictive biomarkers can be useful for patient monitoring and determining treatment strategies for DME patients.

The longitudinal follow-up of a newly proposed OCTA imaging finding (SSPiM) and the importance of it as a new biomarker for treatment response in diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of SSPiM (suspended scattering particles in motion), systemic risk factors, ocular findings, progression characteristics, and treatment response in diabetic retinopathy (DR) patients. METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 109 eyes of 109 patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) were included. Demographic characteristics and systemic data of the patients were recorded. In addition to a detailed ophthalmological examination, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and OCT angiography (OCTA) imaging were performed. According to the OCTA images, the patients were divided into two categories: SSPiM detected (SSPiM +) and undetected (SSPiM -). The patients were followed up at 0, 3, and 6 months. Treatment responses at 6 months in treatment-administered patients with and without SSPiM were examined. RESULTS: The frequency of SSPiM in DME cases was found to be 34.9%. No significant correlation was found between SSPiM and demographic characteristics, systemic, and biochemical parameters (p > 0.05). It was observed that SSPIM was most frequently localized in the outer nuclear layer adjacent to the outer plexiform (81.6%). SSPiM appearance disappeared in 7 (19.4%) of 36 patients with SSPiM who had regular follow-up for 6 months. In 4 (11.1%) of these seven patients, hard exudate plaques developed in the areas where SSPiM disappeared. Regarding treatment response at 6 months, the decrease in CMT was statistically significantly lower in the SSPiM group compared to cases without SSPiM. CONCLUSION: SSPiM is a finding seen in approximately one-third of DME patients and may adversely affect the response to the treatment.

Switching to subtenon triamcinolone acetonide does not jeopardize the functional and anatomic outcomes of dexamethasone implant treated eyes with diabetic macular edema.

BACKGROUND: Intraocular dexamethasone implant (DEXi) is an efficient treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). However, it may be unavailable or contraindicated. Triamcinolone acetonide is another corticosteroid that has proved to be safe and effective in treating macular edema complicating various diseases including diabetes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of a switch from DEXi to subtenon triamcinolone acetonide (STTA) and back, in eyes with DME. METHODS: Retrospective study. DME eyes that had been treated with DEXi and switched to STTA between October 2018 and February 2019 (stock shortage of DEXi) were included. The functional and anatomical outcomes of the switch and switch-back were studied. RESULTS: 26 eyes of 17 patients (mean age 67.1 ± 8.2 years) were considered. The mean baseline visual acuity (VA) was 0.35 ± 0.17 decimals remaining stable after DEXi, STTA and switch-back to DEXi. The mean central macular thickness (CMT) was 492.7 ± 32.8 µm initially, decreasing to 294.3 ± 133.4 µm after DEXi, 369.9 ± 182.3 µm after STTA and 297.6 ± 72.0 µm after switching back to DEXi (all p < 0.05 versus baseline). Compared to baseline, the CMT reduction was numerically better after DEXi and switching back to DEXi than after STTA (mean reduction: -200.4 µm, -167.7 µm, and -95.08 µm respectively, p = 0.13). Intraocular pressure was comparable after DEXi and STTA. CONCLUSION: DEXi is the steroid of choice in DME. However, STTA can be a cost-effective alternative when DEXi is unavailable or contraindicated. This study suggests that STTA may be used in the context of a step therapy in DME.

Flare levels after intravitreal injection of brolucizumab for diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate anterior flare intensity (AFI) after intravitreal injection of brolucizumab (IVBr) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME), and to identify the factors associated with the change of AFI after IVBr. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was conducted at five sites in Japan for patients with DME who underwent a single IVBr. AFI and central retinal thickness (CRT) were measured using a laser flare meter and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, respectively, at weeks 0 and 6. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (phakia, 37 eyes; pseudophakia, 28 eyes) were enrolled. Six weeks after IVBr, CRT and best-corrected visual acuity significantly improved (p < 0.0001). AFI (p = 0.0003) and age (p = 0.0054) were significantly higher in patients with pseudophakic eyes than those with phakic eyes. The AFI of the phakic eyes decreased after IVBr (p = 0.043). As the AFI before injection is higher (p = 0.0363) and the age is lower (p = 0.0016), the AFI decreases after IVBr. There was a significant positive correlation between the rates of change in CRT and AFI (p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: After IVBr, AFI decreases in phakic eyes but not in pseudophakic eyes. The age, AFI and CRT before injection and changes of CRT are involved in the change in AFI after IVBr.

ESASO classification relevance in the diagnosis and evolution in diabetic macular edema patients after dexamethasone implant treatment.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical relevance of The European School for Advanced Studies in Ophthalmology (ESASO) classification in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) after their first dexamethasone implant (DEXI) treatment. METHODS: Retrospective real-world study conducted on consecutive DME patients who underwent DEXI treatment and were controlled at month-2. Subjects were initially classified according to the ESASO classification stages. The outcomes were anatomical biomarkers with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were classified according to ESASO classification stages as early (7; 5.5%), advanced (100; 78.1%), and severe (21; 16.4%). At baseline, there were significant differences between stages in BCVA, central macular thickness (CMT), and tomography anatomical biomarkers (p < 0.05). Initial BCVA (logMAR) was 0.33 ± 0.10, 0.58 ± 0.34, and 0.71 ± 0.35 in the early, advanced, and severe stages, respectively (p < 0.05). At month-2, BCVA was 0.17 ± 0.15, 0.46 ± 0.29, and 0.69 ± 0.27 in those classified as early, advanced, and severe stages, respectively. At month-2, DME was resolved or improved in 6 (85.7%), 60 (60%), and 12 (60%) patients classified as early, advanced, and severe stages, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was a good correlation between BCVA and ESASO classification stages. Patients in the severe stage did not achieve visual acuity improvement over the study period.