Relationship between duration and extent of oedema and visual acuity outcome with ranibizumab in diabetic macular oedema: A post hoc analysis of Protocol I data.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This post hoc analysis explores the relationship between residual oedema exposure after ranibizumab treatment initiation and long-term visual acuity outcome in eyes with centre-involved diabetic macular oedema (DMO). SUBJECTS/METHODS: Eyes randomised to the ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser treatment arms in the Protocol I trial and with observed central retinal thickness (CRT) readings at baseline and ≥1 follow-up visits (n = 367) were stratified by 1) oedema duration (number of study visits with CRT ≥ 250 µm during the first 52 weeks of ranibizumab treatment); and 2) oedema extent (amount of excess CRT [≥ 250 µm] at each study visit, averaged over the first 52 weeks). Associations between measures of residual oedema and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were assessed in multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: Oedema duration and oedema extent during the first 52 weeks of ranibizumab treatment showed significant negative associations with BCVA improvement at weeks 52, 104 and 156. Eyes with the most persistent oedema gained (mean) 4.4 (95% CI 0.1─8.7) fewer Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters at week 156 than eyes with the least persistent oedema (P = 0.044). Eyes with the greatest amount of oedema gained (mean) 9.3 (95% CI 4.0─14.5) fewer ETDRS letters at week 156 than eyes with the least amount of oedema (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Macular oedema exposure over the first 52 weeks of ranibizumab treatment is a negative prognostic factor for long-term visual acuity improvement in centre-involved DMO.

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN EARLY ANATOMIC RESPONSE TO ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY AND LONG-TERM OUTCOME IN DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA: An Independent Analysis of Protocol i Study Data.

PURPOSE: This post hoc analysis explores the relationship between early retinal anatomical response and long-term anatomical and visual outcomes with ranibizumab in center-involved diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Eyes randomized to the ranibizumab plus prompt laser and ranibizumab plus deferred laser treatment arms in the Protocol I study were categorized according to their proportional reduction (<20 vs. ≥20%) in central retinal thickness (CRT) after 12 weeks. Adjusted and unadjusted analyses assessed the association between early (Week 12) anatomical response and long-term (Weeks 52 and 156) anatomical and best-corrected visual acuity outcomes. RESULTS: Of 335 study eyes, 118 showed limited (<20%) and 217 showed strong (≥20%) CRT reduction at Week 12. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, limited early CRT response was negatively and significantly associated with strong CRT response at Weeks 52 and 156. Sensitivity analyses indicated that this association was robust and unrelated to any "floor effect." In unadjusted analyses, a strong early CRT response was associated with greater long-term improvement in best-corrected visual acuity; after controlling for confounders, the association lost statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Early CRT response to ranibizumab is a significant prognostic indicator of medium- to long-term anatomical outcome in center-involved diabetic macular edema.

Pharmacology of Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema.

Purpose: Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment for inflammatory diseases almost 80 years after their first clinical use. Topical ophthalmic formulations of corticosteroids have been available to treat disease of the anterior segment of the eye, but the approval of corticosteroids to treat vitreoretinal diseases, including vein occlusion, diabetic macular edema, and uveitis, has occurred only recently. Although most diseases respond to corticosteroid therapy, some patients are resistant to this therapy and side effects, including cataract and elevated intraocular pressure, can limit their use. The purpose of this review is to detail the basic science of corticosteroids focusing on differences in potency, drug delivery, pharmacokinetics, and gene activation, and how these differences affect safety and efficacy in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Methods: A review was conducted of basic science and pharmacology of the corticosteroids used to treat diabetic macular edema. Results: Clinically available corticosteroids not only have differing potency and pharmacokinetics, but also activate different genes in different target tissues. These differences are associated with distinct efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and safety profiles. It is important to understand these differences in selecting corticosteroids to treat diabetic macular edema. Conclusions: Recent advances in our understanding of the basic science of corticosteroids can explain clinical differences in these agents regarding efficacy and safety. Importantly, this understanding should allow the future discovery of additional novel corticosteroids to treat diabetic macular edema.

A multicenter, 12-month randomized study comparing dexamethasone intravitreal implant with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) 0.7 mg every 5 months provides a similar average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline as ranibizumab 0.5 mg administered as per its European Summary of Product Characteristics in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, 12-month, randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority study in patients with DME (one eye/patient). The primary efficacy measure was BCVA using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) method. Secondary efficacy measures included area of leakage on fluorescein angiography and central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar in the two treatment groups (DEX implant, n = 181; ranibizumab, n = 182); mean DME duration was ∼33 months. The mean average BCVA change from baseline over 12 months was 4.34 letters with DEX implant and 7.60 letters with ranibizumab. The lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval of the between-group difference was -4.74 letters, and therefore, DEX was demonstrated to be noninferior to ranibizumab based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 5 letters. At monthly follow-up visits, the percentage of patients with ≥15-letter BCVA gain from baseline ranged from 7.2 to 17.7 % with DEX implant and 4.4 to 26.9 % with ranibizumab. Both DEX implant and ranibizumab effectively reduced CRT and reduced the area of fluorescein leakage. Between-group differences in change from baseline CRT favored DEX implant at 1, 2, 6, and 7 months (p ≤ 0.007) and ranibizumab at 4, 5, 9, and 10 months (p < 0.001); the decrease in fluorescein leakage area was greater with DEX implant than ranibizumab at month 12 (p < 0.001). Ocular adverse events in the study eye were more frequent in the DEX implant group because of the occurrence of intraocular pressure (IOP) increases and cataract. IOP increases were transient and generally managed with topical medication. CONCLUSIONS: Both DEX implant and ranibizumab were well tolerated and improved BCVA and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME. DEX implant met the a priori criterion for noninferiority to ranibizumab in average change from baseline BCVA over 12 months. Noninferiority was achieved with an average of 2.85 DEX implant injections and 8.70 ranibizumab injections per patient.

Cytokine and chemokine tear levels in patients with uveitis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the levels of cytokines and chemokines in tears differ in uveitis patients and healthy subjects. METHODS: Ninety-two uveitis patients (mean age 46.4 years) and 157 control healthy subjects (mean age 49.5 years) were recruited. Subjects with ocular surface diseases such as dry eye were excluded from the study. Using multiplex bead-based assays, tears (4 µl) were analysed for the concentration of interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-1RA, IL-2, IL-6, IL-7, IL-8/CXCL8, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-15, IL-17A, IL-23, epidermal growth factor (EGF), fractalkine/CX3CL1, interferon-γ, IP-10/CXCL10, monocyte chemo-attractant protein (MCP)-1/CCL2, tumour necrosis factor-α, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß1, TGF-ß2 and TGF-ß3. Tear molecule levels were compared between the groups and among the different forms of uveitis and disease severity. RESULTS: Epidermal growth factor, IL-1RA, IL-7, IL-8/CXCL8, IP-10/CXCL10, MCP-1/CCL2, TGF-ß2 and VEGF were detected in more than 75% of the samples in both groups. Statistically significant differences in percentage of detection between control and patient groups were found for IL-23, IL-1ß, IL-15, EGF, fractalkine/CX3CL1 and MCP-1/CCL2. The concentrations of IL-1RA, IL-8/CXCL8, fractalkine/CX3CL1, IP-10/CXCL10, VEGF and TGF-ß2 in uveitis tear samples were elevated compared to controls (p < 0.05). Significant differences in tear levels of those molecules and also EGF were also present depending on the anatomic classification of uveitis. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in the levels of several cytokines and chemokines in tears of patients with uveitis compared with healthy subjects. These results can help understand the underlying pathophysiology of the uveitis and could potentially aid in diagnosis.

Early and Long-Term Responses to Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Diabetic Macular Edema: Analysis of Protocol I Data.

PURPOSE: To determine whether early visual acuity response to ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema is associated with long-term outcome. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of randomized controlled trial data. METHODS: Pooled data from the ranibizumab plus prompt and deferred laser treatment arms of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network's Protocol I study were used to explore the relationship between early (week 12) and late (weeks 52-156) visual acuity response (mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity [CFB BCVA]; categorized improvement [<5, 5-9, or ≥10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters] in BCVA). RESULTS: In the analysis population (340 eyes), <5-, 5- to 9-, and ≥10-letter BCVA improvements occurred in 39.7%, 23.2%, and 37.1% of eyes, respectively, at 12 weeks, and 34.2%, 16.5%, and 49.3% of eyes at 156 weeks. Within each early BCVA response category (<5, 5-9, and ≥10 letters of improvement at 12 weeks), mean CFB BCVA at 52-156 weeks varied by <5 letters from that at 12 weeks. CFB BCVA and <5-letter improvement at 12 weeks showed significant positive and negative association, respectively, with CFB BCVA and ≥10-letter improvement at 52 and 156 weeks. Similar relationships were demonstrated in eyes with baseline BCVA <69 letters, and associations remained significant after multivariate adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab ± laser therapy resulted in similar rates (∼40%) of suboptimal (<5-letter) and pronounced (≥10-letter) BCVA improvement at 12 weeks. Eyes with suboptimal early BCVA response showed poorer long-term visual outcomes than eyes with pronounced early response (mean improvement 3.0 vs 13.8 letters at 156 weeks).

Bimatoprost 0.03% for the Treatment of Eyebrow Hypotrichosis.

BACKGROUND: Eyebrow loss may have substantial negative functional and social consequences. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% in subjects with eyebrow hypotrichosis. METHODS: This multicenter, double-masked study randomized adult females or males with eyebrow hypotrichosis to receive bimatoprost 0.03% twice (BID) or once daily (QD) or vehicle BID for 7 months. Primary endpoint was overall eyebrow fullness at Month 7. Secondary endpoints included eyebrow fullness (mm), darkness (intensity units), and subject satisfaction with treatment. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: At Month 7, the proportion of subjects with improvement was significantly higher in bimatoprost groups versus vehicle (both, p < .001). Improvements occurred in both bimatoprost groups versus vehicle after Month 1 and continued through follow-up; eyebrow fullness and darkness improved as early as Months 2 and 1, respectively (both, p < .001). Greater satisfaction was reported with bimatoprost versus vehicle at Month 2 and all subsequent time points. Overall, 38.1%, 42.4%, and 35.5% of subjects in the bimatoprost BID, QD, and vehicle groups, respectively, experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Most frequent TEAEs were similar across groups. No skin or iris hyperpigmentation or conjunctival hyperemia occurred. CONCLUSION: Bimatoprost 0.03% BID and QD is safe, well tolerated, and effective for eyebrow hypotrichosis.

INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA TREATED WITH DEXAMETHASONE INTRAVITREAL IMPLANT IN THE 3-YEAR MEAD STUDY.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the occurrence, management, and clinical significance of increases in intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with diabetic macular edema treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant). METHODS: Randomized, multicenter, 3-year, Phase III study. Patients (N = 1,048) with diabetic macular edema were randomized to DEX implant 0.7-mg, DEX implant 0.35-mg, or sham procedure with retreatment allowed at ≥6-month intervals (seven injections maximum). RESULTS: In the DEX implant 0.7-mg, DEX implant 0.35-mg, and sham groups, respectively, ≥10-mmHg IOP increases from baseline occurred in 27.7%, 24.8%, and 3.7% of patients, and their frequency did not increase with repeat injections. IOP-lowering medication was used by 41.5%, 37.6%, and 9.1% of patients. Only one patient (0.3%) in each DEX implant group had filtering surgery to manage a steroid-induced IOP increase. Among DEX implant 0.7-mg-treated patients with and without a ≥10-mmHg IOP increase, 21.9% (21 of 96) and 22.4% (57 of 255), respectively, achieved ≥15-letter best-corrected visual acuity gain at the end of the study, and mean average change in central retinal thickness from baseline was -127 µm and -106 µm, respectively. CONCLUSION: DEX implant demonstrated clear benefit of treatment despite increases in IOP. Sequential implants had no cumulative effect on IOP.

Anatomical effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema: a pooled analysis of 3-year phase III trials.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To assess long-term effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) monotherapy on retinal morphology in diabetic macular oedema (DME). METHODS: Two multicentre, masked, phase III studies with identical protocols randomised patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters and central subfield retinal thickness (CSRT) ≥300 µm to DEX implant 0.7, 0.35 mg or sham procedure. Patients were followed up for 3 years (39 months if treated at month 36), with retreatment allowed at ≥6-month intervals. Patients needing other macular oedema (ME) therapy exited the study. Changes from baseline in CSRT, macular volume and ME grade, area of retinal thickening, macular leakage, macular capillary loss and diabetic retinopathy severity were assessed. RESULTS: After 3 years, more eyes treated with DEX implant 0.7 and 0.35 mg than sham showed improvement (although small) in ME grade (p<0.05 vs sham). DEX implant 0.7 mg delayed time to onset of two-step progression in diabetic retinopathy severity by ∼12 months. DEX implant 0.7 and 0.35 mg produced small, non-sustained reductions in macular leakage but had no significant effect on macular capillary loss. CONCLUSIONS: DEX implant 0.7 or 0.35 mg, administered at ≥6-month intervals over 3 years, produced sustained retinal structural improvement in DME. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00168337 and NCT00168389.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RETINAL THICKNESS AND VISUAL ACUITY IN EYES WITH RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION TREATED WITH DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) in eyes from two clinical trials of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg for macular edema after branch or central retinal vein occlusion. METHODS: Patients with vision loss as a result of macular edema (≥6-week duration) after branch retinal vein occlusion or central retinal vein occlusion were treated with a single dexamethasone intravitreal implant or sham. Prospectively defined outcomes included BCVA and CRT (as assessed by optical coherence tomography). RESULTS: There was a modest but statistically significant negative linear correlation between changes in CRT and changes in BCVA in both treatment groups at Days 90 and 180 (correlation coefficient: -0.23 to -0.34; P < 0.001). Improvements in BCVA at Day 180 were significantly greater (P < 0.001) in eyes that achieved and maintained CRT ≤250 µm from Day 90 to 180 (mean BCVA improvement: 14 letters; 49% of eyes with ≥15-letter gain) than in eyes that never achieved CRT ≤250 µm (mean BCVA improvement: 2 letters; 13% of eyes with ≥15-letter gain). CONCLUSION: The greatest improvements in BCVA were seen in eyes that achieved and maintained the greatest improvements in CRT.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema: subgroup analysis of the MEAD study.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) was approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) after demonstration of its efficacy and safety in the MEAD registration trials. We performed subgroup analysis of MEAD study results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX 0.7 treatment in patients with previously treated DME. METHODS: Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled phase 3 study in patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (20/200-20/50 Snellen equivalent), and central retinal thickness (CRT) ≥ 300 µm measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of DEX (0.7 mg or 0.35 mg), or to sham procedure, with retreatment no more than every 6 months. The primary endpoint was ≥ 15-letter gain in BCVA at study end. Average change in BCVA and CRT from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) and adverse events were also evaluated. The present subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients randomized to DEX 0.7 (marketed dose) or sham based on prior treatment for DME at study entry. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of previously treated DEX 0.7 (n = 247) and sham (n = 261) patients were similar. In the previously treated subgroup, mean number of treatments over 3 years was 4.1 for DEX 0.7 and 3.2 for sham, 21.5% of DEX 0.7 patients versus 11.1 % of sham had ≥ 15-letter BCVA gain from baseline at study end (P = 0.002), mean average BCVA change from baseline was +3.2 letters with DEX 0.7 versus +1.5 letters with sham (P = 0.024), and mean average CRT change from baseline was -126.1 µm with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 µm with sham (P < .001). Cataract-related adverse events were reported in 70.3% of baseline phakic patients in the previously treated DEX 0.7 subgroup; vision gains were restored following cataract surgery. CONCLUSIONS: DEX 0.7 significantly improved visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME previously treated with laser, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or a combination of these therapies. The safety profile of DEX 0.7 in previously treated patients was similar to its safety profile in the total study population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389, registered 12 September 2005.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant as Adjunctive Therapy to Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) as adjunctive therapy to ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD). PROCEDURES: This was a 6-month, single-masked, multicenter study. Patients were randomized to DEX implant (n = 123) or sham procedure (n = 120) and received 2 protocol-mandated intravitreal ranibizumab injections. The main outcome measure was injection-free interval to first as-needed ranibizumab injection. RESULTS: DEX increased the injection-free interval versus sham (50th percentile, 34 vs. 29 days; 75th percentile, 85 vs. 56 days; p = 0.016). 8.3% of DEX versus 2.5% of sham-treated patients did not require rescue ranibizumab (p = 0.048). Visual acuity and retinal thickness outcomes were similar in DEX and sham-treated patients. Only reports of conjunctival hemorrhage (18.2 vs. 8.5%) and intraocular pressure elevation (13.2 vs. 4.2%) were significantly different in the DEX versus the sham treatment groups. CONCLUSION: DEX reduced the need for adjunctive ranibizumab treatment and showed acceptable tolerability in nvAMD patients.

Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, DEX implant) 0.7 and 0.35 mg in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Two randomized, multicenter, masked, sham-controlled, phase III clinical trials with identical protocols were conducted. Data were pooled for analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 1048) with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/50 to 20/200 Snellen equivalent, and central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 µm by optical coherence tomography. METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, or sham procedure and followed for 3 years (or 39 months for patients treated at month 36) at ≤40 scheduled visits. Patients who met retreatment eligibility criteria could be retreated no more often than every 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The predefined primary efficacy endpoint for the United States Food and Drug Administration was achievement of ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end. Safety measures included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP). RESULTS: Mean number of treatments received over 3 years was 4.1, 4.4, and 3.3 with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham, respectively. The percentage of patients with ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (22.2%) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (18.4%) than sham (12.0%; P ≤ 0.018). Mean average reduction in CRT from baseline was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (-111.6 µm) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (-107.9 µm) than sham (-41.9 µm; P < 0.001). Rates of cataract-related adverse events in phakic eyes were 67.9%, 64.1%, and 20.4% in the DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham groups, respectively. Increases in IOP were usually controlled with medication or no therapy; only 2 patients (0.6%) in the DEX implant 0.7 mg group and 1 (0.3%) in the DEX implant 0.35 mg group required trabeculectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The DEX implant 0.7 mg and 0.35 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint for improvement in BCVA. The safety profile was acceptable and consistent with previous reports.

Onset and duration of visual acuity improvement after dexamethasone intravitreal implant in eyes with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the onset and duration of improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in eyes treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX implant) for macular edema after branch or central retinal vein occlusion. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of data from 2 previously reported multicenter, 6-month, randomized sham-controlled clinical trials. Patients received a single DEX implant (n = 427) or sham procedure (n = 426) in the study eye. The primary endpoint was the percentage of eyes with ≥ 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at postimplant Day 7. RESULTS: The baseline mean BCVA was 20/80. At Day 7, 10.3% of DEX implant-treated eyes versus 4.0% of sham-treated eyes (P < 0.001) had ≥ 15-letter improvement in the BCVA, and 27.2% of DEX implant-treated eyes versus 10.6% of sham-treated eyes had ≥ 10-letter improvement (P < 0.001). The mean improvement at Day 7 was 5.3 letters (branch retinal vein occlusion, 5.1; and central retinal vein occlusion, 5.8) with DEX implant and 1.6 letters (branch retinal vein occlusion, 2.3; and central retinal vein occlusion, 0.1) with sham (P < 0.001). The mean time from initial observation of ≥ 15-letter BCVA gain to the last observation of ≥ 15-letter BCVA gain was 70 days. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone intravitreal implant treatment led to improvement in BCVA compared with sham procedure as early as postimplant Day 7. The duration of ≥ 3-line improvement was typically 2 to 3 months.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in combination with laser photocoagulation for the treatment of diffuse diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate Ozurdex (dexamethasone intravitreal implant [DEX implant]; Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA) 0.7 mg combined with laser photocoagulation compared with laser alone for treatment of diffuse diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, 12-month trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-three patients with retinal thickening and impaired vision resulting from diffuse DME in at least 1 eye (the study eye) were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to treatment in the study eye with DEX implant at baseline plus laser at month 1 (combination treatment; n = 126) or sham implant at baseline and laser at month 1 (laser alone; n = 127) and could receive up to 3 additional laser treatments and 1 additional DEX implant or sham treatment as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy variable was the percentage of patients who had a 10-letter or more improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline at month 12. Other key efficacy variables included the change in BCVA from baseline and the area of vessel leakage evaluated with fluorescein angiography. Safety variables included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP). RESULTS: The percentage of patients who gained 10 letters or more in BCVA at month 12 did not differ between treatment groups, but the percentage of patients was significantly greater in the combination group at month 1 (P<0.001) and month 9 (P = 0.007). In patients with angiographically verified diffuse DME, the mean improvement in BCVA was significantly greater with DEX implant plus laser treatment than with laser treatment alone (up to 7.9 vs. 2.3 letters) at all time points through month 9 (P ≤ 0.013). Decreases in the area of diffuse vascular leakage measured angiographically were significantly larger with DEX implant plus laser treatment through month 12 (P ≤ 0.041). Increased IOP was more common with combination treatment. No surgeries for elevated IOP were required. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant between-group difference at month 12. However, significantly greater improvement in BCVA, as demonstrated by changes from baseline at various time points up to 9 months and across time based on the area under the curve analysis, occurred in patients with diffuse DME treated with DEX implant plus laser than in patients treated with laser alone. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Vascular changes in eyes treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant for macular edema after retinal vein occlusion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the angiographic findings in eyes from 2 clinical trials of the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) 0.7 mg in the treatment of macular edema (ME) after branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of pooled data from 2 identical phase 3 clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with vision loss as a result of ME (≥ 6 weeks' duration) after BRVO or CRVO for whom angiographic data were available (n = 329 eyes). METHODS: Fluorescein angiography (FA) results assessed by masked, certified graders using standardized grading protocols. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure in the parent studies was change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity. Prospectively defined secondary outcomes included FA measurements (to assess macular capillary leakage, neovascularization, and nonperfusion) and optical coherence tomography results (to assess central retinal thickness [CRT]). RESULTS: At baseline, 42% of eyes in the DEX implant group and 38% of eyes in the sham group had unreadable assessments because of hemorrhage. At day 180, significantly fewer DEX implant-treated eyes (2%) than sham-treated eyes (9%) had unreadable assessments because of hemorrhage (P = 0.029). Among eyes with gradable assessments, the incidence of nonperfusion remained fairly steady from baseline to day 180. The proportion of eyes with active neovascularization increased from baseline to day 180 in the sham group, but stayed relatively constant in the DEX implant group (P = 0.026 for DEX vs. sham). The mean area of overall nonperfusion and the mean area of macular capillary nonperfusion increased from baseline to day 180 in both treatment groups (no statistically significant between-group difference). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between changes in macular leakage and changes in CRT in both the DEX implant group (r = 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.40; P = 0.023) and the sham group (r = 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.46; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the clinical improvements observed with the DEX implant were accompanied by significant improvements in vascular parameters and suggests that treatment with the DEX implant may be associated with some clinically significant improvements in angiographic findings, specifically active neovascularization.

Effect of the duration of macular edema on clinical outcomes in retinal vein occlusion treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of duration of macular edema (ME) on clinical outcomes after treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA) in patients with ME following branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of pooled data from 2 randomized, controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with vision loss resulting from ME of 6 weeks' duration or more after BRVO or CRVO (n = 690). METHODS: The relationship between ME duration at the time of first treatment and treatment outcomes was assessed using logistic regression. Other factors potentially associated with ME duration or patient outcomes were adjusted for in the analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of patients achieving at least 15 letters improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) or at least 200-µm or more reduction in central retinal thickness 6 or 12 months after the first treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg. RESULTS: In the 6-month analysis, each 1-month increase in ME duration was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of achieving a BCVA improvement of 15 letters or more (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.94; P<0.001) or a CRT reduction of 200-µm or more (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97; P<0.01) 6 months after treatment. In the 12-month analysis, increased ME duration was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of achieving BCVA improvement of 15 letters or more improvement in BCVA (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95; P<0.01) 12 months after treatment; duration was not significantly associated with the likelihood of a CRT reduction of 200-µm or more at 12 months. In general, the effect of ME duration on outcomes was stronger and statistically significant in BRVO patients, but weaker and not statistically significant in CRVO patients. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with retinal vein occlusion, longer ME duration at the time of first treatment with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of achieving clinically meaningful improvements in vision or CRT 6 or 12 months after treatment. This suggests that prompt treatment for retinal vein occlusion, particularly BRVO, may be associated with improved clinical outcomes. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema related to branch or central retinal vein occlusion twelve-month study results.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 or 2 treatments with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) over 12 months in eyes with macular edema owing to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO). DESIGN: Two identical, multicenter, prospective studies included a randomized, 6-month, double-masked, sham-controlled phase followed by a 6-month open-label extension. PARTICIPANTS: We included 1256 patients with vision loss owing to macular edema associated with BRVO or CRVO. METHODS: At baseline, patients received DEX implant 0.7 mg (n = 421), DEX implant 0.35 mg (n = 412), or sham (n = 423) in the study eye. At day 180, patients could receive DEX implant 0.7 mg if best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was <84 letters or retinal thickness was >250 µm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome for the open-label extension was safety; BCVA was also evaluated. RESULTS: At day 180, 997 patients received open-label DEX implant. Except for cataract, the incidence of ocular adverse events was similar in patients who received their first or second DEX implant. Over 12 months, cataract progression occurred in 90 of 302 phakic eyes (29.8%) that received 2 DEX implant 0.7 mg injections versus 5 of 88 sham-treated phakic eyes (5.7%); cataract surgery was performed in 4 of 302 (1.3%) and 1 of 88 (1.1%) eyes, respectively. In the group receiving two 0.7-mg DEX implants (n = 341), a ≥ 10-mmHg intraocular pressure (IOP) increase from baseline was observed in (12.6% after the first treatment, and 15.4% after the second). The IOP increases were usually transient and controlled with medication or observation; an additional 10.3% of patients initiated IOP-lowering medications after the second treatment. A ≥ 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline was achieved by 30% and 32% of patients 60 days after the first and second DEX implant, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with macular edema owing to BRVO or CRVO, single and repeated treatment with DEX implant had a favorable safety profile over 12 months. In patients who qualified for and received 2 DEX implant injections, the efficacy and safety of the 2 implants were similar with the exception of cataract progression. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of diabetic macular edema in vitrectomized patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ozurdex (dexamethasone intravitreal implant) 0.7 mg in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in vitrectomized eyes. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, 26-week study. Fifty-five patients with treatment-resistant diabetic macular edema and a history of previous pars plana vitrectomy in the study eye received a single intravitreal injection of 0.7-mg dexamethasone intravitreal implant. The primary efficacy outcome measure was the change in central retinal thickness from baseline to Week 26 measured by optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 62 years. The mean duration of diabetic macular edema was 43 months. The mean (95% confidence interval) change from baseline central retinal thickness (403 µm) was -156 µm (-190, -122 µm) at Week 8 (P < 0.001) and -39 µm (-65, -13 µm) at Week 26 (P = 0.004). The mean (95% CI) increase in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline (54.5 letters) was 6.0 letters (3.9, 8.1 letters) at Week 8 (P < 0.001) and 3.0 letters (0.1, 6.0 letters) at Week 26 (P = 0.046). At Week 8, 30.4% of patients had gained ≥10 letters in best-corrected visual acuity. Conjunctival hemorrhage, conjunctival hyperemia, eye pain, and increased intraocular pressure were the most common adverse events. CONCLUSION: Treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implant led to statistically and clinically significant improvements in both vision and vascular leakage from diabetic macular edema in difficult-to-treat vitrectomized eyes and had an acceptable safety profile.