Coats Disease in 9 Patients: A Hispanic Case Series.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To describe demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment, and visual prognosis of Coats disease in Hispanic patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on nine patients (ten eyes) diagnosed with Coats disease in our two clinical centrers from 2004 - 2017. RESULTS: Mean age at diagnosis was 5.5 years (range 1 - 12 years) and mean follow-up time was 48 months (range 9 - 108 months). Eight patients (89%) were male and had unilateral disease and one (11%) female patient had bilateral disease. In 40% of the cases, patients were asymptomatic. Visual acuity at first presentation was worse than hand motion in 60% of the eyes. Half of the eyes (5/10 eyes, 50%) had exudative retinal detachment (≥ stage IIIA). Vascular ablation with cryotherapy combined with retinal photocoagulation was the most frequent therapeutic approach (40%). Despite anatomical success at 6 months in 100% of the treated eyes, visual outcome at 1 year of treatment was poor (worse than 20/200) in 70% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: In our case series, patients were mostly asymptomatic on presentation, with severe stages of Coats disease. Even with anatomical success after surgical treatment in all treated cases, long-term visual prognosis remained very limited.

DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA IN NAIVE COMPARED WITH REFRACTORY EYES: The International Retina Group Real-Life 24-Month Multicenter Study. The IRGREL-DEX Study.

PURPOSE: To investigate efficacy and safety of repeated dexamethasone (DEX) implants over 24 months, in diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes that were treatment naive compared with eyes refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment, in a real-life environment. METHODS: This multicenter international retrospective study assessed best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness (CST) of naive and refractory eyes to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections treated with dexamethasone implants. Safety data (intraocular pressure rise and cataract surgery) were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 130 eyes from 125 patients were included. Baseline best-corrected visual acuity and CST were similar for naive (n = 71) and refractory eyes (n = 59). Both groups improved significantly in vision after 24 months (P < 0.001). However, naive eyes gained statistically significantly more vision than refractory eyes (+11.3 ± 10.0 vs. 7.3 ± 2.7 letters, P = 0.01) and were more likely to gain ≥10 letters (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.19-9.24, P = 0.02). At 6, 12, and 24 months, CST was significantly decreased compared with baseline in both naive and refractory eyes; however, CST was higher in refractory eyes than in naive eyes (CST 279 ± 61 vs. 313 ± 125 µm, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Over a follow-up of 24 months, vision improved in diabetic macular edema eyes after treatment with dexamethasone implants, both in eyes that were treatment naive and eyes refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment; however, improvement was greater in naive eyes.

Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy Based on Non-ICGA Criteria in White Patients With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To determine prevalence of probable polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) among White patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) using non-indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) criteria DESIGN: Multicenter, multinational, retrospective, cross-sectional study. METHODS: A total of 208 treatment-naive eyes from Hispanic and non-Hispanic White individuals diagnosed with nAMD were included. All underwent color fundus photography (CFP), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and fluorescein angiography (FFA). De-identified images of study eyes were sent to 2 groups of graders. Group 1 reviewed CFP, OCT, and FFA to confirm nAMD diagnosis. Group 2 reviewed CFP and OCT to determine highly suggestive features for PCV. Probable PCV diagnosis defined as the presence of ≥2 of 4 highly suggestive features for PCV: notched or fibrovascular pigment epithelial detachment (PED) on CFP, sharply-peaked PED, notched PED, and hyperreflective ring on OCT. RESULTS: Eleven eyes were excluded because of poor image quality (6) or non-nAMD diagnosis (5). Of 197 eligible eyes (197 patients), the mean age (SD) was 78.8 years (8.9), 44.2% were men, 26.4% were Hispanic, and 73.6% were non-Hispanic White individuals; 41.1%, 23.4%, 9.1%, and 2.5% had ≥1, ≥2, ≥3, and 4 highly suggestive features. Results showed that 23.4% (95% CI, 17.6%-29.9%) had probable PCV diagnosis. Predominantly occult CNV was more frequently found in probable PCV than nAMD subgroup (84.8% vs 64.9%, P = .01). Hispanic White individuals had a lower prevalence of probable PCV than non-Hispanic White individuals (9.6% vs 28.2%, P = .006) CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that probable PCV occurs between 17.6% and 29.9% in White individuals with nAMD, and more commonly in non-Hispanic than in Hispanic White individuals.

GRAding of functional and anatomical response to DExamethasone implant in patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: GRADE-DME Study.

To analyze functional and anatomical response patterns to dexamethasone (DEX) implant in diabetic macular edema (DME), to describe proportion of responders and non-responders, and to propose a new DME grading system. Retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study. Naïve and non-naïve DME patients were treated with DEX, with visual acuity (VA) ≥ 0.2 logMAR and central subfield thickness (CST) of ≥ 300 µm. Functional and anatomical responses were graded after 2 and 4 months, and categorized as early and stable improvement, early and progressive improvement, pendular response, delayed improvement, and persistent non-response. 417 eyes were included (175 treatment naïve eyes). Compared to non-naïve eyes, naïve eyes showed a very good functional response (VA gain ≥ 10 letters) more frequently after 2 and 4 months (56% and 57% [naïve] vs. 33% and 28% [non-naïve], p < 0.001). A VA gain < 5 letters (non-response) after 2 and 4 months was seen in 18% and 16% of naïve eyes, and in 49% and 53% of non-naïve eyes (p < 0.001). A lack of anatomical response was rare in both groups, but more frequently in non-naïve eyes (12% vs. 4%, p = 0.003). Functionally and anatomically, naïve eyes showed most frequently an early and stable improvement (functionally: 77/175 44%; anatomically: 123/175 eyes, 70%). Most non-naïve eyes experienced no significant improvement functionally (97/242 eyes, 40%), despite a mostly early and stable improvement anatomical response pattern (102/242 eyes, 42%). Functional but not anatomical response patterns were influenced by baseline VA. Naïve and non-naïve eyes show different functional and anatomical response patterns to DEX implant. Functional non-responders are rare in naïve eyes, whereas anatomical non-response is unusual in both groups.

Safety of 6000 intravitreal dexamethasone implants.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the real-life safety profile of intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection for various retinal conditions. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter analysis of intravitreal dexamethasone implant injections (700 µg) due to various retinal conditions including central retinal venous occlusion (1861 injections), diabetic macular oedema (3104 injections), post-surgical cystoid macular oedema (305 injections) and uveitis (381 injections). The eyes were evaluated mainly for the occurrence of adverse events such as glaucoma, cataract, retinal detachment and endophthalmitis along during the follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 6015 injections in 2736 eyes of 1441 patients (mean age of 65.7±12.9 years) were in total analysed over an average period of 18 months (range 6 months to 102 months). A total of 576 eyes (32.5% of the phakic eyes) developed cataract requiring surgical intervention. However, visually insignificant cataract progression was observed in another 259 phakic eyes (14.6%) which did not require surgical removal. A total of 727 eyes (26.5%) experienced an intraocular pressure (IOP) rise of >25 mm Hg, with 155 eyes (5.67%) having a prior history of glaucoma and 572 eyes (20.9%) having new onset IOP rise. Overall, more than 90% of eyes with IOP rise were managed medically, and 0.5% eyes required filtering surgery. Endophthalmitis (0.07%), retinal detachment (0.03%) and vitreous haemorrhage (0.03%) were rare. There was no significant change in visual acuity (p=0.87) and central macular thickness (p=0.12) at the last follow-up. CONCLUSION: This is the largest real-life study assessing the safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant injections in various retinal conditions. Cataract progression and intraocular pressure rise are the most common side effects, but are often rather easily manageable.

Baseline predictors for visual acuity loss during observation in diabetic macular oedema with good baseline visual acuity.

PURPOSE: To investigate clinical baseline characteristics and optical coherence tomography biomarkers predicting visual loss during observation in eyes with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and good baseline visual acuity (VA). METHODS: A sub-analysis of a 12-month, retrospective study, including patients with baseline VA ≤0.1 logMAR (≥20/25 Snellen) and centre-involving DMO. The primary outcome measure was the correlation between baseline characteristics and VA loss ≥10 letters during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 249 eyes were included in the initial study, of which 147 eyes were observed and 80 eyes received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment at baseline. Visual acuity (VA) loss ≥10 letters occurred in 21.8% (observed cohort) and in 24.3% (treated cohort), respectively. Within observed eyes, presence of hyperreflective foci [HRF; odds ratio (OR): 3.18, p = 0.046], and disorganization of inner retina layers (DRIL; OR: 2.71, p = 0.026) were associated with a higher risk of VA loss ≥10 letters. In observed eyes with a combined presence of HRF, DRIL and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption, the risk of VA loss was further increased (OR: 3.86, p = 0.034). In eyes with combined presence of DRIL, HRF and EZ disruption, risk of VA loss was 46.7% (7/15 eyes) in the observed cohort, and 26.3% (5/19 eyes) in the treated cohort (p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Patients with DMO and good baseline VA, managed by observation, are of increased risk for VA loss if DRIL, HRF and EZ disruption are present at baseline. Earlier treatment with anti-VEGF in these patients may potentially decrease the risk of VA loss at 12 months.

Real-world outcomes of observation and treatment in diabetic macular edema with very good visual acuity: the OBTAIN study.

AIMS: To describe and compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of untreated and treated diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with very good baseline visual acuity (VA) in a real-world setting. METHODS: A 12-month, retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study, including DME patients with baseline visual acuity (VA) ≤ 0.1 logMAR (≥ 20/25 Snellen) and central subfield thickness (CST) > 250 µm with intra- and/or subretinal fluid seen on optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: A total of 249 eyes were included, of which 155 were treated and 94 were non-treated during follow-up. Most eyes maintained vision (VA gain or VA loss < 5 letters) at 12 months (treated: 58.1%; non-treated: 73.4%). In non-treated eyes with stable VA within the first 6 months, VA was maintained throughout the follow-up in most cases (86.3%). In non-treated eyes with VA loss ≥ 5 letters within 6 months (36.7%), further observation led to worse visual outcome than treatment (- 4.2 vs. - 7.8 letters, p = 0.013). In eyes in which treatment was initiated at baseline (n = 102), treatment with 8-12 anti-VEGF injections led to better visual outcome compared to treatment with less injections (- 0.3 ± 3.6 letters vs. - 3.8 ± 6.2 letters, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, the majority of DME patients with very good VA maintained vision at 12 months, regardless of whether the DME was treated or not. This study supports close observation of eyes with DME and very good VA with consideration of treatment when a one line drop in vision is observed.

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.

Posterior Segment Intraocular Foreign Body: Extraction Surgical Techniques, Timing, and Indications for Vitrectomy.

Ocular penetrating injury with Intraocular Foreign Body (IOFB) is a common form of ocular injury. Several techniques to remove IOFB have been reported by different authors. The aim of this publication is to review different timing and surgical techniques related to the extraction of IOFB. Material and Methods. A PubMed search on "Extraction of Intraocular Foreign Body," "Timing for Surgery Intraocular Foreign Body," and "Surgical Technique Intraocular Foreign Body" was made. Results. Potential advantages of immediate and delayed IOFB removal have been reported with different results. Several techniques to remove IOFB have been reported by different authors with good results. Conclusion. The most important factor at the time to perform IOFB extraction is the experience of the surgeon.