Efficacy of the XEN45 Implant in Advanced to End-stage Glaucoma Patients.

Purpose: To report the efficacy of the XEN45 implant in advanced to end-stage glaucoma patients, after a 6 months follow-up. Methods: Retrospective, noncomparative electronic health record audit of patients who had undergone an XEN45 procedure. The main outcome measures were intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction and the number of antihypertensive medications. Secondary outcome measures were the rates of early postoperative complications. Complete and qualified success; failure and hypotony were defined according to the World Glaucoma Association guidelines (Shaarawy TM et al.). Needling rates and short-term complications were assessed and a subgroup analysis was performed. Results: A total of 39 eyes with advanced to end stage-glaucoma were included. Twenty eyes (51%) had undergone combined cataract surgery and 19 (49%), the XEN45 procedure alone. Mean IOP decreased from 19.67 ± 7.87 mm Hg to 13.18 ± 6.09 mm Hg; the number of medications decreased from a median use of 4 (IQR 2-5) to 0 (IQR 0-1). Complete success was achieved in 24 (61.5%) of the eyes, qualified success in 10 (25.6%), and failure in five (12.82%). Needling was required in 15 (38.46%) of the eyes at 6 months. Choroidal detachment occurred in eight (20.51%) eyes, numerical hypotony (IOP ≤ 5 mm Hg) at day 1 was noted in seven (17.95%) eyes with a full resolution by 2 weeks. Conclusion: In this short-term follow-up, we have seen that XEN45 is a viable, effective, and safe procedure utilized in advanced to end-stage glaucoma patients. Treating cases of significant hypotony using AC reformation with sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a safe and effective procedure. How to cite this article: Hindi I, Berkowitz E, Waizer I, et al. Efficacy of the XEN45 Implant in Advanced to End-stage Glaucoma Patients. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2022;16(2):84-90.

Real-world outcomes of non-responding diabetic macular edema treated with continued anti-VEGF therapy versus early switch to dexamethasone implant: 2-year results.

AIMS: To provide 2-year follow-up data on eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) that were non-responsive after three initial anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections, comparing functional and anatomical outcomes under continued anti-VEGF therapy versus dexamethasone (DEX) implant. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective chart review comparing eyes with treatment-naïve DME and a suboptimal response to a loading phase of anti-VEGF therapy (3 injections given monthly) which were then treated with (a) further anti-VEGF (n = 72) or (b) initially switched to DEX implant (n = 38). Main outcome measures were change in visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) from the end of the loading phase to 24 months. RESULTS: In 79% of the 12-month study population (87/110 eyes), 24-month data were available. One quarter of eyes in each group switched treatments during the second year. Eyes that were switched early to DEX implant maintained the functional and anatomical improvements at 24 months which were seen in the first year (from month 3: + 8.9 letters, - 214 µm). Eyes that were switched from anti-VEGF therapy to steroids in the second year improved VA and reduced CST at 24 months (from month 12: + 6.8 letters, p = 0.023; - 226 µm, p = 0.004). In eyes continued on anti-VEGF therapy, VA and CST were stable at 24 months (from month 3: + 2.8 letters, p = 0.254; - 24 µm, p = 0.243). Eyes that were non-responsive to anti-VEGF therapy for 12 months had similar chances to experience a VA gain from further therapy as eyes that were non-responsive for 3 months only (23.8 vs. 31.0%, p = 0.344). CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of an early switch to DEX implant in DME non-responders seen at month 12 was maintained during the second year. A later switch from anti-VEGF to steroids still provided significant improvement. Eyes continued on anti-VEGF over a period of 24 months maintained vision. A quarter of eyes, which had not improved vision at 12 months, exhibited a delayed response to treatment.

Shall we stay, or shall we switch? Continued anti-VEGF therapy versus early switch to dexamethasone implant in refractory diabetic macular edema.

AIMS: To compare functional and anatomical outcomes of continued anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy versus dexamethasone (DEX) implant in eyes with refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) after three initial anti-VEGF injections in a real-world setting. METHODS: To be included in this retrospective multicenter, case-control study, eyes were required: (1) to present with early refractory DME, as defined by visual acuity (VA) gain ≤ 5 letters or reduction in central subfield thickness (CST) ≤ 20%, after a loading phase of anti-VEGF therapy (three monthly injections) and (2) to treat further with (a) anti-VEGF therapy or (b) DEX implant. Main outcome measures were change in visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) at 12 months. Due to imbalanced baseline characteristics, a matched anti-VEGF group was formed by only keeping eyes with similar baseline characteristics as those in the DEX group. RESULTS: A total of 110 eyes from 105 patients were included (anti-VEGF group: 72 eyes, DEX group: 38 eyes). Mean change in VA at 12 months was - 0.4 ± 10.8 letters (anti-VEGF group), and + 6.1 ± 10.6 letters (DEX group) (P = 0.004). Over the same period, mean change in CST was + 18.3 ± 145.9 µm (anti-VEGF group) and - 92.8 ± 173.6 µm (DEX group) (P < 0.001). Eyes in the DEX group were more likely to gain ≥ 10 letters (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.19-11.61, P = 0.024) at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, eyes with DME considered refractory to anti-VEGF therapy after three monthly injections which were switched to DEX implant and had better visual and anatomical outcomes at 12 months than those that continued treatment with anti-VEGF therapy.