Exploring the role of retinal fluid as a biomarker for the management of diabetic macular oedema.

Anti-VEGF therapies are associated with significant gains in visual acuity and fluid resolution in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and have become the standard of care. However, despite their efficacy, outcomes can be unpredictable, vary widely between individual eyes, and a large proportion of patients have persistent fluid following initial treatment, with a negative impact on visual outcomes. Anatomical parameters measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), in addition to visual acuity, are key to monitoring treatment effectiveness and guiding retreatment decisions; however, existing guidelines on the management of DMO lack clear recommendations for interpretation of OCT parameters, or proposed thresholds of various markers to guide retreatment decisions. Although central subfield thickness (CSFT) has been widely used as a marker for retreatment decisions in clinical trials in DMO, and a reduction in CSFT has generally been shown to accompany improvements in best-corrected visual acuity with treatment, analyses of the relationship between these parameters show that the correlation is small to moderate. A more direct relationship can be seen between an increased magnitude of CSFT fluctuations over time and poorer visual acuity, suggesting that control of CSFT could be important in maximising visual outcomes. The relationship between visual outcomes and qualitatively assessed intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid is also unclear, although quantitative assessments of fluid parameters suggest that untreated intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid negatively impact visual outcomes. These findings highlight a need for clearer guidelines on the management of retinal fluid to improve visual outcomes for patients with DMO.

One-Year Brolucizumab Outcomes in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration from a Large United States Cohort in the IRIS® Registry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate visual acuity (VA) and injection intervals in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) after 12 months of brolucizumab therapy in clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in the United States-based IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) with nAMD who received brolucizumab exclusively for 12 months (2308 eyes of 2079 patients). METHODS: Observational study of eyes with a first injection of brolucizumab (index), followed by 2 or more brolucizumab injections over the following 12 months without switching to another anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were change in best recorded VA and, for eyes receiving prior anti-VEGF therapy (treatment-experienced eyes), the difference between the brolucizumab injection interval at 12 months and the anti-VEGF injection interval before switching. The interval before switching was defined as the time between the prior anti-VEGF and index brolucizumab injections; brolucizumab interval was the time between the closest injection to day 365 and the preceding injection. Secondary outcomes included incident adverse events. RESULTS: Overall VA at index was 61.6 ± 18.4 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters; 83.7% of treatment-naive eyes (184/220) and 86.1% of treatment-experienced eyes (1797/2088) showed stable (< 10 letters gained or lost) or improved (≥ 10 letters gained) VA at 12 months. Among treatment-experienced eyes receiving a prior anti-VEGF injection within 365 days before index, 29.5% (594/2015) showed an interval before switching of 8 weeks or more (mean, 7.6 ± 5.5 weeks), whereas 83.1% (1734/2015) showed a brolucizumab injection interval at 12 months of 8 weeks or more (mean, 10.3 ± 4.0 weeks). In all, 77.1% of treatment-experienced eyes (1554/2015) showed an interval extension of 1 week or more; of these, 55.4% (861/1554) showed an extension of 4 weeks or more. CONCLUSIONS: In this community-based study, at 12 months, brolucizumab treatment prolonged the interval between anti-VEGF injections for most treatment-experienced eyes, particularly those with shorter intervals before switching, while maintaining or improving VA. With careful balancing of the benefits and risks, switching to brolucizumab treatment may offer the advantage of extending the treatment interval for patients with a high anti-VEGF therapy burden. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Factors Linked to Injection Interval Extension in Eyes with Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration Switched to Brolucizumab.

PURPOSE: To evaluate factors associated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection interval extension in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) switched to brolucizumab treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in the United States-based IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) with nAMD who switched from another anti-VEGF agent to brolucizumab-only treatment for ≥ 12 months from October 8, 2019, through November 26, 2021. METHODS: Univariable and multivariable analyses examined associations of demographic and clinical characteristics with the likelihood of interval extension after switching to brolucizumab therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eyes were classified as either extenders or nonextenders at 12 months. Extenders were eyes that achieved (1) an extension of ≥ 2 weeks in the brolucizumab injection interval at 12 months versus the interval before switching (time between the last known prior anti-VEGF injection and first [index] brolucizumab injection) and (2) stable (< 10 letters gained or lost) or improved (≥ 10 letters gained) visual acuity (VA) at 12 months versus VA at index injection. RESULTS: Of 2015 eyes among 1890 patients who switched to brolucizumab treatment, 1186 (58.9%) were extenders. In univariable analyses, demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between extenders and nonextenders, except that extenders had shorter intervals before switching versus nonextenders (mean, 5.9 ± 2.1 weeks vs. 10.1 ± 7.6 weeks, respectively). In multivariable logistic regression modeling, a shorter interval before switching was associated significantly and positively with interval extension with brolucizumab therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 5.6 for interval before switching of < 8 weeks versus ≥ 8 weeks; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.9; P < 0.001), and eyes with an index VA of 40 to 65 letters were significantly less likely to be extenders than eyes in the higher (better) index VA categories. CONCLUSIONS: Length of the treatment interval before switching was the characteristic associated most strongly with successful interval extension with brolucizumab. Treatment-experienced patients who required more frequent injections (i.e., shorter intervals before switching) showed the greatest extensions when switching to brolucizumab. With careful consideration of benefits and risks, brolucizumab may be a valuable option for patients with higher treatment burdens because of the need for frequent injections. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Anatomical and functional outcomes following switching from aflibercept to ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Europe: SAFARI study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Prospective data on switching anti-vascular endothelial growth factors in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) who have previously shown no/partial response are limited. This prospective study assessed the effect of switching from aflibercept to ranibizumab on anatomical and functional outcomes in patients with persistent/recurrent disease activity. METHODS: SAFARI (NCT02161575) was a 6-month, prospective, single-arm study conducted in the UK and Germany. Patients, meeting strict eligibility criteria for one of two subgroups (primary treatment failure or suboptimal treatment response), received 3 monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injections (0.5 mg). Thereafter, ranibizumab was administered pro re nata at monthly visits. The primary endpoint was change from baseline (CfB) to day 90 in central subfield retinal thickness (CSRT). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and retinal morphology parameters were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled (primary treatment failure, 1; suboptimal treatment response, 99). In the overall population, there was a significant CfB in median CSRT of -30.75 µm (95% CI -59.50,-20.50; p<0.0001) to day 90. Improvements were also observed in other quantitative and qualitative optical coherence tomography parameters. In Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters assessed by category, 55% and 59% of patients gained 0-≥15 letters versus baseline at day 90 and day 180, respectively. However, mean improvements in BCVA (CfB) to each time point were small (≤2 letters). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: Switching from aflibercept to ranibizumab led to a significant improvement in CSRT, with ~60% experiencing stabilised/improved BCVA. Therefore, patients with nAMD who have shown a suboptimal response to aflibercept may benefit from switching to ranibizumab.