Therapy For Diabetic Macular Edema Research Articles

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapy reduces the administration frequency of steroid injection in patients with diabetic macular edema: A cohort study using the Japanese health insurance claims database.

Severe diabetic macular edema (DME) is often resistant to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Steroids are particularly effective at reducing edema by suppressing inflammation; they are also used as an alternative to expensive anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in some patients. Therefore, the use of steroids in DME reflects an unmet need for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Notably, triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injections are widely used in Japan. Here, we evaluated the frequency of TA as an indicator of the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in DME treatment using a health insurance claims database. In this cohort study, we retrospectively analyzed the health insurance claims data of 11 million Japanese individuals from 2005 to 2019. The frequency and duration of TA injection after the initiation of SGLT2is or other antidiabetic drugs were analyzed. Among the 2,412 matched patients with DME, the incidence rate of TA injection was 63.8 times per 1,000 person-years in SGLT2i users and 94.9 times per 1,000 person-years in non-users. SGLT2is reduced the risk for the first (P = 0.0024, hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.87), second (P = 0.0019, hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.80) and third TA (P = 0.0053, hazard ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.80) injections. A subanalysis of each baseline characteristic of the patients showed that SGLT2is were effective regardless of the background factors. The use of SGLT2is reduced the frequency of TA injection in patients with DME. Therefore, SGLT2i therapy might be a novel, noninvasive and low-cost adjunctive therapy for DME.

IMPACT OF TREATMENT OF DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA ON VISUAL IMPAIRMENT IN PEOPLE WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS: A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND METAAANALYSIST STUDY

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) are among the most significant and disabling chronic complications of diabetes mellitus. DME is an important cause of severe vision loss in type 2 diabetes. Hyperpermeability of retinal blood vessels and subsequent formation of edema and hard exudates are the key clinical features. Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted following PRISMA guidelines and employing the PICO format, aim to explore about impact of treatment of diabetic macular edema on visual impairment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, focusing on treatment, complications, and prognosis. Inclusion criteria encompass diverse study designs (RCTs, observational, quasi-experimental, and case-control studies) investigating impact of treatment of diabetic macular edema on visual impairment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus among treatment, complications, and prognosis, while exclusion criteria filter out studies lacking relevance to impact of treatment of diabetic macular edema on visual impairment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Result: After conducting three levels of screening, the results of our search in Pubmed get 6 articles, whereas the results of our search on SageJournal get 42 articles, on Lancet 21, and on Scient direct get 60 articles. Records remove before screening are 91, so we get 78 articles for screening. After we screened based on record exclude, we compiled a total of 10 papers. We included four research that met the criteria. Conclusion: There is a particularly robust response to anti-VEGF therapy in both groups when glycemic control is optimized, highlighting the critical importance of communication between the physicians managing the DME and those managing systemic diabetes control. Improving our understanding of the factors that contribute to anti-VEGF response for DME therapy may help to enhance DME treatment outcomes, particularly through the concerted coordinated efforts of the treating retina specialist and the endocrinologist or primary care physician.

Switching to subtenon triamcinolone acetonide does not jeopardize the functional and anatomic outcomes of dexamethasone implant treated eyes with diabetic macular edema.

Intraocular dexamethasone implant (DEXi) is an efficient treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). However, it may be unavailable or contraindicated. Triamcinolone acetonide is another corticosteroid that has proved to be safe and effective in treating macular edema complicating various diseases including diabetes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of a switch from DEXi to subtenon triamcinolone acetonide (STTA) and back, in eyes with DME. Retrospective study. DME eyes that had been treated with DEXi and switched to STTA between October 2018 and February 2019 (stock shortage of DEXi) were included. The functional and anatomical outcomes of the switch and switch-back were studied. 26 eyes of 17 patients (mean age 67.1 ± 8.2years) were considered. The mean baseline visual acuity (VA) was 0.35 ± 0.17 decimals remaining stable after DEXi, STTA and switch-back to DEXi. The mean central macular thickness (CMT) was 492.7 ± 32.8µm initially, decreasing to 294.3 ± 133.4µm after DEXi, 369.9 ± 182.3µm after STTA and 297.6 ± 72.0µm after switching back to DEXi (all p < 0.05 versus baseline). Compared to baseline, the CMT reduction was numerically better after DEXi and switching back to DEXi than after STTA (mean reduction: -200.4µm, -167.7µm, and -95.08µm respectively, p = 0.13). Intraocular pressure was comparable after DEXi and STTA. DEXi is the steroid of choice in DME. However, STTA can be a cost-effective alternative when DEXi is unavailable or contraindicated. This study suggests that STTA may be used in the context of a step therapy in DME.

Subthreshold micropulse laser combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the effects of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) in addition to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for studies that compared anti-VEGF with SML and anti-VEGF monotherapy for DME. Outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and the number of anti-VEGF injections. Eight studies including 493 eyes were selected. Four studies were randomized controlled, and the other four were retrospective. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in BCVA (mean difference [MD] -0.04; 95%CI -0.09 to 0.01 logMAR; P = 0.13;). CMT was thinner in the group of anti-VEGF with SML (MD -11.08; 95%CI -21.04 to -1.12µm; P = 0.03); however, it was due to a single study that weighed higher, and the sensitivity and subcategory analyses did not support the finding. The number of anti-VEGF injections was significantly decreased in the group of anti-VEGF with SML (MD -2.22; 95%CI -3.02 to -1.42; P < 0.0001). Current evidence indicates that adding SML to anti-VEGF therapy could significantly reduce the number of anti-VEGF injections compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy, while achieve similar BCVA and CMT.

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data.

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

IDF23-0229 Systemic oxidative stress environment may dictate the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic macular edema

IDF23-0229 Systemic oxidative stress environment may dictate the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic macular edema

Real-world experience with fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema.

to evaluate long-term effectiveness and safety of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant used as second-line treatment in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME). retrospective data chart review of 241 pseudophakic eyes of 178 patients treated with FAc from July 2017 to December 2021 in 10 medical retinal units in Italy. The primary endpoint was the change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) at 2 years. A Student's paired t-test was used. Additional therapies for DME and intraocular pressure (IOP)-related events were also evaluated. efficacy of FAc was assessed in a subset of 111 eyes with at least 24 months of follow-up. Mean BCVA increased at 2 years by 5.1 ETDRS letters (95%CI = 2.6-7.5; p < 0.001) while mean CMT decreased by 189 µm (95% CI 151-227; p < 0.001). Thirty-eight of these eyes (34.2%) needed additional intravitreal treatments, mainly anti-VEGF. Safety was evaluated on the entire cohort of 241 eyes treated with FAc. Overall, 66 eyes (27.4%) required emergent IOP-lowering medications (typically within the first-year post FAc) while 14 eyes (5.8%) underwent trabeculectomy, mostly during the second year of follow-up. FAc implant provides a substantial long-term functional and anatomical benefit when used as second-line treatment in eyes with DME. IOP rise can be adequately managed with topical agents although some eyes may require IOP-lowering surgery.

Serum microRNAs as biomarkers associated with the course of diabetic macular oedema

Aims/Purpose: Intravitreal drugs are powerful therapies for diabetic macular edema (DME), but the clinical course and the response to treatments still remains unpredictable. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) represent a class of small molecules associated with the regulation of several metabolic pathways, including diabetes. However, their use in the clinical setting of DME is limited by lack of data regarding the correlation with clinical and imaging features. In the present study we evaluated some miRNAs profiles obtained by serum samples of newly diagnosed DME patients.Methods: Prospective study, including baseline visit (V0), a 4‐months visit (V1) and a 12‐months visit (V2). At V0 patient underwent serum sampling, imaging was repeated at every study visit. Enriched serum microRNAs were extracted and real‐time PCR was performed. OCT features were used to assess the severity and progression of the disease.Results: We collected data of a cohort of type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients. All the patients presented DME and were naïve to intravitreal treatments. The follow‐up was of 12 months. Diabetes‐related miRNAs were found up‐ or downregulated and associated with the course of DME (resolved/recurrent/persistent). Correlations were found with imaging biomarkers.Conclusions: On the basis of these findings, serum miRNAs assessment is a feasible and clinically relevant assessment to be performed in the diagnostic work‐up of diabetic patients affected by DME. MiRNAs might pave the basis for customized treatment strategies to optimize the management of DME.

Анализ эффективности анти-VEGF терапии диабетического макулярного отека в авитреальных глазах

Aim. To analyze the clinical efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME) in avitreal eyes. Methods. 34 patients (38 eyes) with vitreous loss and DME on the background of preproliferative diabetic retinopathy (PPDR) (18 eyes) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (20 eyes) were examined in the main study group. The comparison group consisted of 40 patients (40 eyes) with native vitreous body and DME on the background of PPDR (20 eyes) and PDR (20 eyes). Intravitreal injections of Lucentis 0.5 mg (IVIL) were carried out according to «three monthly injections» scheme, then – to «on demand» scheme. Results. Complete regression of DME in avitreal eyes occurred in 74 % of cases; in eyes with native vitreous body – in 75 %. The duration of postoperative reaction in eyes with vitreous loss was up to 10–14 days, compared with 1–3 days in eyes with native vitreous body. The results of the study revealed that number of IVIL was significantly less in patients with DME on the background of PPDR than PDR. Conclusion. Presence of local neuroepithelial detachment on the background of diffuse DME is prognostically favorable factor for anti-VEGF therapy. The effectiveness of IVIL in DME treatment is comparable in eyes with native vitreous body and avitreal eyes. Key words: diabetes mellitus; diabetic macular edema; preproliferative diabetic retinopathy; proliferative diabetic retinopathy; avitria; Lucentis intravitreal injections.

Surgical Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is defined as excess fluid accumulation within the retina in the macular area, and when it is centered on the fovea it is the most common cause of decreased visual acuity in patients with diabetic retinopathy. The development of diabetic macular edema is closely related to the duration of diabetes, poor glycemic control, and type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy. The first-line therapy in diabetic macular edema has been the intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF). Other treatment modalities are intravitreal corticosteroid injection and focal laser photocoagulation. However, the efficacy of intravitreal therapy may decrease significantly over time, especially in the presence of vitreomacular traction, tight posterior hyaloid, or epiretinal membrane (ERM). At this stage, pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is preferred as an alternative treatment method in eyes with chronic DME resistant to intravitreal injections. The vitreous of diabetic patients contains high amounts of VEGF and Angiotensin 2, which cause DME, and cytokines such as interleukin-6 and ICAM-1. In addition, due to the enzymes, it contains, the vitreous causes cross-linking and thickening of the collagen fibers in its structure, causing tight adhesion and traction on the macula. The mechanism of action of pars plana vitrectomy in macular edema can be explained by removing the vitreous and vitreomacular tractions. Vitrectomy may also increase retinal oxygenation. Selection of the appropriate case is important. The undisturbed integrity of the outer retinal layers including the external limiting membrane(ELM) and the ellipsoid zone, no preoperative foveal ischemia, and performing surgery early before ELM is damaged, have been found to be related to better postoperative visual acuity gain. Further, prospective, randomized, controlled studies with large series including detailed parameters and long follow-up evaluating the efficacy of surgical treatment in diabetic macular edema are warranted.

EFFECT OF TOPICAL SODIUM DICLOFENAC AS ADJUVANT TO INTRAVITREAL BEVACIZUMAB INJECTION THERAPY ON VISUAL ACUITY INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE CHANGES IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA

Introduction dan Aim: Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) in Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) patients might threaten the patient's visual acuity. Therefore, a robust DME treatment is needed to prevent sight threatening condition in DR patients. In this study, we intended to compare the effects of intravitreal administration of bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and topical natrium diclofenac in DR patients who developed DME. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial study with double blinds. Data were taken from April 2020 to June 2021 from the Dr. Sardjito Central General Hospital and the Dr. Suhardi Hardjolukito Indonesian Air Force Central Hospital, Yogyakarta. Our patients were assigned to a control group (intravitreal bevacizumab therapy only) and an intervention group (intravitreal bevacizumab and topical natrium diclofenac). Then, we evaluated best corrected visual acuity (LogMar) and intraocular pressure (IOP, mmHg) were recorded in both groups before and after therapy. Results: A total of 38 eyes from 36 patients with naive DME were included in this study. Both treatment groups showed a statistically significant improvement in visual acuity after treatment bevacizumab (pre = 0.8±0.5; post = 0.6±0.5; p-value = 0.033) and bevacizumab and natrium diclofenac (pre = 0.9±0.5; post = 0.5±0.3; p-value = 0.004). In contrast to the above findings, the IOP in both groups did not show a significant change in IOP after therapy, bevacizumab (pre = 15.7±4.1; post = 15.6±4.2; p-value = 0.810) and bevacizumab and natrium diclofenac (pre = 16.0±4.5; post = 16.0±3.9; p-value = 0.868). Conclusion: Our study showed that visual acuity was improved significantly in DME patients treated with either bevacizumab or bevacizumab and natrium diclofenac. This might be a valuable information on the improvement of DME therapy, given that no increased post-therapy IOP in patients treated topical natrium diclofenac.

Risk of renal damage associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for diabetic macular edema in routine clinical practice.

Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) have been shown to be effective in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. However, there is little information about the systemic effects of intraocular administration of anti-VEGF drugs in patients with coexistent diabetic nephropathy because it can produce adverse renal effects. This retrospective cohort study analyzed the effect of intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept) on eFGR and microalbuminuria (MicA) in patients with diabetic macular edema and nonproliferative retinopathy without chronic kidney disease (CKD). Sixty-six patients were included, 54.5% male and 45.5% female, with a mean age of 66.70 ± 11.6 years. The mean follow-up of patients with antiangiogenic treatment was 42.5 ± 28.07 months, and the mean number of injections was 10.91 ± 7.54. In 12.1% of the cases, there was a worsening of the glomerular filtration rate (eFGR) and a 19.7% worsening of the microalbuminuria (MicA). The number of injections was not related to the worsening of the eFGR (P = 0.74) or the MicA (P = 0.239). No relationship was found between the type of drug and the deterioration of the GFR (P = 0.689) or the MicA (P = 0.53). Based on the results, there is a small proportion of patients with increase in MicA and the decrease in eFGR after anti-VEGF therapy, and these was no associated with the number of injection or the drug type. Ophthalmologists should be aware of renal damage in order to do a close monitoring of renal function and proteinuria after intravitreal administration of anti-VEGF mainly in hypertensive patients.

Cavitary Choroidal Nevus Showing Thickness Fluctuations in Response to Anti-VEGF Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Case Report.

To report the multimodal imaging features of a cavitary choroidal nevus showing thickness fluctuations that mirrored the response of diabetic macular edema (DME) to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. Retrospective case report. Multimodal imaging findings including fundus photography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), fluorescein (FA) and indocyanine green angiography (ICGA), OCT-angiography (OCTA), and B-scan ultrasonography were analyzed. A female in her 80s with a cavitary choroidal nevus and DME was treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy using a pro re nata regimen over 5 years. The choroidal nevus showed thickness fluctuations paralleling the response of DME to anti-VEGF therapy. Worsening of the DME was associated with marked increased choroidal lesion thickness on OCT. Conversely, resolution of DME after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections was followed by choroidal lesion flattening on OCT. Variations of the choroidal lesion thickness were mainly dependent on changes of intralesional hyporeflective caverns on OCT. Our report shows thickness variations of a cavitary choroidal nevus that paralleled the clinical course of DME treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on volume variations of a cavitary choroidal nevus following anti-VEGF therapy.

Evaluating initial responses to brolucizumab in patients undergoing conventional anti-VEGF therapy for diabetic macular edema: a retrospective, single-center, observational study

Our retrospective, single-center, observational study aimed to evaluate the initial responses to intravitreal injection of brolucizumab (IVBr) in patients undergoing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME). In total, 23 eyes of 20 patients with DME treated with at least one intravitreal injection of ranibizumab or aflibercept within one year and then switched to IVBr were included. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and macular volume (MV) on optical coherence tomography images were evaluated just before the most recent conventional anti-VEGF (ranibizumab/aflibercept) injection therapy (V1), one month after the most recent traditional anti-VEGF therapy (V2), just before the first IVBr (V3), and one month after the first IVBr (V4). BCVA, CMT, MV, and presence of intraocular inflammation (IOI) were evaluated at each visit. Anterior chamber flare values were also examined at V3 and V4. BCVA showed significant improvement at V2 (0.30 ± 0.23) than V1 (0.39 ± 0.29) and at V4 (0.34 ± 0.26) than V3 (0.48 ± 0.34) (P = 0.002, P < 0.001). However, no significant difference was observed between V2 and V4 (P = 0.257). CMT was significantly thinner at V2 (346.8 ± 90.2 µm) than V1 (495.5 ± 123.8 µm), and at V4 (322.2 ± 95.7 µm) than V3 (536.5 ± 166.0 µm) (P < 0.001, P < 0.001), but no significant difference was observed between V2 and V4 (P = 0.140). MV was significantly smaller at V2 (11.6 ± 2.0 mm3) than V1 (12.6 ± 1.9 mm3) and at V4 (11.2 ± 2.0 mm3) than V3 (12.6 ± 2.0 mm3) (P < 0.001, P < 0.001), and even significantly smaller at V4 than V2 (P = 0.009). No patient had IOI. No significant changes were observed in anterior chamber flare values between V3 and V4 (25.6 ± 14.6 vs. 24.0 ± 11.5 photon count/ms; P = 0.543). Both CMT and MV significantly reduced without any adverse events one month after switching from conventional anti-VEGF to IVBr therapy for DME, including IOI. MV was significantly lower for IVBr than anti-VEGF therapy after one month of treatment. Therefore, brolucizumab may be a viable treatment option for DME patients considering switching from conventional anti-VEGF agents for various reasons, such as poor response or inability to extend dosing intervals.

Predictive effect of TCED-HFV grading and imaging biomarkers on anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic macular edema

BackgroundTo evaluate the predictive effect of TCED-HFV grading and imaging biomarkers on anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment in diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods81 eyes of 81 DME patients who were treated with anti-VEGF were included in this retrospective cohort study. All patients underwent a comprehensive ophthalmic examination at baseline and follow-up, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), fundus photography, and spectral domain–optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Baseline imaging biomarkers were qualitatively and quantitatively graded according to the TCED-HFV classification protocol, and DME was divided into early stage, advanced stage, severe stage, and atrophy stage.ResultsSix months post treatment, central subfield thickness (CST) in 49 eyes (60.5%) had decreased by 10% from baseline, 30 eyes (37.0%) had achieved CST < 300 μm, and 45 eyes (55.6%) had BCVA improved by more than five letters. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that eyes with baseline CST ≥ 390 μm had a higher probability of ≥ 10% reduction in CST from baseline, and eyes with abundant hyperreflective dots (HRD) had a lower probability of 10% reduction in CST (all P < 0.05). Eyes with vitreomacular traction (VMT) or epiretinal membrane (ERM) at baseline were less likely to reach the end point of CST < 300 μm (P < 0.05). BCVA increases of more than five letters were less likely in eyes with baseline BCVA ≥ 69 letters, complete or partial destruction of ellipsoid zone (EZ) at baseline (all P < 0.05). TCED-HFV staging was negatively correlated with BCVA at both baseline and 6 months (Kendall’s tau-b=-0.39 and − 0.55, all P < 0.01). TCED-HFV staging was positively correlated with CST at 6 months (Kendall’s tau-b = 0.19, P = 0.049) and negatively correlated with the reduction of CST (Kendall’s tau-b=-0.32, P < 0.01).ConclusionThe TCED-HFV grading protocol facilitates a comprehensive assessment of DME severity, standardizes the grading of multiple imaging biomarkers, and predicts the anatomical and functional outcomes of anti-VEGF treatment.

Guidelines from an expert panel for the management of diabetic macular edema in the Malaysian population.

To derive a Malaysia guideline and consensus as part of the Malaysia Retina Group's efforts for diagnosis, treatment, and best practices of diabetic macular edema (DME). The experts' panel suggests that the treatment algorithm to be divided into groups according to involvement the central macula. The purpose of DME therapy is to improve edema and achieve the best visual results with the least amount of treatment load. On two different occasions, a panel of 14 retinal specialists from Malaysia, together with an external expert, responded to a questionnaire on management of DME. A consensus was sought by voting after compiling, analyzing and discussion on first-phase replies on the round table discussion. A recommendation was deemed to have attained consensus when 12 out of the 14 panellists (85%) agreed with it. The terms target response, adequate response, nonresponse, and inadequate response were developed when the DME patients' treatment responses were first characterized. The panelists reached agreement on a number of DME treatment-related issues, including the need to classify patients prior to treatment, first-line treatment options, the right time to switch between treatment modalities, and side effects associated with steroids. From this agreement, recommendations were derived and a treatment algorithm was created. A detail and comprehensive treatment algorithm by Malaysia Retina Group for the Malaysian population provides guidance for treatment allocation of patients with DME.

A real-world study for timely assessing the diabetic macular edema refractory to intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment.

Early Identifying and characterizing patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) is essential for individualized treatment and outcome optimization. This study aimed to timely investigate optical coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers of DME refractory to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. We retrospective reviewed 72 eyes from 44 treatment-naïve patients who were treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF for DME. OCT scans prior to anti-VEGF were evaluated for serous retinal detachment (SRD), size of outer nuclear layer cystoid changes, diffuse retinal thickening, integrity of the inner segment-outer segment (IS-OS) junction, quantity and location of hyperreflective foci, vitreomacular interface abnormalities, and epiretinal membrane (ERM). The Baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness was recorded at baseline and 4 months after treatment with anti-VEGF. The main outcome measure was the correlation between spectral-domain OCT measurements and BCVA response at baseline and after anti-VEGF treatment (mean change from baseline; ≥ 10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters in BCVA). Partially continuous IS-OS layers (partially vs. completely continuous: β, -0.138; Wald chi-square, 16.392; P<0.001) was predictor of better response to anti-VEGF treatment. In contrast, ERM (present vs. absent ERM: β, 0.215; Wald chi-square, 5.921; P=0.015) and vitreomacular traction (vitreomacular traction vs. posterior vitreous detachment: β=0.259; Wald chi-square=5.938; P=0.015) were the predictors of poor response. The improvement of BCVA trended toward the OCT predictive value of central macular thickness reduction; however, this was not significant. Partially continuous IS-OS layers is predictive of better response to anti-VEGF therapy in DME. Meanwhile, ERM is a significant predictor of poor response.

Клиническая эффективность лечения диабетического макулярного отека в авитричных глазах путем применения анти-VEGF терапии

Purpose. To analyze clinical efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with vitreous loss. Material and methods. 34 patients (38 eyes) with vitreous loss and DME were examined: on the background of pre-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PPDR) (18 eyes) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (20 eyes) (the main group). The comparison group consisted of 40 patients (40 eyes) with native vitreous body and DME on the background of PPDR (20 eyes) and PDR (20 eyes). Intravitreal injection of Lucentis 0.5 mg (IVIL) was carried out according to scheme «three monthly injections», then — to scheme «on demand». Results. Complete regression of DME in eyes with vitreous loss occurred in 74 % of cases; in eyes with native vitreous body — in 75 %. The duration of postoperative reaction in eyes with vitreous loss was up to 10–14 days, compared with 1–3 days in eyes with native vitreous body. The results of the study revealed, that number of IVIL was significantly less in patients with DME on the background of PPDR, than with PDR. Conclusions. The presence of local neuroepithelial detachment on the background of diffuse DME is prognostically favorable factor for anti-VEGF therapy. The effectiveness of IVIL in treatment of DME is comparable in eyes with native vitreous body and vitreous loss. Keywords: diabetes mellitus, diabetic macular edema, pre-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, vitreous loss, Lucentis intravitreal injection

The impact of intravitreal therapy of diabetic macular edema on the local and systemic production of cytokines

Purpose: to analyze the levels of cytokines in intraocular fluid (IF) and blood plasma of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) previously untreated by intravitreal therapy before and after the therapy by angiogenesis inhibitor or a corticosteroid. Material and methods. We examined 90 people — 47 females (52.2 %) and 43 males (47.8 %), mean age 64.54 ± 11.30 years. Of these, 60 had DME, and 30 formed the control group. The levels of 41 cytokines/chemokines in IF were determined by Milliplex® Map Human Cytokine/ Chemokine Panel; while the concentration of IL-18, MCP-1/CCL2, EPO, IL-10, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IFNα, VEGF-A in blood plasma was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits (Vector-Best, Russia). Patients with DME received intravitreal injections of an angiogenesis inhibitor (aflibercept. 50 eyes) or a corticosteroid (dexamethasone implant, 30 eyes). Results. Significant differences were revealed in 10 cytokine concentrations between the DME patients and the control group. The concentrations of IL-7, IL-15 and MCP-1/CCL2 levels in IF of DME patients were, respectively, 20.5, 20.3, and 11.02 times higher, than in the control group (р ˂ 0.05). Besides, a pairwise comparison of cytokines concentrations in IF of patients from either treatment group with the controls demonstrated a statistically significant increase in GROα/CXCL1 level. The pairwise comparison also revealed significant differences between the control and the corticosteroid therapy for systemic concentrations of IL-18 (p = 0.017), MCP-1/CCL2 (p = 0.009) and VEGF-A (p = 0.016). Conclusion. A pronounced and significant increase of the levels of a number of cytokines (e.g., IL-7, IL-15. FRACTALKINE/CX3CL1) were only sparsely reported before or remained undetermined at all. Our results on systemic cytokines levels may serve as prerequisite for further research into the role of systemic inflammation in DME pathogenesis. The analysis of associations of our results with those of other clinical biomarkers will contribute to the development of individualized treatment strategies.

Safety and Efficacy of a Treat-and-Extend Regimen of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents for Diabetic Macular Edema or Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Comparative studies evaluating a treat-and-extend regimen relative to a monthly or prn regimen with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for diabetic macular edema or macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion were included following a systematic literature search. Seven studies of 984 eyes were included. Relative to a monthly regimen, treat-and-extend was similar for change in best-corrected visual acuity at final follow-up (P = .59) and had a lower number of injections (P < .00001). Relative to a prn regimen, treat-and-extend was similar for change in best-corrected visual acuity at final follow-up (P = .84) and was associated with a higher number of injections (P = .02). This meta-analysis found that a treat-and extend regimen was nonsignificantly different compared to monthly and prn regimens in efficacy and safety end points. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54(3):131-138.].