ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci) injected 1 month after the last dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi) in chronic diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients. METHODS: Retrospective multicentric study conducted in pseudophakic patients with chronic DME frequently treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi; time to DME recurrence ≤ 6 months), receiving FAci 1 month after the last DEXi, with at least a 6-month follow-up. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography, intraocular pressure (IOP) and additional treatments were assessed on the day of FAci injection (M0), 1 (M1) and 3 months (M3) later and then every 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 41 eyes from 34 patients were included. At M0, patients' mean age was 68.7 ± 9.8 years, the mean DME duration was 63.9 ± 22.9 months, the mean interval between two DEXi was 14.2 ± 3.3 weeks. M12 data were available for 71% of patients. At baseline, the mean BCVA, CMT and IOP were 63.2 ± 16.6 letters, 299.4 ± 103.3 µm, and 16.2 ± 4.5 mmHg, respectively, and remained stable during the follow-up. At M12, 14% of patients required additional intravitreal treatments. CONCLUSION: In pseudophakic patients with chronic DME showing good response to DEXi but requiring repeated injections every < 6 months, switching to FAci 1 month after the last DEXi was effective and safe. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings, and to determine the best interval between the last DEXi and the first FAci.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the reliability of office versus remote assessments in the decision to use intravitreal injection for patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHOD: We retrospectively evaluated office and remote assessments for decision agreement regarding treatment by intravitreal injection or non-treatment for DME. Remote assessment consisted in remote evaluation of patient medical data by three reviewers with different skills. Two OCT analysis strategies were performed with the same office assessment data: 1) macular mapping with only two OCT B-scans passing through the fovea, and 2) macular mapping with complete macular scans. Agreement for treatment decisions and OCT analysis strategies were analysed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient (κ). RESULTS: Data from 49 patients (96 eyes) were included. Treatment decision agreement with two OCT B-scans passing through the fovea was considered excellent for all reviewers (κ between 0.80 and 0.85, varying between reviewers). Treatment decision agreement with complete macular scans was considered excellent (κ between 0.85 and 0.93, varying between reviewers). Agreement between the two OCT analysis strategies and reviewers was considered excellent. CONCLUSION: Remote assessment in a telemedicine model can be a useful alternative for DME patient follow-up.