PHASE 2 STUDY OF THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF BRIMONIDINE DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM (BRIMO DDS) GENERATION 1 IN PATIENTS WITH GEOGRAPHIC ATROPHY SECONDARY TO AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of Brimonidine Drug Delivery System (Brimo DDS), a biodegradable intravitreal implant, in the treatment of geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: Phase 2, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, 24-month study. Study eyes were treated (Day 1; Month 6 retreatment) with Brimo DDS 132 µg (n = 49), Brimo DDS 264 µg (n = 41), or sham procedure (n = 23). The primary timepoint for efficacy analysis was Month 12. RESULTS: Mean GA area growth at Month 12 was 1.78 mm2, 1.59 mm2, and 2.19 mm2 in the Brimo DDS 132 µg, 264 µg, and sham groups, respectively. Geographic atrophy area growth was consistently smaller with Brimo DDS 132 and 264 µg than sham; between-group differences were significant (P ≤ 0.032) at Month 3. In patients with baseline lesion area ≥6 mm2 (two-thirds of patients), GA lesion area and effective radius growth was reduced with Brimo DDS 132 and 264 µg at Month 12 (P ≤ 0.050 vs. sham). Treatment-related adverse events were usually injection procedure-related. CONCLUSION: Brimo DDS demonstrated a favorable safety profile and reduced GA lesion area growth at Month 3. Lesion growth at Month 12 was reduced in patients with baseline GA lesion area ≥6 mm2. The results support Phase 3 development.

[Clinical Decision Making for Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema with DEX Implant: a Consensus Paper]. / Klinische Entscheidungsfindung bei der Behandlung des diabetischen Makulaödems mit DEX-Implantat: ein Konsenspapier.

BACKGROUND: Currently two intravitreally applied corticosteroids (dexamethasone and fluocinolone) are licensed in Germany for treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). The use of DEX implant for DME in daily clinical practice has not been defined in detail. Following a Delphi panel survey, a group of retina experts set out to come up with a consensus for use of the DEX implant in DME. MATERIAL AND METHODS: International and national treatment recommendations were identified from the literature. A steering group generated a catalogue of 72 statements on the aetiology and pathogenesis of DME, therapy with DEX implant, use of DEX implant in patients previously treated with VEGF-inhibitors, use of DEX implant in combination therapy, safety of DME therapies as well as patients' burden of treatment. Twenty-two ophthalmologists from private practice and 6 hospital ophthalmologists participated in the Delphi panel via Survey Monkey. Consensus was reached if at least 75% of participants agreed or disagreed with a statement. Statements for which consensus was not reached were discussed once more during the expert consensus meeting and a vote was taken. Based on these results a treatment algorithm for foveal DME was proposed. RESULTS: If a patient does not show sufficient response after 3 - 6 months of anti-VEGF treatment (visual acuity gain of < 5 ETDRS letters or reduction of central retinal thickness ≤ 20%), a switch to DEX implant should take place. DEX implant is also suitable in eyes with longer presentation of DME, showing e.g. massive lipid exudates. DEX implant is suitable as first-line therapy especially in pseudophakic patients, patients unwilling or able to comply with tight anti-VEGF injection intervals or patients with known vascular diseases. With fixed control visits every 4 - 8 weeks, use of DEX implant is flexible and individual. Decision parameters for repeated use should be visual acuity, retinal thickness and intraocular pressure. Treatment of both eyes on the same day should not take place. CONCLUSION: The algorithm presented reflects survey as well as expert discussion results and may differ from recommendations issued by the German professional society. The consensus recommendations for the treatment of DME generated during the survey and meeting of retina experts are intended to guide use of DEX implant in daily practice.

ADVERSE EVENTS OF THE ARGUS II RETINAL PROSTHESIS: Incidence, Causes, and Best Practices for Managing and Preventing Conjunctival Erosion.

PURPOSE: To analyze and provide an overview of the incidence, management, and prevention of conjunctival erosion in Argus II clinical trial subjects and postapproval patients. METHODS: This retrospective analysis followed the results of 274 patients treated with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System between June 2007 and November 2017, including 30 subjects from the US and European clinical trials, and 244 patients in the postapproval phase. Results were gathered for incidence of a serious adverse event, incidence of conjunctival erosion, occurrence sites, rates of erosion, and erosion timing. RESULTS: Overall, 60% of subjects in the clinical trial subjects versus 83% of patients in the postapproval phase did not experience device- or surgery-related serious adverse events. In the postapproval phase, conjunctival erosion had an incidence rate of 6.2% over 5 years and 11 months. In 55% of conjunctival erosion cases, erosion occurred in the inferotemporal quadrant, 25% in the superotemporal quadrant, and 20% in both. Sixty percent of the erosion events occurred in the first 15 months after implantation, and 85% within the first 2.5 years. CONCLUSION: Reducing occurrence of conjunctival erosion in patients with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis requires identification and minimization of risk factors before and during implantation. Implementing inverted sutures at the implant tabs, use of graft material at these locations as well as Mersilene rather than nylon sutures, and accurate Tenon's and conjunctiva closure are recommended for consideration in all patients.

Natural history of diabetic macular edema and factors predicting outcomes in sham-treated patients (MEAD study).

PURPOSE: To describe the natural history of diabetic macular edema (DME) with respect to best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) outcomes and to identify baseline patient characteristics and systemic factors associated with improvement or worsening of outcomes in sham-treated patients. METHODS: The study population was sham-treated patients (n = 350) in the 3-year MEAD registration study of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of DME. Patients had center-involved DME and received sham intravitreal injections in the study eye at ≥ 6-month intervals. Potential prognostic factors for outcomes were evaluated using multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Visual and anatomic outcomes were poorer in patients who left the study early (n = 198) than in study completers (n = 152). Mean change in BCVA from baseline at the last visit with available data was + 0.9 letters; 37.5% of patients had no change in BCVA, 23.2% had gained > 10 letters, and 16.0% had lost > 10 letters. Older age and baseline diabetic retinopathy score > 6 were associated with worse BCVA outcomes; thicker baseline CRT and larger number of hypertension medications used were associated with larger reductions in CRT during the study. CONCLUSIONS: BCVA and CRT outcomes were variable in this population of DME patients with generally good glycemic control. In DME patients without active treatment, older age and baseline diabetic retinopathy score > 6 were associated with less improvement in BCVA; thicker baseline CRT and a larger number of antihypertensive medications used predicted better improvement in CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The MEAD study trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifiers NCT00168337 and NCT00168389.

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.

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.

Retrospective, observational study in patients receiving a dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the re-injection interval, efficacy and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant 0.7 mg in the treatment of macular oedema (ME) due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in Germany in 2009-2012. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre, anonymised observational study of data collected from the first DEX implant 0.7 mg injection through 3-6 months following the last injection. Data were included if the patient was >18 years old, had a diagnosis of ME secondary to branch or central RVO, and received at least 2 DEX implant 0.7 mg injections during routine practice. RESULTS: Data from 87 patients were analysed. Mean time to re-injection between first and second treatments was 5.03 months in the total RVO population, and 5.46 and 4.52 months for the branch and central RVO subpopulations, respectively. An intraocular pressure increase of >25 mm Hg was recorded in 20% of patients, and 34% of patients began treatment with anti-glaucoma medication, but surgery was not needed for this condition. CONCLUSIONS: DEX implant 0.7 mg was found to be well tolerated and effective with repeat treatments in clinical practice.

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.

Implantable vision-enhancing devices and postoperative rehabilitation in advanced age-related macular degeneration.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) results in progressive vision loss that significantly impacts patients' quality of life and ability to perform routine daily activities. Although pharmaceutical treatments for AMD are available and in clinical development, patients with late-stage AMD are relatively underserved. Specialized rehabilitation programs and external low-vision aids are available to support visual performance for those with advanced AMD; but intraocular vision-improving devices, including implantable miniature telescope (IMT) and intraocular lens (IOL) implants, offer advantages regarding head motion, vestibular ocular reflex development, and depth perception. IMT and IOL technologies are rapidly evolving, and many patients who could benefit from them remain unidentified. This review of recent literature summarizes available information on implantable devices for improving vision in patients with advanced AMD. Furthermore, it discusses recent attempts of developing the quality of life tests including activities of daily life and objective assessments. This may offer the ophthalmologist but also the patient a better possibility to detect changes or improvements before and after surgery. It is evident that surgery with new implants/devices is no longer the challenge, but rather the more complex management of patients before and after surgery as well as the correct selection of cases.

Safety of submacular suprachoroidal drug administration via a microcatheter: retrospective analysis of European treatment results.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and feasibility of using a microcatheter for drug delivery in the suprachoroidal space in eyes with advanced, exudative, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) unresponsive to conventional therapy. PROCEDURES: A unique microcatheter was used to deliver a drug combination consisting of bevacizumab and triamcinolone to the submacular suprachoroidal space. Twenty-one eyes of 21 patients with choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to advanced, exudative AMD were followed over a 6-month postprocedure period. RESULTS: The microcatheter was successfully and atraumatically inserted into the suprachoroidal space of all eyes. No serious intraoperative or postoperative complications including suprachoroidal hemorrhages were encountered. Postsurgically, complications consisted of 1 eye experiencing a transient elevation in intraocular pressure at 3 months, which was medically controlled, and 2 eyes (10.5%) with an apparent increase in nuclear sclerotic cataracts. CONCLUSIONS: Suprachoroidal drug administration was achieved without serious complication using a novel microcatheter. Direct drug delivery to the choroid can potentially increase local tissue drug levels and drug efficacy for the treatment of AMD and other diseases associated with CNV.

The Value of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCT-A) in Neurological Diseases.

Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) was commercially introduced in 2014. OCT-A allows a fast, non-invasive, three-dimensional analysis of the retinal vasculature from the vitreoretinal interface to the choriocapillaris. The results can be evaluated separately in automated or custom-defined retinal layers. Since its introduction, OCT-A has also been used in patients with neurological diseases in order to find and characterize retinal biomarkers. Many neurological diseases have retinal manifestations, often preceding the key symptoms of the neurological disease. Anatomically and developmentally, the retina is a part of the brain. In contrast to the brain, the retina is easily accessible for imaging methods; moreover, retinal imaging is more cost-effective than brain imaging. In this review, the current knowledge about OCT-A findings and possible OCT-A biomarkers in neurological diseases is summarized and discussed regarding the value of OCT-A as a diagnostic tool in neurological diseases.

Emerging drugs for diabetic retinopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus with its ophthalmic complications is the major cause for legal blindness in industrialized countries. Diabetic macular edema and its complex pathophysiology as part of diabetic retinopathy are the leading cause of vision loss among diabetic patients. In recent years, treatment options have developed involving the intravitreal applications of several compounds. AREAS COVERED: Current treatment options for diabetic macular edema including laser therapy and scientific basis of new drugs are discussed. Possible benefits and drawbacks of these new approaches are addressed. EXPERT OPINION: In recent years, new drugs against retinal diseases have been developed consisting mainly of steroid or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor compounds. Targeting macular edema, the second shows a possible therapeutic role in the proliferative form of diabetic retinopathy, requiring further investigation. New biodegradable delivery systems show an advantage in sustaining effective compound concentrations for longer times and have positive impact on safety profile and cost-effectiveness of the drug, a factor of grave importance when considering the future of any new drug in the market. All these new therapeutic approaches alone or in combination with the existing treatments have to demonstrate their efficacy and safety in diabetic retinopathy in current and future trials.

Prevention of the Onset of Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) represents the leading cause of irreversible blindness in elderly people, mostly after the age of 65. The progressive deterioration of visual function in patients affected by AMD has a significant impact on quality of life and has also high social costs. The current therapeutic options are only partially able to slow down the natural course of the disease, without being capable of stopping its progression. Therefore, better understanding of the possibilities to prevent the onset of the disease is needed. In this regard, a central role is played by the identification of risk factors, which might participate to the development of the disease. Among these, the most researched are dietary risk factors, lifestyle, and light exposure. Many studies showed that a higher dietary intake of nutrients, such as lutein, zeaxanthin, beta carotene, omega-3 fatty acids and zinc, reduced the risk of early AMD. Regarding lifestyle habits, the association between smoking and AMD is currently accepted. Finally, retinal damage caused by ultraviolet rays and blue light is also worthy of attention. The scope of this review is to summarize the present knowledge focusing on the measures to adopt in order to prevent the onset of AMD.

Assessment of Reinjection Numbers and Intervals for Diabetic Macular Edema Patients Who Received Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants in Germany and Switzerland.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to assess the number and intervals of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) reinjections in a real-world setting for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and to determine the relationship with effectiveness and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were abstracted from medical records of DME patients in Germany and Switzerland for this retrospective, multicenter, drug utilization study. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) changes 7-12 weeks post-injection(s) measured effectiveness. Adverse events (AEs) of special interest were reported. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients, 108 from Germany and 33 from Switzerland, were assessed. Mean (SD) reinjection interval was 5.7 (4.2) months. Mean baseline BCVA was 61.6 letters, and mean baseline CRT was 413.3 µm. The mean BCVA and CRT changes at 7-12 weeks after baseline, reinjection 1, 2, and 3 were +3.4, +3.7, +3.2, and -1.4 letters and -88.3, -81.6, -102.4, and -124.1 µm, respectively. The Spearman correlation between change in BCVA and CRT and DEX reinjection interval was r=0.03 (P=0.66) and r=0.07 (P=0.38), respectively. Only 18% of patients experienced at least 1 AE. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant correlation between drug effectiveness and reinjection intervals in either country. Although these results are preliminary, they indicate that DEX improves BCVA and CRT in real-world clinical practice.

The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus on the use of intravitreal corticosteroid therapies in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and prior vitrectomized eyes in clinical practice. METHODS: Retro-IDEAL was a 3-year retrospective, multicenter study in patients with chronic DME (i.e. DME that persists or recurs despite treatment) treated with ILUVIEN® (0.2 µg daily fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant), who had suboptimal outcomes with first-line vascular endothelial growth-factor inhibitors and other DME therapies. RESULTS: A total of 81 eyes (63 patients) were included of which 39 eyes had undergone prior vitrectomy (PV group) while 42 eyes had not undergone prior vitrectomy (NPV). Baseline characteristics were balanced; however, more patients had proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the PV group vs. the NPV group (21.62% vs 9.38%, respectively). Over 36 months, mean visual acuity (VA) increased in both groups with a tendency for more ETDRS letters being gained in the NPV group (+5.33) vs. the PV group (+2.42). By month 36, central retinal thickness was reduced to ⩽300 µm in two-thirds of the eyes in both groups and the mean change from baseline in intraocular pressure was similar in both groups (+0.50 mmHg -0.75 mmHg; NPV and PV group). CONCLUSIONS: These long-term data suggest that the 0.2 µg/day FAc implant is effective in both vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized patients, with a manageable safety profile, and improved VA and reduced supplemental therapies for patients with a suboptimal response to first-line DME therapies. Clinicians may consider utilizing the FAc implant earlier in the DME disease process.

Pathophysiology of macular edema.

Macular edema is defined as an accumulation of fluid in the outer plexiform layer and the inner nuclear layer as well as a swelling of Müller cells of the retina. It consists of a localized expansion of the retinal extracellular space (sometimes associated with the intracellular space) in the macular area. Macular edema is a common cause of a sudden or chronic decrease in visual acuity occurring in many ocular diseases such as age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and retinal vein occlusion. As a nonspecific sign of many intraocular and systemic diseases, macular edema represents a common final pathway. The existence of the blood-retinal barrier (BRB) formed by intercellular junctions is the precondition required to maintain this physiological status. This status may become severely disturbed by many diseases, finally resulting in macular edema. In this article, the development of macular edema will also be classified by its pathophysiological and pathobiochemical pathways. Vascular components, the dysfunctional BRB, the role of proteins and water fluxes as well as the role of several inflammatory mediators (e.g. angiotensin II, vascular endothelial growth factor, prostaglandins) in the retina will be discussed as responsible mechanisms leading to the development of macular edema.

Current concepts of pharmacotherapy of diabetic macular edema.

Introduction: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a sight threatening disease and a major cause for blindness for people in working age. The pathogenesis is multifactorial and complex. The pharmacotherapy of DME addresses both the inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) by the intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors and inflammatory processes by the intravitreal application of steroids. Several trials have been published reporting on the efficacy and safety of these treatments.Areas covered: This review discusses original research articles including basic science and clinical studies as well as review articles focusing on the role of inflammation and VEGF expression in DME. It discusses newly published clinical trials on intravitreal pharmacotherapy for DME. The literature was searched using Medline/PubMed and was selected given its relevance for the topic to be discussed.Expert opinion: Our knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of diabetic macular edema has significantly increased. Some of these insights have been successfully transferred into current treatment strategies already including VEGF suppression or anti-inflammatory treatments using steroids. The identification of additional pathophysiological aspects and their relevance as potential treatment targets will be a future challenge in the treatment of DME. A better knowledge on the complex pathophysiology will also help to establish combination strategies.