GRAding of functional and anatomical response to DExamethasone implant in patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: GRADE-DME Study.

To analyze functional and anatomical response patterns to dexamethasone (DEX) implant in diabetic macular edema (DME), to describe proportion of responders and non-responders, and to propose a new DME grading system. Retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study. Naïve and non-naïve DME patients were treated with DEX, with visual acuity (VA) ≥ 0.2 logMAR and central subfield thickness (CST) of ≥ 300 µm. Functional and anatomical responses were graded after 2 and 4 months, and categorized as early and stable improvement, early and progressive improvement, pendular response, delayed improvement, and persistent non-response. 417 eyes were included (175 treatment naïve eyes). Compared to non-naïve eyes, naïve eyes showed a very good functional response (VA gain ≥ 10 letters) more frequently after 2 and 4 months (56% and 57% [naïve] vs. 33% and 28% [non-naïve], p < 0.001). A VA gain < 5 letters (non-response) after 2 and 4 months was seen in 18% and 16% of naïve eyes, and in 49% and 53% of non-naïve eyes (p < 0.001). A lack of anatomical response was rare in both groups, but more frequently in non-naïve eyes (12% vs. 4%, p = 0.003). Functionally and anatomically, naïve eyes showed most frequently an early and stable improvement (functionally: 77/175 44%; anatomically: 123/175 eyes, 70%). Most non-naïve eyes experienced no significant improvement functionally (97/242 eyes, 40%), despite a mostly early and stable improvement anatomical response pattern (102/242 eyes, 42%). Functional but not anatomical response patterns were influenced by baseline VA. Naïve and non-naïve eyes show different functional and anatomical response patterns to DEX implant. Functional non-responders are rare in naïve eyes, whereas anatomical non-response is unusual in both groups.

Presumed Natural History of Combined Hamartoma of the Retina and Retinal Pigment Epithelium.

PURPOSE: To correlate structural changes of combined hamartoma of the retina and retinal pigment epithelium (CHRRPE) with patient age. DESIGN: Retrospective study. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty eyes of 49 patients (age range, 1-74 years) with CHRRPE studied at 9 tertiary vitreoretinal institutions. METHODS: We analyzed the clinical findings with respect to lesion topography and pigmentation as well as investigated the OCT findings regarding the thickness, vitreoretinal interface, outer plexiform layer distortion, ellipsoid zone disruption, and retinal pigment epithelium-Bruch's membrane complex involvement of CHRRPE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical and imaging findings of CHRRPE at different ages. RESULTS: Analysis of 50 CHRRPE patients revealed that younger patients were more likely to demonstrate partial thickness involvement of the retina (P = 0.009) with predominantly inner retinal layer involvement (P = 0.04). The inverse was true for older patients with CHRRPE. In addition, older patients more commonly showed pigmentary changes. Eyes with CHRRPE were more likely to show an increase in central macular thickness independently of tumor location. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, we believe that CHRRPE typically begins in the inner retina and continues toward the outer retina over time, with increase in central macular thickness, despite the location of the tumor.

TRActional DIabetic reTInal detachment surgery with co-adjuvant intravitreal dexamethasONe implant: the TRADITION STUDY.

AIM: Main failure of diabetic tractional retinal detachment (TRD) surgery is the development of proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR), causing higher re-detachment rates. We investigated whether the use of dexamethasone (DEX) implant at the end of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with silicone oil tamponade might have an impact on these outcomes. DESIGN: Comparative, nonrandomized, retrospective study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 148 eyes from 148 patients that underwent PPV with silicone oil tamponade for diabetic TRD (with DEX implant, n = 52; without DEX implant, n = 96). METHODS: Consecutive patients' records were reviewed for time between TRD diagnosis and surgery; lens status before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months; retina attachment rate after primary PPV; change in postoperative PVR severity; rate of re-detachment at 6, 12, and 24 months; use of IOP lowering treatment after 6, 12, and 24 months; surgery details; intra- and postoperative complications. Correlations between outcome measures, postoperative PVR severity, and re-detachment rates were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in postoperative PVR severity and retinal re-detachment rates with and without the adjuvant use of DEX implant. RESULTS: Retinal re-detachment rates were significantly higher in the group of patients that did not receive DEX implant [11/96 (11.5%) vs. 0/52 (0%), p = 0.049; 11/84 (12.9%) vs. 4/52 (7.7%), p = 0.007; 14/71 (19.7%) vs. 5/52 (10%) p < 0.001 at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively]. PVR severity correlated with retinal status at 12 and 24 months (p = 0.018 and p = 0.027, respectively). The difference in PVR severity between the two groups was statistically significant at 6, 12, and 24 months (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DEX implant at the end of PPV in patients with diabetic TRD improves PVR severity and decreases re-detachment rates. This should be considered as an option in the customized treatment of TRD.

UNDERDIAGNOSED OPTIC DISK PIT MACULOPATHY: Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Features For Accurate Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: To report a cohort with optic disk pit maculopathy (ODPM) presenting with neurosensory macular detachment that were initially misdiagnosed and mistreated; and to describe structural features on spectral domain optical coherence tomography in misdiagnosed and all other consecutive cases of ODPM. METHODS: Multicenter international retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 59 eyes from 59 patients with ODPM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 1) Proportion of patients with ODPM initially misdiagnosed, inaccurate diagnosis and treatment. 2) Morphologic features on spectral domain optical coherence tomography: other causes of subretinal and/or intraretinal fluid, inner/outer retinoschisis, communication with optic disk pit, and retinal pigment epithelium alterations. 3) Visual and anatomical outcomes 6 months after proper treatment. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (25.4%) with ODPM were correctly diagnosed initially and those were significantly younger than misdiagnosed cases (age 33.8 ± 15.2 vs. 58.7 ± 15.8 years, P < 0.0001). Forty of forty-four misdiagnosed eyes (90.9%) were treated for their presumed diagnosis before referral. Eyes with initial misdiagnosis had significantly more outer retinoschisis at baseline (88.4 vs. 40.0%, P = 0.0002) and more retinal pigment epithelium alterations (90.0 vs. 27.3%, P < 0.0001) 6 months after proper treatment. CONCLUSION: Optic disk pit maculopathy is an underdiagnosed entity and can mimic other causes for subretinal fluid. Awareness and identification of pertinent spectral domain optical coherence tomography features can help avoid inappropriate and delayed treatment.

DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA IN NAIVE COMPARED WITH REFRACTORY EYES: The International Retina Group Real-Life 24-Month Multicenter Study. The IRGREL-DEX Study.

PURPOSE: To investigate efficacy and safety of repeated dexamethasone (DEX) implants over 24 months, in diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes that were treatment naive compared with eyes refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment, in a real-life environment. METHODS: This multicenter international retrospective study assessed best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness (CST) of naive and refractory eyes to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections treated with dexamethasone implants. Safety data (intraocular pressure rise and cataract surgery) were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 130 eyes from 125 patients were included. Baseline best-corrected visual acuity and CST were similar for naive (n = 71) and refractory eyes (n = 59). Both groups improved significantly in vision after 24 months (P < 0.001). However, naive eyes gained statistically significantly more vision than refractory eyes (+11.3 ± 10.0 vs. 7.3 ± 2.7 letters, P = 0.01) and were more likely to gain ≥10 letters (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.19-9.24, P = 0.02). At 6, 12, and 24 months, CST was significantly decreased compared with baseline in both naive and refractory eyes; however, CST was higher in refractory eyes than in naive eyes (CST 279 ± 61 vs. 313 ± 125 µm, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Over a follow-up of 24 months, vision improved in diabetic macular edema eyes after treatment with dexamethasone implants, both in eyes that were treatment naive and eyes refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment; however, improvement was greater in naive eyes.