Central retinal vein occlusion in patients with metastatic solid tumors on tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a report of case series and literature review.

Background: Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a rare adverse effect related to the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with metastatic malignancies, which has only been reported in several case reports. Case presentation: We reported the case series of three CRVO patients on regular regimens of TKIs as part of targeted therapies for metastatic malignancies, all of whom were otherwise healthy with no or well-controlled systemic conditions. All these patients received injections of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) and achieved a fluid-free macula at the end of the visit. In addition, we reviewed the existing literature on this subject and present here an updated analysis of the related TKIs, ocular presentation, treatment, and prognosis. Conclusion: All patients diagnosed with CRVO on TKIs received dexamethasone implant treatment and obtained a fluid-free macula. We would like to raise awareness among our colleague oncologists about the possibility of CRVO related to TKI use and the necessity for patients to be screened regularly by a retinal specialist.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant to Treat Persistent Full-Thickness Macular Hole.

Purpose: To describe a new technique for the secondary repair of persistent full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs). Methods: This series evaluated 3 cases of a persistent FTMH after pars plana vitrectomy, internal limiting membrane peeling, and 20% sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade. After at least 4 weeks (mean, 36.3; range, 32-40) of unsuccessful topical treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, an intravitreal dexamethasone implant was injected. Results: The intravitreal dexamethasone implant led to anatomic closure and visual improvement in all 3 cases over a 3-month follow-up. Conclusions: An intravitreal dexamethasone implant could be considered in the management of selected cases of persistent FTMH. Further studies and a consistent number of cases are needed to fully understand the role of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in persistent FTMHs.

Changes in intraocular pressure following intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with history of glaucoma filtration surgery.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate changes in intraocular pressure following intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection, specifically in patients undergoing glaucoma filtration surgery. METHODS: The degree of increase in intraocular pressure was compared retrospectively among three groups. Group 1 comprised patients who underwent prior glaucoma filtration surgery (54 eyes). Group 2 included patients with or suspected glaucoma without such surgical history (20 eyes). Group 3 included patients without glaucoma (33 eyes). Pressure measurements were taken before the injection and at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months post-injection. A subgroup analysis was performed for pressure > 35 mmHg, > 30 mmHg, > 25 mmHg, and a difference > 10 mmHg between the peak and baseline pressure. RESULTS: Group 1 consistently displayed lower pressures compared with Group 2, with significant difference at both 1- and 6-month post-injections (15.09 mmHg vs. 18.10 mmHg, P = 0.042 and 13.91 mg vs. 17.25 mmHg, P = 0.040). The proportion of patients in Group 1 and Group 3 with pressures > 25 mmHg, > 30 mmHg, and a difference > 10 mmHg did not significantly differ (15.6% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.231; 3.1% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.867; and 17.1% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.231). Notably, Group 2 exhibited a significantly higher proportion within each category (> 25 mmHg, 24.0%; > 30 mmHg, 20.0%; > 10 mmHg difference, 28.0%). CONCLUSION: Intravitreal dexamethasone implant did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with a history of glaucoma filtration surgery compared with patients with suspected glaucoma; the risk was similar to those without glaucoma.

ESASO classification relevance in the diagnosis and evolution in diabetic macular edema patients after dexamethasone implant treatment.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical relevance of The European School for Advanced Studies in Ophthalmology (ESASO) classification in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) after their first dexamethasone implant (DEXI) treatment. METHODS: Retrospective real-world study conducted on consecutive DME patients who underwent DEXI treatment and were controlled at month-2. Subjects were initially classified according to the ESASO classification stages. The outcomes were anatomical biomarkers with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were classified according to ESASO classification stages as early (7; 5.5%), advanced (100; 78.1%), and severe (21; 16.4%). At baseline, there were significant differences between stages in BCVA, central macular thickness (CMT), and tomography anatomical biomarkers (p < 0.05). Initial BCVA (logMAR) was 0.33 ± 0.10, 0.58 ± 0.34, and 0.71 ± 0.35 in the early, advanced, and severe stages, respectively (p < 0.05). At month-2, BCVA was 0.17 ± 0.15, 0.46 ± 0.29, and 0.69 ± 0.27 in those classified as early, advanced, and severe stages, respectively. At month-2, DME was resolved or improved in 6 (85.7%), 60 (60%), and 12 (60%) patients classified as early, advanced, and severe stages, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was a good correlation between BCVA and ESASO classification stages. Patients in the severe stage did not achieve visual acuity improvement over the study period.

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.

Influence of prior treatment protocol on intravitreal dexamethasone implant behavior in patients with diabetic macular edema in real-world practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEXI) has been placed as an effective option to treat diabetic macular edema (DME). However, there is no consensus on the best time to introduce it. We conducted a study to evaluate anatomical and functional behavior after the first DEXI according to previous treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective, real-world study between 2013 and 2020 investigated changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT at months 2 and 6 after the first DEXI in DME. Patients were divided into naive, early switch (≤3 anti-VEGF injections), or late switch (>3 anti-VEGF injections) groups. RESULTS: Among 112 consecutive eyes, mean BCVA and CMT improved significantly in all groups at month 2, with no difference between them. However, this improvement was not maintained at 6 months. The Naíve group presented better BCVA all over the study period. The previously treated groups, which started with worse initial visual acuity, showed more visual gain without reaching the BCVA of the naive group. CMT performance was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was similar anatomical and functional behavior in all groups. Poorer visual acuity at baseline was associated with worse functional outcome despite good anatomic response.

Risk factors for failing sub-Tenon's triamcinolone acetonide for uveitic macular edema.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Tenon's triamcinolone acetonide (STA) is less effective than intravitreal corticosteroids in the treatment of uveitic macular edema (ME), but does have some relative advantages, including substantially lower cost and decreased risk of post-injection ocular hypertension. It would be useful for clinicians to know which eyes may respond well to STA and not necessarily require intravitreal therapy. The objective of this study is to identify risk factors for failing STA for the treatment of uveitic ME. MAIN BODY: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Medical records were reviewed of patients who underwent STA for the treatment of uveitic ME between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2022, at the University of Colorado Hospital. Uveitic ME was defined by a central subfield thickness (CST) greater than 320 µm or the presence of intra-retinal cystoid spaces on optical coherence tomography (OCT), or by the presence of petaloid macular leakage on fluorescein angiography (FA). Data collected included age, race/ethnicity, sex, history of diabetes mellitus, anatomic classification of uveitis, use of corticosteroids, use of immunomodulatory therapy, presence of intra-retinal fluid on OCT, CST on OCT, and presence of petaloid macular leakage on FA. STA failure was defined as the need for additional therapy within 12 weeks of STA due to persistent or worsening uveitic ME. One hundred eighty eyes from 131 patients were included. Forty-two eyes (23.3%) were considered treatment failures. In univariate and multivariable analysis, higher baseline CST was associated with a higher likelihood of failing STA (OR 1.17 for each 30 µm increase in CST, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: STA, while not as potent as intravitreal corticosteroids for the treatment of uveitic ME, was still an effective therapy, particularly for patients with lower baseline CST. Given its lower side effect profile and cost compared to intravitreal treatments, clinicians could consider STA as an initial treatment for mild uveitic ME.

Real-world effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone implants - Comparison between eyes eligible and ineligible for clinical trials and their associated outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about the generalizability of pivotal randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) findings have been raised. We aimed to compare intravitreal dexamethasone implants' (IDIs) effectiveness for diabetic macular edema (DME) and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), between eyes eligible and ineligible for pRCTs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed Taiwan's Chang Gung Research Database, including DME or CRVO eyes initiating IDIs during 2015-2020. We classified all treated eyes as eligible or ineligible for pRCTs following major selection criteria of the MEAD and GENEVA trials, and evaluated three-, six-, and twelve-month changes in central retinal thickness (CRT) and visual acuity (VA) after initiating IDIs. RESULTS: We included 177 IDI-treated eyes (DME: 72.3%; CRVO: 27.7%), of which 39.8% and 55.1% were ineligible for DME and CRVO pRCTs, respectively. LogMAR-VA and CRT changes at different times were comparable in DME eyes eligible (LogMAR-VA difference: 0.11 to 0.16; CRT difference: -32.7 to -96.9 µm) and ineligible (LogMAR-VA difference: -0.01 to 0.15; CRT difference: -54.5 to -109.3 µm) for the MEAD trial. By contrast, CRVO eyes ineligible for the GENEVA trial had greater LogMAR-VA changes (0.37 ~ 0.50) than those eligible (0.05 ~ 0.13), with comparable CRT reductions (eligible eyes: -72.3 to -106.4 µm; ineligible eyes: -61.8 to -110.7 µm) (all p-values <0.05 of the mean differences between eligible and ineligible CRVO eyes for all follow-ups). CONCLUSIONS: IDIs had similar VA and CRT outcomes among DME eyes, regardless of pRCT-eligibility. However, among CRVO eyes, those ineligible for pRCTs showed greater deterioration in VA than those eligible.

A case of recurring acute exudative polymorphous vitelliform maculopathy successfully treated with intravitreal Ozurdex injection.

INTRODUCTION: We describe a case of acute exudative polymorphous vitelliform maculopathy (AEPVM) that recurred 9 years after the initial event. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of recurrent AEPVM showing recovery of retinal and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) function and good visual outcome following treatment with intravitreal corticosteroid. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 45-year-old Caucasian woman first presented with AEVPM in 2009. Her condition spontaneously resolved and she remained stable over several years. 9 years later, her condition recurred with bilateral reduction in visual acuity. Fundus examination revealed multiple small yellowish subretinal lesions across the posterior pole in both eyes. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed bilateral cystoid macular oedema (CMO). She was referred for electrophysiology and her electrooculogram findings were in keeping with severe generalised RPE dysfunction bilaterally, with a light peak to dark trough ratio (Arden index) of 110%, comparable to her initial presentation 9 years earlier. She was initially treated with oral steroids with some improvement. However, the maculopathy in the left eye recurred on cessation of oral treatment. A sustained-release 700ug dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®) was inserted in the left eye to which she responded remarkably, with improvement in visual acuity and complete resolution of the CMO. A year later, at her most recent clinic visit in March 2021, there was no evidence of any further recurrence. CONCLUSION: Our case demonstrates clinical and imaging findings consistent with recurrence of AEPVM with CMO that has been successfully treated with Ozurdex®.

Evaluation of changes in epivascular glia before and after intravitreal dexamethasone implant: An OCT pilot study.

PURPOSE: To detect changes in epivascular glia (EVG) in diabetic retinopathy after intravitreal dexamethasone implant using en face optical coherence tomography (enface OCT) and OCT angiography (OCTA) and to correlate improvements in functional and structural features. METHODS: A total of 38 eyes of 38 patients were enroled in this prospective study. They were divided into two different study groups: the first group including 20 eyes with diabetic retinopathy type 1 complicated by macular oedema and the control group including 18 eyes from 18 healthy age-matched patients. The main outcome measures were: (i) differences at baseline in the foveal avascuar zone (FAZ) area in the study group versus control; (ii) the presence of epivascular glia in the study group versus control, (iii) differences at baseline between foveal macular thickness versus control; (iv) changes in foveal macular thickness, FAZ and epivascular glia in the study group before and after intravitreal dexamethasone implant. RESULTS: At baseline FAZ area detected at OCTA was larger in the study group than in the control group, and epivascular glia was only detected in the study group. Three months after intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant in the study group the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved and central macular tickness reduced (P<0.0001). No significant differences were found in FAZ area while epivascular glia disappeared in 80% of the patients after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Glia activation due to retinal inflammation in diabetic retinopathy (DR) can be detected on en face-OCT as epivascular glia. Intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant improves both the anatomical and functional condition in the presence of these signs.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant at the Time of Silicon Oil Removal to Treat Persistent Macular Edema after Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair.

BACKGROUND: An intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) was found to be effective and safe for the treatment of cystoid macular edema (CME) after vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and in silicone oil (SO)-filled eyes. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of DEX-I at the time of SO removal for the treatment of recalcitrant CME after successful RRD repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of the medical records was performed on 24 consecutive patients (24 eyes) with recalcitrant CME after RRD repair who were treated with a single 0.7-mg DEX-I at the time of SO removal. The main outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). A regression model was performed to assess the relationship between BCVA and CMT at 6 months and independent variables. RESULTS: In all 24 patients, CME occurred after RRD repair and remained despite topical therapy. The mean time of CME onset was 27.4 ± 7.7 days after vitrectomy. The mean time between vitrectomy and DEX-I was 106.8 ± 10.1 days. The mean CMT was significantly decreased from 429.6 ± 59.1 µm at baseline to 294 ± 46.4 µm at month 6 (p < 0.0001). The mean BCVA significantly improved from 0.99 ± 0.3 at baseline to 0.60 ± 0.3 at month 6 (p < 0.0001). An elevation of intraocular pressure was observed in one (4.1%) eye, which was medically managed. A univariate regression model revealed a relationship between month-6 BCVA after DEX-I and gender (ß = -0.27; p = 0.03) and macular status (ß = -0.45; p = 0.001) when RRD occurred. No relationship between month-6 CMT and independent variables was found. CONCLUSIONS: DEX-I at the time of SO removal had an acceptable safety profile and achieved favorable outcomes in eyes affected by recalcitrant CME that occurred after RRD repair. RRD-related macular status is significantly associated with visual acuity after DEX-I.

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant for the treatment of persistent post-surgical cystoid macular edema in vitrectomized eyes.

Cystoid macular edema (CME) is the most common cause of decreased visual acuity after both vitrectomy and cataract surgery. Various strategies have been used for its treatment, such as intravitreal corticosteroids. The intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (Iluvien®) is approved for the treatment of persisting diabetic macular edema and for the prevention of recurrence of non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment. There are very few reports about its off-label use for post-surgical CME. We present four clinical cases of post-surgical CME (three following vitrectomy and one following cataract surgery in a vitrectomized eye 2 years ago). All of them had been previously treated with an average of four injections of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex®), with repeated recurrence of CME. After treatment with Iluvien, three cases showed improvement of both visual acuity and macular anatomy, with resolution of the macular edema. One patient required additional treatment with Ozurdex during follow-up, further improving CME. Two of the cases required topical pressure lowering treatment, and none required filtering surgery. Iluvien could be an effective therapeutic option for persistent non-diabetic macular edema after vitrectomy or cataract surgery refractory to other intravitreal therapies, with the benefit of being able to provide longer recurrence-free periods.

Single-dose Effect of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for Post-vitrectomy Macular Edema under Silicone Oil.

PURPOSE: To investigate the single-dose effect of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for patients with post-vitrectomy macular edema (ME) under silicone oil (SO) tamponade. METHODS: Twelve eyes diagnosed with ME after undergoing pars plana vitrectomy with SO injections were retrospectively reviewed. Each eye received a single intravitreal DEX implant (0.7-mg, Ozurdex; Allergan Inc) injection as treatment for recalcitrant ME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded. RESULTS: Compared with baseline (1.24 ± 0.34), the mean LogMAR BCVA improved at 1 (1.14 ± 0.27), 3 (1.13 ± 0.22), and 6 (1.22 ± 0.30) months without statistical significance. Maximal CMT resolution was observed at 1 month after intravitreal injection. The CMT value improved significantly at 1 (P = .008), 3 (P = .006), and 6 (P = .009) months. IOP did not show significant elevation during follow-up. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Single-dose treatment of DEX implant may have benefit for recalcitrant post-vitrectomy ME under SO tamponade.

Management of autoimmune retinopathy treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of autoimmune retinopathy (AIR) in the patients treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). METHOD: Twenty-one eyes of 11 AIR patients treated with at least 1 injection of IDI were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes before and after treatment, including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optic coherence tomography (OCT), fundus autofluorescence (FAF), full-field electroretinography (ff-ERG), and visual field (VF) at last visit within 6 and/or 12 months, were recorded. RESULTS: Among all the patients, 3 had cancer-associated retinopathy (CAR) and 8 had non-paraneoplastic-AIR (npAIR) with mean followed up of 8.52 ± 3.03 months (range 4-12 months). All patients achieved improved or stable BCVA within 6 and/or 12 months after the treatment. Cystoid macular edema (CME) in 2 eyes and significant retinal inflammation in 4 eyes were markedly resolved after single injection. Central retinal thickness (CFT) in all eyes without CME, ellipsoid zone (EZ) on OCT in 71.4% of eyes, ERG response in 55% of eyes, and VF in 50% of eyes were stable or improved within 6 months after treatment. At last visit within 12 months, both BCVA and CFT remained stable in the eyes treated with either single or repeated IDI; however, progression of EZ loss and damage of ERG response occurred in some patients with single IDI. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes, including BCVA and parameters of OCT, ERG, and VF, were stable or improved after IDI in a majority of AIR patients. Local treatment of AIR with IDI was a good option to initiate the management or an alternative for the patients' refractory to the systemic therapy but with limited side effect.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone implant in the treatment of distinct optical coherence tomography types of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion / 国际眼科杂志(Guoji Yanke Zazhi)

AIM:To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant(DEX-I)in the treatment of different types of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion(RVO).METHODS:A retrospective observational case study was conducted. A total of 46 patients(46 eyes)who were diagnosed with RVO-macular edema(ME)and received DEX-I of 0.7 mg as the initial treatment in Dalian No.3 People's Hospital from July 2019 to June 2020 were collected. According to the morphological characteristics of optical coherence tomography(OCT), they were divided into diffuse retinal thickening type(DRT type, 13 patients, 13 eyes), cystoid macular edema type(CME type, 22 patients, 22 eyes )and serous retinal detachment type(SRD type, 11 patients, 11 eyes ). The best corrected visual acuity(BCVA)and central retinal thickness(CRT)of patients with three types of macular edema were observed and compared before treatment and 1, 2 and 3mo after treatment.RESULTS:Compared with before treatment, BCVA of patients with DRT, CME and SRD were significantly improved at 1, 2 and 3mo after treatment, and CRT was significantly decreased(all P&#x003C;0.017). At 3mo after treatment, BCVA(0.21±0.12, 0.22±0.10LogMAR)of DRT and SRD patients was significantly better than that of CME(0.45±0.14LogMAR, both P&#x003C;0.017), and CRT(254.08±49.07, 248.92±44.19μm)was significantly lower than that of CME(314.70±92.66 μm, both P&#x003C;0.017).CONCLUSIONS: DEX-I is effective in the treatment of various OCT types of macular edema secondary to RVO, and the treatment response of CME type is worse than that of DRT and SRD types.

Preliminary Study of Different Treatment Responses between Bevacizumab, Aflibercept and Dexamethasone Implant According to Renal Function in Diabetic Macular Edema Patients.

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between responses to intravitreal bevacizumab injection and renal function in diabetic macular edema (DME) patients. Methods: A retrospective study of the medical records of 104 treatment-naïve DME patients who received intravitreal bevacizumab injection (IVBI) was conducted. Based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2), the participants were classified into three groups. Intergroup comparisons of the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield retinal thickness (CST) changes were performed after three-monthly consecutive IVBIs. In the groups with decreased renal function, the response to further treatment with a different drug was investigated. Results: A total of 104 participants were included in the study: 60 participants in the preserved renal function group (eGFR ≥ 60), 25 participants in the moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) group (30 ≤ eGFR < 60), and 19 participants in the severe CKD group (eGFR < 30). After three-monthly consecutive IVBIs, BCVA (p < 0.001) and CST (p < 0.001) were significantly improved only in the preserved renal function group. Following further treatment of patients with decreased renal function, the treatment results were significantly better in those who were switched to aflibercept or dexamethasone implant than in those who were maintained on IVBI. Conclusions: From this preliminary study, we observed that renal function might affect the response to IVBI treatment in patients with DME. In the case of a poor response to initial IVBI treatment for DME in patients with moderate to severe CKD, our study supports switching to the aflibercept or dexamethasone implant.

Effect of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in treatment-naive and previously-treated patients with diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To document the effects of intravitreal dexamethasone implant on retinal microvasculature in patients with diabetic retinopathy complicated by center-involving macular edema. METHODS: 35 eyes of 35 patients affected by retinopathy due to type 2 diabetes (15 treatment-naïve and 20 previously treated) were included in this retrospective study with a follow-up of 4 months. Foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area and superficial capillary plexus (SCP) and deep capillary plexus (DCP) densities in the foveal and parafoveal areas were measured by optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) at baseline and 2 and 4 months post-injection. Intraocular pressure, morphological and functional parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: a significant difference was found in both groups at 2 months after injection in terms of functional (BCVA, p < 0.05) and morphological (CMT, p < 0.05) parameters. During follow-up, FAZ area, SCP, and DCP in the foveal and parafoveal areas did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: intravitreal dexamethasone implant is effective in the treatment of diabetic center-involving macular edema and was associated with significant improvements in BCVA and CMT at 2 months after injection. After a single dexamethasone implant injection, FAZ area and retinal vascular density does not show significant variations in both naive and non-naive DME patients subgroups.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant (IDI) Alone and Combined with Navigated 577 nm Subthreshold Micropulse Laser (SML) for Diabetic Macular Oedema.

BACKGROUND: The anatomical and functional changes after intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) alone and combined with navigated subthreshold micropulse laser (NSML) in diabetic macular oedema (DMO) were compared. METHODS: Patients with a clinically confirmed diagnosis of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and DMO were enrolled in this prospective study and were randomly assigned to two different treatment groups: thirty patients were treated with IDI (IDI group), and the other 30 patients received IDI combined with NSML treatment (combined IDI/NSML group). All patients during a 6-month follow-up underwent best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) evaluation and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). The main outcome measures were: BCVA, central macular thickness (CMT); (3) choroidal vascularity index (CVI), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SCHT); and time to retreatment between IDI at baseline and the second implant in both groups. RESULTS: BCVA, CMT, and SCHT significantly decreased starting from the 1-month follow-up and CVI from 3 months in both groups. The between-group differences were significantly different from 1-month follow-up for BCVA, from 5-month follow-up for CMT and SCHT, and from 4-month follow-up for CVI. The Needed to Treat analysis indicated that six patients would have to be treated with SML after IDI in order for just one person to receive a benefit. CONCLUSIONS: the combined treatment showed good anatomical and functional outcomes for the treatment of DMO. In addition, IDI/SML seems to reduce injection frequency over time, improving patients' quality of life and reducing the socio-economic burden.

Economic Aspects in the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema in Italy.

Background: Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) is the most common cause of vision loss in diabetic patients. Currently, the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) are used as the first line of DME treatment and corticosteroid implants are usually used as a second-line treatment. These implants are a safe and effective therapeutic option that can improve the quality of life of DME patients by reducing the intravitreal injections number. We determined the economic impact related to DME, also from the social perspective, and the consequences of the increased use of the dexamethasone implant. Methods: The analysis compares two scenarios: the first based on the current rate of recourse to the therapeutic alternatives available in the Italian healthcare setting (as is) and the second based on the assumption of an increased recourse to dexamethasone implants (to be). The results are expressed both in terms of the resource absorption associated with the two scenarios and in terms of the cost differential yielded by their comparison. Results: The increased use of the dexamethasone implant allows considerable savings in terms of healthcare professionals' time, follow-up and productivity lost by patients/caregivers. These savings would reduce healthcare costs for the management of DME patients in Italy by €2,058,238 in 5 years. Conclusions: To optimize the healthcare resources allocation, it is necessary to implement treatments that yield not only cost reductions but also a clinical benefit for patients. The dexamethasone implant use is an example of DME management that generates value for patients, health system and society.