Central retinal vein occlusion in patients with metastatic solid tumors on tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a report of case series and literature review.

Background: Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a rare adverse effect related to the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with metastatic malignancies, which has only been reported in several case reports. Case presentation: We reported the case series of three CRVO patients on regular regimens of TKIs as part of targeted therapies for metastatic malignancies, all of whom were otherwise healthy with no or well-controlled systemic conditions. All these patients received injections of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) and achieved a fluid-free macula at the end of the visit. In addition, we reviewed the existing literature on this subject and present here an updated analysis of the related TKIs, ocular presentation, treatment, and prognosis. Conclusion: All patients diagnosed with CRVO on TKIs received dexamethasone implant treatment and obtained a fluid-free macula. We would like to raise awareness among our colleague oncologists about the possibility of CRVO related to TKI use and the necessity for patients to be screened regularly by a retinal specialist.

Switching to an Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant after Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review.

Among working-age people, diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema are currently considered the main causes of blindness. Nowadays, intravitreal injections are widely acknowledged as a significant milestone in ophthalmology, especially for the treatment of several retinal diseases, including diabetic macular edema. In particular, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are typically the first line of treatment; however, monthly injections are required, at least, during the loading dosage. Notably, an intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (DEX) implant (Ozurdex®, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) is considered a legitimate substitute treatment for diabetic eyes that have not responded to anti-VEGF treatment. In fact, clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of an intravitreal DEX implant in treating such conditions over a period of three to six months. For this reason, wisely selecting diabetic patients might be crucial to decreasing the load of injections in clinics and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to analyze the available scientific literature to highlight the benefits, efficacy, and clinical criteria for choosing whether to switch from intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy to an intravitreal DEX implant in diabetic macular edema.

Peripapillary pachychoroid syndrome treated with dexamethasone implant: A case report.

PURPOSE: To describe a case of peripapillary pachychoroid syndrome (PPS) in a diabetic patient with cystoid macular edema (CME), treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) injection. This report also illustrates the history of the disease after repeated IDI and dexamethasone topical treatment. METHODS: A case report. RESULTS: A 77-year old male patient with PPS and good diabetic control was treated with dexamethasone implant for CME. After an initial morphofunctional improvement associated with a first IDI, the disease relapsed after the second dexamethasone implant injection. This was associated with a significant increase in both intraretinal fluid and choroidal thickness, with subsequent visual acuity (VA) decrease. At this point, a topical dexamethasone treatment was performed and, despite a morphological improvement, VA worsened compared with baseline, likely because of anatomical damage. CONCLUSION: In this report, the importance of the recognition of PPS is underlined and the possible occurrence of a "rebound" effect due to repeated IDI is described.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Management of Choroidal Neovascular Membrane in Pregnancy.

The management of choroidal neovascularization (CNVM) in pregnant young females has been a lacuna due to the rarity of the condition as well as the non-availability of comprehensive data to showcase the efficacy of currently available treatment regimes in order to achieve a positive outcome for both the growing fetus as well the patient herself. In a review of available literature, the condition has been treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGF), laser photocoagulation, and intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI), with varied results ranging from the successful outcome in terms of pregnancy to abortions. When faced with such circumstances, healthcare professionals usually proceed cautiously, balancing the possible advantages against the hazards to the mother and the fetus. Here we present a case report of a young 30-year-old pregnant lady who developed idiopathic CNVM during her third month of gestation. Being a rare entity, CNVM in young pregnant women raises severe concerns due to potential consequences on the mother's and fetus's health. In certain previously documented cases, pregnant ladies with CNVM have been successfully treated with IDI. Hence, after much deliberation, we chose to go with IDI rather than anti-VEGF, which resulted in the successful management of her CNVM as well as achieving full-term normal delivery without any fetal anomalies. In this particular case, the pregnancy and the visual rehabilitation have both had favorable outcomes. There was no associated increased intraocular pressure (IOP) or changes to the lenticular structure. The literature review also suggests that IDI may still be as effective in managing CNVM during pregnancy, but at a lower risk than anti-VEGF drug. Even with the favorable outcomes revealed in case reports, larger-scale studies to properly examine IDI's safety profile would be required for regulatory clearance of its safety in pregnancy.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant to Treat Persistent Full-Thickness Macular Hole.

Purpose: To describe a new technique for the secondary repair of persistent full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs). Methods: This series evaluated 3 cases of a persistent FTMH after pars plana vitrectomy, internal limiting membrane peeling, and 20% sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade. After at least 4 weeks (mean, 36.3; range, 32-40) of unsuccessful topical treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, an intravitreal dexamethasone implant was injected. Results: The intravitreal dexamethasone implant led to anatomic closure and visual improvement in all 3 cases over a 3-month follow-up. Conclusions: An intravitreal dexamethasone implant could be considered in the management of selected cases of persistent FTMH. Further studies and a consistent number of cases are needed to fully understand the role of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in persistent FTMHs.

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.

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.

Changes in intraocular pressure following intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with history of glaucoma filtration surgery.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate changes in intraocular pressure following intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection, specifically in patients undergoing glaucoma filtration surgery. METHODS: The degree of increase in intraocular pressure was compared retrospectively among three groups. Group 1 comprised patients who underwent prior glaucoma filtration surgery (54 eyes). Group 2 included patients with or suspected glaucoma without such surgical history (20 eyes). Group 3 included patients without glaucoma (33 eyes). Pressure measurements were taken before the injection and at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months post-injection. A subgroup analysis was performed for pressure > 35 mmHg, > 30 mmHg, > 25 mmHg, and a difference > 10 mmHg between the peak and baseline pressure. RESULTS: Group 1 consistently displayed lower pressures compared with Group 2, with significant difference at both 1- and 6-month post-injections (15.09 mmHg vs. 18.10 mmHg, P = 0.042 and 13.91 mg vs. 17.25 mmHg, P = 0.040). The proportion of patients in Group 1 and Group 3 with pressures > 25 mmHg, > 30 mmHg, and a difference > 10 mmHg did not significantly differ (15.6% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.231; 3.1% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.867; and 17.1% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.231). Notably, Group 2 exhibited a significantly higher proportion within each category (> 25 mmHg, 24.0%; > 30 mmHg, 20.0%; > 10 mmHg difference, 28.0%). CONCLUSION: Intravitreal dexamethasone implant did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with a history of glaucoma filtration surgery compared with patients with suspected glaucoma; the risk was similar to those without glaucoma.

Cytomegalovirus Retinitis Associated With Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Injection.

Purpose: To describe an immunocompetent patient with cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis after dexamethasone implant injection and review previously documented cases. Methods: A review of case reports and literature was performed. Results: A 75-year-old man presented with acute decreased vision in the left eye. He had a vitrectomy and membrane peeling for an epiretinal membrane with recurrent cystoid macular edema and was receiving intravitreal dexamethasone implant injections at an outside hospital. The visual acuity in the left eye was hand motions, and an examination found patchy retinal whitening with hemorrhages. Aqueous polymerase chain reaction was positive for CMV. The laboratory evaluation was negative for immunodeficiencies. He was treated successfully with intravitreal and oral antivirals; however, his vision remained poor at most recent follow-up. A literature review found 8 previous cases of CMV retinitis after dexamethasone implant injection, although most had underlying immune dysregulation. Conclusions: CMV retinitis after intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection is rare. Awareness of this complication is essential because of the risk for devastating blindness.

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data.

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

Dexamethasone Implant under a Proactive Treatment Regimen in Clinical Setting: The ProDEX Study.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of switching intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX-implant) from pro re nata (PRN) treatment regimen to a proactive regimen in patients with macular edema of diverse etiologies. DESIGN: An observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, multicenter, national case series. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one eyes from 68 patients treated between October 2015 and June 2023 were included. METHODS: This study included consecutive eyes treated with DEX-implant who were switched from a PRN regimen to a proactive regimen for diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), noninfectious uveitis macular edema (UME; including postsurgical macular edema), and radiation maculopathy (RM). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) at each visit. RESULTS: According to the etiology, DME represented 49.4% of eyes, UME 24.3%, RVO 21.0%, and RM 6.2%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of follow-up under the PRN and proactive regimens was 20.6 (13.3) and 14.2 (10.3) months, respectively. Switching from a PRN to a proactive regimen significantly improved mean (SD) BCVA by 3.7 (12.9) ETDRS letters (P = 0.01) with a mean (SD) decrease in CMT of 108.0 (151.4) µm (P < 0.001). The proportion of visits with significant anatomic recurrence (> 50 µm) also decreased from 40.1% to 6.0% after switching to a proactive regimen (P < 0.001). The number of DEX-implant injections significantly increased during the proactive treatment period (P < 0.001), but the change in the number of visits was not significantly different (P = 0.2). The proactive treatment period was not associated with a significant increase in IOP (P = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a proactive regimen in patients already treated with DEX-implant seems to significantly improve BCVA and CMT while maintaining stable IOP. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Clinical and optical coherence tomography biomarkers as prognostic factors in dexamethasone intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: Aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) 0.7 mg intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and serous retinal detachment (SRD), and to study the prognostic factors on a follow up of 12 months. METHODS: Forty eyes of twenty- six patients with centre involving DME and SRD, who underwent DEX implant, were enrolled. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), Swept source OCT imaging and intraocular pressure were evaluated. Central macular thickness (CMT), vitreomacular adhesion (VMA), disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRILs), hyperreflective dots (HRD), SRD and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption were included in the analysis at baseline and 12 months after implant. RESULTS: According to our parametric analysis, at 12 months, BVCA improvement from 48.6 ± 23.4 letters to 53.3 ± 24.5 letters was statistically significant (p = 0.04), CMT decreased from 460 ± 99.52 µm to 322.9 ± 117 µm. The presence at baseline of VMA (p = 0.01), EZ disruption (p = 0.03) and DRILs (p = 0.04), were associated with poor BCVA improvement at the end of follow-up. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, OCT biomarkers can be considered significant prognostic factors for treatment outcome in patients with DME undergoing DEX intravitreal implant.

Risk factors for failing sub-Tenon's triamcinolone acetonide for uveitic macular edema.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Tenon's triamcinolone acetonide (STA) is less effective than intravitreal corticosteroids in the treatment of uveitic macular edema (ME), but does have some relative advantages, including substantially lower cost and decreased risk of post-injection ocular hypertension. It would be useful for clinicians to know which eyes may respond well to STA and not necessarily require intravitreal therapy. The objective of this study is to identify risk factors for failing STA for the treatment of uveitic ME. MAIN BODY: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Medical records were reviewed of patients who underwent STA for the treatment of uveitic ME between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2022, at the University of Colorado Hospital. Uveitic ME was defined by a central subfield thickness (CST) greater than 320 µm or the presence of intra-retinal cystoid spaces on optical coherence tomography (OCT), or by the presence of petaloid macular leakage on fluorescein angiography (FA). Data collected included age, race/ethnicity, sex, history of diabetes mellitus, anatomic classification of uveitis, use of corticosteroids, use of immunomodulatory therapy, presence of intra-retinal fluid on OCT, CST on OCT, and presence of petaloid macular leakage on FA. STA failure was defined as the need for additional therapy within 12 weeks of STA due to persistent or worsening uveitic ME. One hundred eighty eyes from 131 patients were included. Forty-two eyes (23.3%) were considered treatment failures. In univariate and multivariable analysis, higher baseline CST was associated with a higher likelihood of failing STA (OR 1.17 for each 30 µm increase in CST, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: STA, while not as potent as intravitreal corticosteroids for the treatment of uveitic ME, was still an effective therapy, particularly for patients with lower baseline CST. Given its lower side effect profile and cost compared to intravitreal treatments, clinicians could consider STA as an initial treatment for mild uveitic ME.

Role of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant in the Management of Treatment-Naive Diabetic Macular Edema: A Pre-Cataract Surgical Approach for Patients with Systemic Contraindications to Anti-VEGF Therapy.

Purpose: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a significant cause of vision impairment, posing challenges in its management due to variable responses and patient diversity. While anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have revolutionized DME treatment, some patients are not suitable candidates for this therapy. Intravitreal corticosteroid therapy, such as the dexamethasone implant (DEX), has emerged as an alternative. This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the role of intravitreal DEX in treatment-naive DME patients with systemic contraindications to anti-VEGF therapy, administered one month before cataract surgery. Patients and Methods: A single-center retrospective study included 20 eyes with controlled diabetes, visually significant cataracts, untreated DME, and systemic contraindications for anti-VEGF therapy. Patients underwent DEX treatment followed by cataract surgery after one month. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were assessed at multiple time points. Results: BCVA significantly improved on days 30, 90, and 180 post-DEX (P<0.00001). CMT showed a significant decrease at day 30 (P<0.00001), which was sustained through days 90 and 180 (P<0.00001). Recurrent DME was observed in 25% of eyes on day 90. IOP increased significantly at days 30 (P<0.00001) and 90 (P=0.0006), returning to baseline by day 180. However, only two eyes needed topical anti-glaucoma treatment. No other ocular or systemic adverse events were noted. Conclusion: Intravitreal DEX administered one month before cataract surgery offers a promising treatment strategy for treatment-naive DME patients with systemic contraindications to anti-VEGF therapy. The study's findings provide insights into improving visual acuity and reducing macular thickness, along with manageable IOP changes. This personalized approach is a valuable addition to DME management, especially for complex medical cases, warranting further research and consideration for clinical practice.

Influence of prior treatment protocol on intravitreal dexamethasone implant behavior in patients with diabetic macular edema in real-world practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEXI) has been placed as an effective option to treat diabetic macular edema (DME). However, there is no consensus on the best time to introduce it. We conducted a study to evaluate anatomical and functional behavior after the first DEXI according to previous treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective, real-world study between 2013 and 2020 investigated changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT at months 2 and 6 after the first DEXI in DME. Patients were divided into naive, early switch (≤3 anti-VEGF injections), or late switch (>3 anti-VEGF injections) groups. RESULTS: Among 112 consecutive eyes, mean BCVA and CMT improved significantly in all groups at month 2, with no difference between them. However, this improvement was not maintained at 6 months. The Naíve group presented better BCVA all over the study period. The previously treated groups, which started with worse initial visual acuity, showed more visual gain without reaching the BCVA of the naive group. CMT performance was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was similar anatomical and functional behavior in all groups. Poorer visual acuity at baseline was associated with worse functional outcome despite good anatomic response.

Real-world effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone implants - Comparison between eyes eligible and ineligible for clinical trials and their associated outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about the generalizability of pivotal randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) findings have been raised. We aimed to compare intravitreal dexamethasone implants' (IDIs) effectiveness for diabetic macular edema (DME) and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), between eyes eligible and ineligible for pRCTs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed Taiwan's Chang Gung Research Database, including DME or CRVO eyes initiating IDIs during 2015-2020. We classified all treated eyes as eligible or ineligible for pRCTs following major selection criteria of the MEAD and GENEVA trials, and evaluated three-, six-, and twelve-month changes in central retinal thickness (CRT) and visual acuity (VA) after initiating IDIs. RESULTS: We included 177 IDI-treated eyes (DME: 72.3%; CRVO: 27.7%), of which 39.8% and 55.1% were ineligible for DME and CRVO pRCTs, respectively. LogMAR-VA and CRT changes at different times were comparable in DME eyes eligible (LogMAR-VA difference: 0.11 to 0.16; CRT difference: -32.7 to -96.9 µm) and ineligible (LogMAR-VA difference: -0.01 to 0.15; CRT difference: -54.5 to -109.3 µm) for the MEAD trial. By contrast, CRVO eyes ineligible for the GENEVA trial had greater LogMAR-VA changes (0.37 ~ 0.50) than those eligible (0.05 ~ 0.13), with comparable CRT reductions (eligible eyes: -72.3 to -106.4 µm; ineligible eyes: -61.8 to -110.7 µm) (all p-values <0.05 of the mean differences between eligible and ineligible CRVO eyes for all follow-ups). CONCLUSIONS: IDIs had similar VA and CRT outcomes among DME eyes, regardless of pRCT-eligibility. However, among CRVO eyes, those ineligible for pRCTs showed greater deterioration in VA than those eligible.

A case of recurring acute exudative polymorphous vitelliform maculopathy successfully treated with intravitreal Ozurdex injection.

INTRODUCTION: We describe a case of acute exudative polymorphous vitelliform maculopathy (AEPVM) that recurred 9 years after the initial event. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of recurrent AEPVM showing recovery of retinal and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) function and good visual outcome following treatment with intravitreal corticosteroid. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 45-year-old Caucasian woman first presented with AEVPM in 2009. Her condition spontaneously resolved and she remained stable over several years. 9 years later, her condition recurred with bilateral reduction in visual acuity. Fundus examination revealed multiple small yellowish subretinal lesions across the posterior pole in both eyes. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed bilateral cystoid macular oedema (CMO). She was referred for electrophysiology and her electrooculogram findings were in keeping with severe generalised RPE dysfunction bilaterally, with a light peak to dark trough ratio (Arden index) of 110%, comparable to her initial presentation 9 years earlier. She was initially treated with oral steroids with some improvement. However, the maculopathy in the left eye recurred on cessation of oral treatment. A sustained-release 700ug dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®) was inserted in the left eye to which she responded remarkably, with improvement in visual acuity and complete resolution of the CMO. A year later, at her most recent clinic visit in March 2021, there was no evidence of any further recurrence. CONCLUSION: Our case demonstrates clinical and imaging findings consistent with recurrence of AEPVM with CMO that has been successfully treated with Ozurdex®.

The efficacy of different anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, and dexamethasone implant therapy in patients with serous retinal detachment caused by Irvine-Gass syndrome.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA), bevacizumab (IVB), ranibizumab (IVR), and dexamethasone implant (IVDI) in the treatment of serous retinal detachment (SRD) caused by Irvine-Gass syndrome (IGS). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort, comparative study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The medical records of 128 eyes with no previous history of intravitreal agents in 128 IGS patients with SRD that received IVA, IVB, IVR, and IVDI monotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into 4 groups, according to treatment. Patients with recurrence and/or were unresponsive following a course of topical steroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were included in the study. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), and SRD were compared between the 4 treatment groups at baseline, at follow-up months 1, 3, 6, and 12, and at the final follow-up visit. RESULTS: Serous retinal detachment completely resolved in 74%, 45.7%, 66.4%, and 40.8% of the eyes at month 1 (P = 0.042), 87%, 50.9%, 75.8%, and 80.9% at month 3 (p = 0.031), 88.9%, 50.4%, 75.7%, 80.2% at month 6 (p = 0.028), 81.7%, 72.8%, 68.7%, 80.1% at month 12 (p = 0.580), and 100%, 66.4%, 87.9%, 93.2% (p = 0.478) at final follow-up visit in the IVA, IVB, IVR, and IVDI groups, respectively. BCVA was significantly better in the IVA group at all follow-up time points (month 1: p < 0.001; month 3: p < 0.001; month 6: p = 0.002; month 12: p = 0.009, final follow-up visit: p < 0.001). CMT was significantly lower in the IVA group at months 3 (p = 0.008), 6 (p = 0.011), and 12 (p = 0.010), and at the final follow-up visit (p < 0.001). Recurrence was observed after a longer period of time and fewer injections were needed in the IVDI and IVA groups (p < 0.05). Resolution of CME was most rapid in the IVA group (p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: All intravitreal agents were effective in terms of visual results in the SRD patients; however, eyes treated with IVA and IVDI required fewer injections, as compared to the eyes treated with IVB and IVR. Furthermore, SRD entirely resolved in all eyes in the IVA group at the final follow-up visit.

Baseline intraocular pressure: an independent risk factor in severe steroid-induced ocular hypertension after intravitreal dexamethasone implant.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the baseline intraocular pressure (IOP)-related risk of severe steroid-induced ocular hypertension (SIOH). We hypothesized that the incidence and severity of SIOH may differ according to baseline IOP in patients who received intravitreal dexamethasone implants. METHODS: A total of 889 eyes treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implants and a baseline IOP of ≤ 23 mmHg were enrolled. Enrolled patients were divided into two groups: the steroid-responders (127 eyes) and the non-steroid-responders (762 eyes). The steroid-responders group was subdivided into post-injection IOP of ≥ 25, > 30, or > 35 mmHg or IOP elevation of ≥ 10 mmHg over the baseline value. The odds ratio of SIOH was calculated using univariable logistic regression analysis, and significant variables were analyzed with a multivariable model. IOP was measured before (baseline IOP) and after dexamethasone implant injection at 1 week and 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Although baseline IOP was significantly associated with the development of SIOH in logistic regression analysis, the results from the subgroup analysis differed. In the group with IOP elevation of ≥ 10 mmHg over the baseline, SIOH was not significantly associated with baseline IOP, but it was significantly related to higher baseline IOP in the severe SIOH group (IOP > 30 and > 35 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline IOP is a risk factor for severe SIOH. Clinicians should be aware of the risk of SIOH when administering steroids intravitreally to patients with high baseline IOP (IOP > 19 mmHg).

Intravitreal Dexamethasone as a Rescue for Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Persistent Disease Activity and High Treatment Demand.

Purpose: To assess the impact of switching to, or adding, an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Dex; Ozurdex®) in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy on disease stability and treatment intervals in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and persistent disease activity and high treatment demand. Methods: This retrospective noncomparative multicenter longitudinal case series included pseudophakic eyes with nAMD and persistent retinal fluid despite regular anti-VEGF therapy (ranibizumab or aflibercept) that received at least 1 intravitreal Dex implant. Visual acuity, central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure were recorded before, and after, the addition of Dex to anti-VEGF therapy. Results: Sixteen eyes of 16 patients met the inclusion criteria of persistent fluid despite anti-VEGF therapy, under treatment intervals of ≤7 weeks in 14 instances. Patients were 80.9 ± 7.4 years old and had received 25.5 ± 17.4 anti-VEGF injections before Dex over a period of 36.4 ± 21.9 months before switching. The treatment interval increased from 5.5 ± 3.2 weeks between the last anti-VEGF and first Dex injection to 11.7 ± 7.3 weeks thereafter (P = 0.022). CRT remained stable (385.3 ± 152.1, 383.9 ± 129.7, and 458.3 ± 155.2 µm before switching as well as 12 and 24 months after switching; P = 0.78 and P = 0.36, respectively). An insignificant mean short-term early increase in visual acuity was not sustained over time. Conclusions: The addition of Dex resulted in a relevant and sustained increase in treatment intervals, whereas CRT and visual acuity remained stable in these difficult-to-treat eyes. It may be discussed whether inflammation or other steroid-responsive factors play a significant role in cases of nAMD with nonsatisfactory responses to anti-VEGF.