Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema Research Articles

Fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg intravitreal implant improves foveal thickness and reduces treatment burden for up to 1 year in eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness, safety, and treatment burden in eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) for up to 1 year after administration of 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant (Iluvien®).Methods: This retrospective study at one private practice in the US included 40 eyes from 33 patients treated with an FAc implant. Eyes had previously been treated with VEGF antagonists, dexamethasone, or focal laser. The primary outcome was change in central foveal thickness from baseline. Data were also collected on demographics, visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), use of IOP-lowering drugs for elevated IOP, lens clarity, and treatment burden before and after the implant.Results: Average duration of diabetes and DME at baseline was 19 and 5 years, respectively, and average glycated hemoglobin was 7.21%. Severity of diabetic retinopathy before the implant had a slight bimodal distribution: moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (35%) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (40%). Improvements in central foveal thickness from baseline were evident at 3 months (mean change –74.2 µm, P<0.001) and sustained through 12 months (–55.3 µm; P=0.005) for most eyes. Mean visual acuity remained stable (66.2 letters at baseline versus 67.2 letters at 12 months, roughly equivalent to 20/50 vision; P=0.855). On average, eyes required one anti-VEGF injection every 1.9 months before and one every 6.6 months after the implant, while 60% of eyes did not require additional anti-VEGF injections. Small but significant increases in IOP at months 3, 6, and 9 were not sustained to month 12, and mean IOP was normal throughout follow-up.Conclusion: In patients with DME previously treated with a steroid, and treated according to licensed indications in the US, an FAc implant not only reduces the burden of disease in the real-world setting, but also the burden of injections and office visits for patients.

Efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in persistent diabetic macular edema after primary treatment with intravitreal ranibizumab

PurposeTo evaluate the efficiency and possible complications of intravitreal dexamethasone (IVD) implant in diabetic macular edema (DME) resistant to treatment of three consecutive intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections. MethodsFifty eyes of 38 patients were considered in this study. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and values of intraocular pressure (IOP) were examined preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th months of IVD implantation. ResultsTwenty of the patients were women, and 18 of the patients were men. Mean age was 64.63 ± 7.15 (52–83) years. Mean number of IVR injection before IVD implantation was 3.4 ± 0.38. Mean BCVA (logMAR) was 0.874 ± 0.398 before IVD implantation, 0.598 ± 0.306 at the 1st month, 0.602 ± 0.340 at the 2nd month, 0.708 ± 0.359 at 4th month, and 0.800 ± 0.370 at 6th month. Mean of CMT was 519.700 ± 155.802 μm before IVD implantation, 274.000 ± 73.112 μm at the 1st month, 307.98 ± 87.869 μm at the 2nd month, 387.82 ± 110.503 μm at 4th month, and 478.54 ± 163.743 μm at 6th month. Improvements in BCVA and CMT were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at 1st, 2nd, and 4th months; however, these values were not statistically significant at 6 months. At 1st day, 1st and 2nd months, the values of IOP were increased significantly after IVD. Cataract progression was observed in just 1 of the 22 phakic patients. ConclusionsIn DME resistant to treatment of consecutive IVR, IVD implantation has been observed to be effective in increasing BCVA and decreasing CMT in the first 3 months. IVD implantation can be considered an alternative method in the treatment of resistant DME.

Three-year results from the Retro-IDEAL study: Real-world data from diabetic macular edema (DME) patients treated with ILUVIEN® (0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant).

Introduction:The Retro-IDEAL (ILUVIEN Implant for chronic DiabEtic MAcuLar edema) study is a retrospective study designed to assess real-world outcomes achieved with the ILUVIEN® (0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc)) in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) in clinical practices in Germany.Methods:This study was conducted across 16 sites in Germany and involved 81 eyes (63 patients) with persistent or recurrent DME and a prior suboptimal response to a first-line intravitreal therapy (primarily anti-VEGF intravitreal therapies).Results:Patients were followed-up for 30.8 ± 11.3 months (mean ± standard deviation) and had a mean age of 68.0 ± 10.4 years. Best-recorded visual acuity (BRVA) improved by +5.5 letters at month 9 (P ⩽ 0.005, n=56; from a baseline of 49 letters) and this was maintained through to month 30 (P ⩽ 0.05, n = 42). There was a concurrent improvement in central macular thickness with a reduction from 502 µm at baseline to 338 µm at year 1 (P ⩽ 0.0001, n = 43). This effect was sustained to year 3 (i.e. 318 µm; P ⩽ 0.0001, n = 29). Mean intraocular pressure (IOP) remained constant between baseline and year 3 with a peak change of 1.9 mm Hg occurring at year 1. Elevated IOP was observed in a similar percentage of patients prior to (22.2% of cases) and following (27.2%) treatment with the FAc implant. In the majority of cases, these elevations were managed effectively with IOP medications.Conclusions:Despite substantial amounts of prior intravitreal treatments – primarily with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs – this real-world study showed that sustained structural and functional improvements can last for up to 3 years with a single FAc implant.

Analysis of anatomical biomarkers in subtypes of diabetic macular edema refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treated with dexamethasone implant.

To analyze functional and anatomical outcomes in subtypes of diabetic macular edema treated with a single dexamethasone implant and to assess the usefulness of a pro-re-nata treatment among subtypes. Retrospective study in morphologic patterns of diabetic macular edema (diffuse retinal thickening n = 15; cystoid macular edema n = 38, and serous retinal detachment n = 17) recalcitrant to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, treated with dexamethasone implant. Examinations included timing to recidive of diabetic macular edema, best-corrected visual acuity, and central subfield macular thickness at 2, 4, and 6 months. In previously treated patients with a mean of 6.64 ± 3.69 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections, the best-corrected visual acuity improved from 61.64 ± 13.71 to 65.71 ± 14.65 as per the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study protocol (p = 0.009) and central subfield macular thickness change from 447.46 ± 110.82 to 354.39 ± 80.46 µm (p < 0.005). The best-corrected visual acuity improvement was better in the diffuse retinal thickening group (68.67 ± 13.81 vs 65.26 ± 14.04 in cystoid macular edema and vs 64.12 ± 17.06 in serous retinal detachment), whereas higher central subfield macular thickness thinning was observed in serous retinal detachment group (368.47 ± 29.96 to 310.27 ± 67.47 in diffuse retinal thickening, vs 445.92 ± 105.06 to 364.39 ± 80.28 and 520.59 ± 122.96 to 370.94 ± 81.73 in cystoid macular edema and serous retinal detachment, respectively). Cystoid macular edema group was the group with more recurrences after 6 months (86.8% vs 66.7% in diffuse retinal thickening and 70.6% in serous retinal detachment). Dexamethasone implant is effective for all persistent diabetic macular edema subtypes with sustained functional and morphologic gains in the first 6 months.

Optical coherence tomography angiographic, visual acuity and anatomic outcomes with aflibercept for diabetic macular edema after bevacizumab and/or ranibizumab.

Background/objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of aflibercept in eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) after treatment with bevacizumab and/or ranibizumab. Subjects/methods: Open-label, prospective study of intravitreal aflibercept injection in eyes with persistent DME after chronic, recent, and frequent bevacizumab and/or ranibizumab. Results: Thirty eyes were enrolled. Mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to 52 weeks was +7 letters. The mean change in optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield thickness (CST) from baseline to 52 weeks was -118 um. At week 52, 70% of eyes with a baseline CST>350 um demonstrated>15% reduction in OCT CST. Forty-eight percent of eyes demonstrated no OCT evidence for DME at last visit. OCT-angiography demonstrated vascular density improvement in the deep capillary plexus. No significant ocular adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Aflibercept demonstrated beneficial visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with persistent DME following bevacizumab and/or ranibizumab.

Ozurdex in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. When to prescribe?

Retinal damage in diabetes is known to manifest in two main ways: diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. The most effective anti-inflammatory drugs today are glucocorticoids, a classic representative of which is dexamethasone. Two things that should be considered by ophthalmologists in the therapy of macular edema are the switching point to dexamethasone implant when the effectiveness of anti-vasoproliferative drugs is unsatisfactory, and the identification of the main predictors of diabetic macular edema that make glucocorticoids the drugs of first choice. The data from real clinical practice was used to develop the indications for intravitreal administration of a glucocorticoid as the therapy of first choice for diabetic macular edema. Glucocorticoids are prescribed to patients diagnosed with diabetic macular edema who has a history of acute cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction or other cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, as well as patients with a very high risk of a vascular catastrophe. Intravitreal glucocorticoids can be prescribed to patients who cannot follow the schedule of frequent visits and/or are not able to visit the hospital during the first 6 months after the administration of the drug. Considering the local character of its ophthalmic action, the method can be recommended for treating patients with pseudophakic eyes, persistent diabetic macular edema, or patients who underwent vitrectomy.

Revisiting pars plana vitrectomy in the primary treatment of diabetic macular edema in the era of pharmacological treatment.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most common cause of moderate visual loss in diabetic patients. The current treatment of choice for center-involved DME is anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment. Most patients that undergo pharmacological inhibition with anti-VEGF agents need multiple monitoring visits that include optical coherence tomography imaging and multiple injections. Despite this intensive treatment, up to 60% of eyes will have persistent DME after six consecutive monthly injections of an anti-VEGF. Its sustainability over the long term has been questioned. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) by increasing the vitreous cavity oxygenation, relieving vitreomacular traction, and removing cytokines from the vitreous cavity may cause long-term resolution of DME without the aforementioned concerns in selected cases. Eyes with vitreomacular traction clearly benefit from PPV as the primary treatment. The role of PPV for eyes with DME without tractional elements is less clear and needs to be explored further.

Romanian ophthalmologists in the renowned ophthalmic journals worldwide

The authors are discussing over 80 articles that they have published in the last 5 years in the renowned ophthalmic journals worldwide, which have approached, for the first time in the ophthalmic literature, the following 4 topics: the acute central/ hemicentral retinal vein occlusion, the therapeutic interventions in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral malignant glaucoma, the persistent diabetic macular edema, and the current researches in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Dexamethasone implant as an adjuvant therapy to ranibizumab loading dose in persistent diabetic macular edema.

This study evaluates the effectiveness of a single-dose dexamethasone implant (DI) as an auxiliary therapy to continued intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) treatment in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME). Twenty-five pseudophakic eyes of 25 patients with DME who underwent a single injection of DI as an adjuvant therapy following an IVR loading dose were examined retrospectively. All patients were treatment naive and had a poor response to a loading dose of three consecutive monthly IVR injections. IVR treatments were continued pro re nata after the DI. The main outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) at 1, 3, 6 and 8 months post-DI treatment. After the IVR loading dose, the mean BCVA and CMT were 0.9 ± 0.6LogMAR and 478.2 ± 107.8µm, respectively. One month after the DI, the mean BCVA and CMT had improved to 0.6 ± 0.4LogMAR (p = 0.005) and 313.8 ± 62.7µm (p < 0.001), respectively. This improvement was maintained with mean 0.8 ± 0.8 IVR injections throughout the follow-up period. The final mean BCVA and CMT were 0.5 ± 0.5LogMAR and 298.4 ± 71.5µm. Subgroup analyses revealed that different DME types did not have any effect on CMT or BCVA improvement (p = 0.188, p = 0.136; respectively). Adding DI results in rapid anatomical and visual improvement in patients who respond poorly to an IVR loading dose. Improvements may be maintained with additional IVR in follow-up.

Long-term efficacy and duration of action of dexamethasone implant, in vitrectomised and non-vitrectomised eyes with persistent diabetic macular oedema.

To evaluate the efficacy and duration of action of an intravitreal (dexamethasone (Ozurdex)) implant in vitrectomised and non-vitrectomised eyes with persistent diabetic macular oedema (DMO). We retrospectively analysed the records for 18 eyes that had or had not been vitrectomised but required an intravitreal dexamethasone implant for DMO after a poor response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. Optical coherence tomography and visual acuity (VA) examinations were performed before and 1, 3 and 6 months after implantation. The six months following implantation constituted one treatment round; up to three rounds were studied. Ten of 18 eyes had undergone vitrectomy. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were significantly improved by months 1-3 after implantation of the Ozurdex device in all rounds of treatment. The BCVA and CMT deteriorated gradually after month 3 through to month 6 post implantation. There were no statistically significant differences between the vitrectomised and non-vitrectomised groups at any time point. When the implantation interval was <6 weeks from the end of each treatment round, the improvement in BCVA and CMT was obvious even after 18 months of treatment. Vitrectomy did not have a negative effect on the duration of action or efficacy of the Ozurdex implant in patients with persistent DMO. The implant started working from the first month after implantation regardless of whether vitrectomy had or had not been performed. The maximum functional and anatomic improvement was achieved in the first 3 months post implantation in all treatment rounds.

Intravitreal diclofenac versus intravitreal bevacizumab in persistent diabetic macular edema: Anatomical and functional outcome

PurposeTo compare the efficacy of diclofenac versus bevacizumab following single intravitreal injection in eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema. MethodsFifty eyes with persistent DME were randomly allocated to intravitreal injection of 500 µg/0.1 ml of diclofenac (N = 20) or 1.25 mg/0.05 mL of bevacizumab (N = 20) or to non-treatment (10 eyes). Preoperative and postoperative visual acuity, central, paracentral macular thickness and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded and compared between the three groups up to 4 weeks. ResultsDiclofenac and bevacizumab groups showed statistically significant reduction in central and paracentral macular thickness (diclofenac: p = 0.006, 0.02 and bevacizumab: p = 0.02, 0.01), without statistically significant difference between the two groups. The two groups showed no statistically significant difference in mean visual acuity or mean line improvement. Mean visual acuity improvement didn't reach statistical significance in either group. Diclofenac group showed statistically significant reduced IOP (P = 0.02). Control eyes did not show any change in mean visual acuity, macular thickness or IOP. ConclusionIn persistent DME, diclofenac has a structural effect comparable to bevacizumab on central macular thickness. However, significant functional gain may not be accomplished by single injection. Unlike naïve DME, persistent cases may be confounded by systemic and local factors necessitating repeated injection of diclofenac.

When and How to Incorporate Steroids for Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema: A Discussion of Real-World Treatment Optimization Strategies.

In the United States, diabetic macular edema (DME) is the leading cause of vision loss among people with diabetic retinopathy. Despite the availability of different therapies for DME, up to half of patients with DME show some persistent edema after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment alone, leaving these patients at high risk for vision loss. However, dosing in a similar fashion to that of pivotal anti-VEGF trials is difficult because of real-life challenges faced in clinical practice. This is particularly true for DME, in that the frequency and burden of anti-VEGF injections are a major challenge to patient care. Research evaluating anti-VEGF therapies has shaped the treatment paradigms for patients with DME, and similar benefits have also been noted in clinical trials evaluating the use of intravitreal steroids. Treatment with a long-term intravitreal corticosteroid, which requires fewer injections than treatment with most short-acting therapies, has been found to reduce inflammation and improve vision in a percentage of patients. This roundtable discussion, which took place during the 2018 annual meeting of the Vit-Buckle Society, reviews the current treatment paradigms for DME and evaluates how to customize and optimize treatment strategies geared toward individualized patient care. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:S5-S15.].

INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANTATION IN PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGICAL DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA HAVING INSUFFICIENT RESPONSE TO RANIBIZUMAB.

To evaluate the effectiveness of a single intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant in resistant diabetic macular edema that have different morphological types. In this retrospective study, 31 patients (35 eyes) with persistent diabetic macular edema, who underwent a single injection of dexamethasone implant, were evaluated. Diabetic macular edema was classified into three types: diffuse retinal thickening (n = 10), cystoid macular edema (n = 13), and serous retinal detachment (n = 12). Primary outcome measures were best corrected visual acuity, and central macular thickness. The three subgroups were similar in terms of age and gender (P > 0.05). Total duration of diabetes was significantly less in the serous retinal detachment subgroup (P = 0.01). There were no differences in the best corrected visual acuity between the three subgroups until the sixth month. However, the best corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the diffuse retinal thickness subgroup at the sixth month (P = 0.008). Regarding the central macular thickness values, it was statistically better in serous retinal detachment than in diffuse retinal thickening and cystoid macular edema subgroups till the sixth month (P = 0.001). However, at the sixth month, there was not any statistical difference between subgroups regarding central macular thickness values. Antiglaucomatous agents were required in 4 (11.4%) patients throughout the study. Treatment algorithms should differ according to the morphology of diabetic macular edema; however, more data is needed to give specific recommendations.

Recent clinically relevant highlights from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network.

To present some recent clinically relevant results from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Network trials that may guide management of diabetic macular edema (DME) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Among eyes with DME and visual acuity 20/50 or worse, aflibercept, on average, had greater improvement in visual acuity over 2 years compared with bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Aflibercept is associated with higher rates of improvements in diabetic retinopathy severity among eyes with PDR and vision-impairing DME at baseline compared with bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Among eyes with persistent central-involved DME after at least six antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections, no difference in mean visual acuity improvement was observed between eyes that received continued ranibizumab and sham injections versus ranibizumab and intravitreous sustained dexamethasone drug-delivery system, especially for phakic eyes. For eyes with PDR, ranibizumab was associated with lower rates of developing PDR-worsening events compared with panretinal photocoagulation, especially among eyes that did not receive ranibizumab for central-involved DME at baseline. Ranibizumab is cost-effective for PDR for eyes with, not without, vision-impairing central-involved DME, highlighting challenges when safety and efficacy results are at odds with cost-effectiveness results. Aflibercept for DME, in certain circumstances, is more likely to have superior visual acuity and anatomical outcomes compared with bevacizumab or ranibizumab. No vision benefits are apparent, especially for phakic eyes, by adding intravitreous corticosteroids for persistent DME following anti-VEGF injections.

Screening, Follow-up and Treatment Algorithm in Diabetic Retinopathy and Maculopathy

Diabetic retinopathy will be one of the most important public health problems of the coming years with the rapid increase in the incidence of diabetes worldwide. Diagnosis and progress in treatment are being studied to address both the clinical and socioeconomic implications of this difficult situation. As a result of recent intensive clinical investigations, anti-VEGF treatment has taken its place as the first option while laser photocoagulation therapy is no longer recommended as primary treatment in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). Steroids continue to maintain their place in the treatment of chronic persistent DME. In addition to the paradigm shift in treatment methods, there has also been great progress in diagnostic methods. In this article, the diagnostic and follow-up algorithm in DME and diabetic retinopathy was prepared in light of current literature.

Persistent Macular Thickening Following Intravitreous Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Central-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema With Vision Impairment

ImportancePrevalence of persistent central-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) through 24 weeks of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and its longer-term outcomes may be relevant to treatment.ObjectiveTo assess outcomes of DME persisting at least 24 weeks after randomization to treatment with 2.0-mg aflibercept, 1.25-mg bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsPost hoc analyses of a clinical trial, the DRCR.net Protocol T among 546 of 660 participants (82.7%) meeting inclusion criteria for this investigation.InterventionsSix monthly intravitreous anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections (unless success after 3 to 5 injections); subsequent injections or focal/grid laser as needed per protocol to achieve stability.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPersistent DME through 24 weeks, probability of chronic persistent DME through 2 years, and at least 10-letter (≥ 2-line) gain or loss of visual acuity.Results The mean age of participants was 60 years, 363 (66.5%) were white, and 251 (46.0%) were women. Persistent DME through 24 weeks was more frequent with bevacizumab (118 of 180 [65.6%]) than aflibercept (60 of 190 [31.6%]) or ranibizumab (73 of 176 [41.5%]) (aflibercept vs bevacizumab, P < .001; ranibizumab vs bevacizumab, P < .001; and aflibercept vs ranibizumab, P = .05). Among eyes with persistent DME through 24 weeks (n = 251), rates of chronic persistent DME through 2 years were 44.2% with aflibercept, 68.2% with bevacizumab (aflibercept vs bevacizumab, P = .03), and 54.5% with ranibizumab (aflibercept vs ranibizumab, P = .41; bevacizumab vs ranibizumab, P = .16). Among eyes with persistent DME through 24 weeks, proportions with vs without chronic persistent DME through 2 years gaining at least 10 letters from baseline were 62% of 29 eyes vs 63% of 30 eyes (P = .88) with aflibercept, 51% of 70 vs 54% of 31 (P = .96) with bevacizumab, and 44% of 38 vs 65% of 29 (P = .10) with ranibizumab. Only 3 eyes with chronic persistent DME lost at least 10 letters.Conclusions and RelevancePersistent DME was more likely with bevacizumab than with aflibercept or ranibizumab. Among eyes with persistent DME, eyes assigned to bevacizumab were more likely to have chronic persistent DME than eyes assigned to aflibercept. These results suggest meaningful gains in vision with little risk of vision loss, regardless of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor agent given or persistence of DME through 2 years. Caution is warranted when considering switching therapies for persistent DME following 3 or more injections; improvements could be owing to continued treatment rather than switching therapies.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01627249

Visual Outcomes Based on Early Response to Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema

Objective: To examine the relationship between early response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment and visual prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively separated 20 patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) into two responder status groups based on the reduction of central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to month 3: a delayed responder group (DRG) (≤25% CMT reduction, n = 11) and an immediate responder group (IRG) (>25% CMT reduction, n = 14). We also separated the patients into two responder status groups based on the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA): a visual nonimprovement group (VNIG) (≥0 logMAR BCVA improvement, n = 11) and a vi sual improvement group (VIG) (<0 logMAR BCVA improvement, n = 14). Finally, we assessed the correlations between logMAR BCVA changes from baseline to month 3 (ΔBCVA_M3) and those from baseline to month 12 (ΔBCVA_M12). Results: At month 12, BCVA was significantly more improved in the VIG than the VNIG (p < 0.005), but was not significantly different between the DRG and the IRG (p = 0.75). The Pearson correlation coefficient showed a significant relationship between ΔBCVA_M3 and ΔBCVA_M12 (r = 0.60, p < 0.005). Conclusions: BCVA showed significantly greater improvement in the VIG than in the VNIG. ΔBCVA_M3 may predict the visual outcome at month 12 in DME patients treated with anti-VEGF drugs.

Comparison of Intravitreal Aflibercept and Ranibizumab following Initial Treatment with Ranibizumab in Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema.

Purpose To compare the visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) who switched from ranibizumab to aflibercept with those who continued with previous ranibizumab therapy. Methods In this retrospective comparative study, medical records of consecutive patients with center-involved DME ≥ 350 μm who had at least three recent consecutive monthly ranibizumab injections followed by as-needed therapy with either aflibercept or ranibizumab were reviewed. Data were collected at presentation (preinjection), at the intermediary visit, and at the last visit (at the end of the follow-up period). Results Forty-three eyes of 43 patients were divided into two groups: the switch group (n = 20) and the ranibizumab group (n = 23). Though no significant improvement was found in the mean BCVA from the intermediary visit to the last visit, there was a difference in the mean CMT in the switch group and the ranibizumab group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.03, resp.). The mean CMT decreased after the intermediary visit by 188.6 ± 120.5 μm in the switch group and by 60.3 ± 117.1 μm in the ranibizumab group (p = 0.003). Conclusions Both aflibercept and ranibizumab decreased CMT in patients with persistent DME who showed a poor response to ranibizumab injections. However, switching to aflibercept provided only morphologic improvement.

Anti-VEGF Treatment in Chronic Persistent Diabetic Macular Oedema

We have seen the efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) as demonstrated by the major clinical trials, but what do we do for those that respond poorly to the standard treatment regimen? Let’s discuss this issue and others as it pertains to the treatment of DMO.

Trends in treating chronic persistent diabetic macular edema

Chronic persistent diabetic macular edema responds poorly to intravitreal Anti VEGF treatment due to dominance of inflammatory cytokines in the pathogenesis optical coherence tomography is important tool to evaluate structural changes and visual prognosis in diabetic macular edema Multiple studies showed the efficacy of intravitreal steroids treatment and intravitreal Anti VEGF agents may reduce the risk of visual loss in cases of chronic persistent diabetic macular edema When optical coherence tomography shows signs of disorganization of inner retinal layer and interruption of ellipsoid zone in light of diabetic macular edema that responds poorly to Anti VEGF treatment then switching to intravitreal steroids recommended