Clinical features, management, and outcomes of patients with sterile endophthalmitis associated with intravitreal bevacizumab injection: retrospective case series.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical features, treatment protocol, outcomes, and complications that developed in this case series of 24 patients who had consecutive sterile endophthalmitis after intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injection. METHODS: In this retrospective case series, IVB was repackaged in individual aliquots from the three batches that were used on the same day. IVB was injected into 26 eyes of 26 patients due to diabetic macular edema, age-related macular degeneration, and branch retinal vein occlusion. All patients had intraocular inflammation. Patients were divided into two groups severe and moderate inflammation according to the intraocular inflammation. The medical records of all patients were reviewed. At each follow-up visit, the complete ophthalmologic examination was performed, including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure, biomicroscopy, and posterior fundus examination. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 26 patients were included in the study. Two patients were excluded from this study since they didn't come to follow-up visits. The mean BCVA was 1.00 ± 0.52 Log MAR units before IVB. At the final visit, the BCVA was 1.04 ± 0.47 Log MAR units. These differences were not significant (p = 0.58). Of the 24 eyes, 16 eyes had severe, and 8 eyes had moderate intraocular inflammation. Eleven eyes in the severe inflammation group underwent pars plana vitrectomy due to intense vitreous opacity. Smear, culture results, and polymerase chain reaction results were negative. CONCLUSION: Sterile endophthalmitis may occur after IVB injection. Differential diagnosis of sterile endophthalmitis from infective endophthalmitis is crucial to adjust the appropriate treatment and prevent long-term complications due to unnecessary treatment.

The impact of delayed anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for retinal diseases during the COVID-19 lockdown.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical status of treatment-naive patients who had to delay 3-dose loading anti-VEGF (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor) injections during the COVID-19 lockdown, and to evaluate the effect of the delayed visual acuity treatment on spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) parameters. METHOD: A total of 55 eyes of 46 patients who were received in the study period participated in this retrospective study, including 28 patients (37 eyes) with diabetic macular edema (DME), 11 patients (11 eyes) with retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and 7 patients (7 eyes) with wet age-related macular degeneration (wet-AMD). The patients were diagnosed with DME, RVO, or wet-AMD in February 2020 and had planned 3-dose loading injections in March, April, and May 2020, but could not be injected due to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: From the patients' initial examination in February 2020, the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.72 ± 59 logMAR. After the patients' lockdown visit in July 2020, the mean BCVA was 0.76 ± 64 logMAR. BCVA was stable in 11 eyes, decreased in 12 eyes, and increased in 14 eyes for patients with DME. BCVA was stable in 6, decreased in 3, and increased in 2 eyes for patients with RVO, and it was stable in 4 eyes and decreased in 3 eyes for patients with wet-AMD. CONCLUSION: We concluded that 6-month delay in treatment of DME patients with non-proliferative DRP had no adverse effect on the visual acuity. However, the loading dose in wet-AMD and RVO patients should be applied as soon as possible.

Effectiveness and Safety of Coadministration of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Silicone Oil Endotamponade for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy with Tractional Diabetic Macular Edema.

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy and safety of coadministered intravitreal dexamethasone (IVD) implant and silicone oil endotamponade during pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) with tractional diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: In this prospective, controlled, and randomized clinical study, the eyes with PDR and vitreomacular traction syndrome that underwent PPV with silicone oil endotamponade were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 was defined as the control group, and no other procedures were performed. IVD was implanted to the eyes in Group 2. In both groups, panretinal photocoagulation was completed to the missed areas during PPV. All cases followed for 6 months, postoperatively. Retinal findings were followed with optical coherence tomography and fluorescein fundus angiography. Results: A total of 52 eyes of 52 patients were included in the study. Twenty-six eyes of 23 patients were included in both groups. The improvement in best corrected visual acuity was statistically significantly higher in Group 2 (P > 0.05). In the postoperative period, the DME development rate and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injection requirement were significantly higher in Group 1 (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the proliferative vitroretinopathy development rate between the groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Coadministration of IVD implant and silicone oil endotamponade to the eyes with PDR during vitrectomy seems to be safe and effective application and may decrease the rate of DME and the requirement of IVR injection.

Can subthreshold micropulse yellow laser treatment change the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor algorithm in diabetic macular edema? A randomized clinical trial.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of subthreshold micropulse yellow laser (SMYL) and intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) combination therapy with IAI monotherapy in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and to evaluate the number of injections and SMYL sessions required. Methods: This prospective study compared a group of 28 patients treated with a combination of SMYL and IAI with a group of 28 patients treated only with IAI. All patients initially received 3 monthly IAIs, and the monotherapy group was given additional injections as needed. The combination therapy patients additionally received SMYL after the loading phase. The primary outcome measures were the change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to month 12; the secondary outcomes were the mean number of required injections and SMYL sessions. Results: In the monotherapy group, the BCVA improved from 0.38 ± 0.10 to 0.20 ± 0.10 logMAR; in the combination group, BCVA improved from 0.40 ± 0.09 to 0.17 ± 0.06 logMAR at the end of the 12th month. The CMT was reduced from 451.28 ± 44.85 to 328.8 ± 49.69 µm in the monotherapy group and from 466.07 ± 71.79 to 312.0 ± 39.29 µm in the combination group. Improvement of the mean BCVA and reduction of the mean CMT were similar in each group. The combination group required significantly fewer injections (3.21 ± 0.41 vs 5.39 ± 1.54; P < 0.001). By month 12, 75% of patients in the monotherapy group had required additional IAIs when compared with 16% in the combination group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: SMYL combination therapy demonstrated significant visual improvements in patients with DME. In the combination group, the retreatment rate and number of required injections were significantly lower compared with the IAI monotherapy group.