The application of dexamethasone implants in uveitis treatment.

Uveitis refers to a group of ocular inflammatory diseases that can significantly impair vision. Although systemic corticosteroid therapy has shown substantial efficacy in treating uveitis, extensive use of corticosteroids is associated with significant adverse effects. Recently, a biodegradable, sustained-release implant, namely dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex), has been reported for treating non-infectious and infectious uveitis. This review aims to summarize the experiences with Ozurdex treatment across various forms of uveitis and to assist readers in understanding the appropriate timing and potential side effects of Ozurdex in uveitis treatment, thereby maximizing patient benefits in uveitis management.

Fluocinolone intravitreal implant (Iluvien) for macular edema secondary to immune recovery uveitis in patient with acute myeloid leukemia.

PURPOSE: To report the use of Fluocinolone intravitreal implant (Iluvien) for the treatment of persistent cystoid macular edema (CME) due to immune recovery uveitis syndrome in a patient with previous cytomegalovirus retinitis and acute myeloid leukemia. DESIGN: Case report. METHODS: The clinical history of a patient who received an Iluvien implant in one eye for the treatment of cystoid macular edema due to immune recovery uveitis syndrome, previously treated with peribulbar Triamcinolone and intravitreal Dexamethasone injections, was reviewed. RESULTS: A 48-year-old woman presented with cystoid macular edema due to immune recovery uveitis syndrome. The patient had a history of cytomegalovirus retinitis 3.5 years prior, secondary to immunosuppressive treatment for an acute myeloid leukemia. Three periocular triamcinolone injections and two dexamethasone intravitreal implants were performed, but the edema recurred, so fluocinolone intravitreal implant was used, achieving a sustained control of the condition at one year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The Fluocinolone intravitreal implant may be an effective treatment for persistent CME in patients with immune recovery uveitis syndrome.

Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for Uveitis: Dissecting Responder and Non-Responder Outcomes at a Tertiary Center.

Macular edema (ME) remains a primary cause of visual deterioration in uveitis. Visual acuity (VA) can often be maintained using corticosteroid depot systems. This study evaluated the efficacy of a fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN®) in treating non-infectious uveitis using real-world data. This retrospective analysis included 135 eyes subdivided into responders and non-responders. Central retinal thickness (CRT), VA, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were followed over time. A significant decrease in CRT and an increase in VA were observed in all eyes throughout the follow-up period (p < 0.01). An IOP increase (p = 0.028) necessitated treatment in 43% of eyes by Month 6. Non-responders were older (p = 0.004) and had been treated with more dexamethasone (DEX) implants (p = 0.04); 89.3% had a defect in the external limiting membrane (ELM) and inner/outer segment (IS/OS) zone (p < 0.001). Immunomodulatory therapy had no impact on treatment response. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) patients had a mean CRT reduction of 47.55 µm and a reduced effect by Month 24 (p = 0.046) versus non-PPV patients. We conclude that the FAc implant achieves long-term control of CRT and improves VA. Increases in IOP were manageable. Eyes with a previous PPV showed milder results. Data showed a correlation between older age, a damaged ELM and IS/OS zone, frequent DEX inserts, and poorer outcome measures.

Fluocinolone acetonide 0.2 µg/day intravitreal implant in non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment: EU expert user panel consensus-based clinical recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye (NIU-PS) is an inflammatory disease, which can significantly impair visual acuity if not adequately treated. Fluocinolone-acetonide sustained-release-0.2 µg/day intravitreal (FAc) implants are indicated for prevention of relapse in recurrent NIU-PS. The aim here was to provide treating clinicians with some consensus-based-recommendations for the clinical management of patients with NIU-PS with 0.2 µg/day FAc implants. METHODS: A European-clinical-expert-group agreed to develop a consensus report on different issues related to the use of FAc implants in patients with NIU-PS. RESULTS: The Clinical-expert-panel provided specific recommendations focusing on clinical presentation (unilateral/bilateral) of the NIU-PS; systemic involvement of NIU-PS and the lens status. Treatment algorithms were developed; one that refers to the management of patients with NIU-PS in clinical practice and another that establishes the best clinical scenarios for the use of FAc implants, both as monotherapy and as adjuvant therapy. Additionally, the Clinical-expert-panel has provided recommendations about the use of the FAc implants in a clinical-setting. The Clinical-expert-panel also considered the safety profile of FAc implants and their possible implications in the daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: As more clinical experience has been gained using FAc implants, it was necessary to update the clinical recommendations that guide patient management in the clinic. The current consensus document addresses relevant issues related to the use of FAc implants on different types of patients with various etiologies of NIU-PS, and was conducted to standardize approaches to help specialists obtain better clinical outcomes.

Real-World Evidence of the Long-Term Effectiveness of 0.2 µg/Day Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant in Persistent and Recurrent Diabetic Macular Edema - A Single Center Study.

Purpose: To report the long-term functional, anatomical and safety outcomes of 0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide 0.19mg in patients with persistent or recurrent diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: Retrospective, observational, single-center study of patients with recurrent or persistent DME. All patients received 0.2 µg/day of fluocinolone acetonide 0.19mg, and data were collected at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 after implantation. Outcomes measured included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and safety outcomes. Results: A total of 28 eyes from 28 patients were included. The mean age was 66.5 years (95% CI 62.8-70.2) with a mean duration of DME of 8.8 years (95% CI 7.7-10.0). Only two eyes were phakic. Mean follow-up was 25.4 months (95% CI 21.2-29.6). Mean BCVA at baseline was 48.6 ETDRS letters (95% CI 41.3-55.8) and improved as early as month 1 of follow-up with a mean gain in BCVA of 7.8 (95% CI 4.3-11.3) ETDRS letters (p<0.001). Statistically significant improvements in BCVA were also observed at months 6, 12 and 24. At baseline, patients had a mean CMT of 530.5µm (95% CI 463.0-598.0), and a decrease in CMT was observed, starting at the first month of follow-up (mean CMT reduction of -170.5µm, 95% CI -223.8- -117.1; p<0.001). Statistically significant decreases in CMT were also observed at months 6, 12, 24, and 36, with the maximum decrease observed at month 12 (p<0.001). Mean IOP at baseline was 16.4mmHg (95% CI 15.3-17.5) and nine eyes (32.1%) had an IOP ≥21mmHg during follow-up. Conclusion: Our results support the effectiveness and safety profile of fluocinolone acetonide. Although additional long-term real-world evidence is required, fluocinolone acetonide may represent a safe strategy for daily, low-dose, sustained and localized release to the posterior segment of the eye, providing both functional and anatomical benefits in DME.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal (FAI) Implant for Chronic Noninfectious Uveitis Affecting the Posterior Segment of the Eye (NIU-PS) in China.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment (NIU-PS), which can be recurrent and persistent for numerous years, mainly affects people of working age and significantly increases the risk of visual impairment. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal (FAI) implant in the treatment of patients with chronic NIU-PS from the Chinese healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with a 2-week cycle was constructed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system over a lifetime time horizon. The model consists of four health states: on-treatment, treatment failure, blindness, and death. The outcomes for effectiveness were based on the Chinese real-world study (RWS). Utilities and mortality rates were derived from published literature and standard sources. Costs were determined from the MENET website, prices of medical service items at local providers, published literature, and expert surveys. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: It was estimated that in the base case, the FAI implant provided 0.43 incremental QALYs compared with the limited current practice (LCP) at an additional cost of $7503.72 (¥50,575.05), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $17,373.49 (¥117,097.33) per QALY gained. Parameters related to utility emerged as the primary influencers on the outcomes. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), considering the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $19,072 (¥128,547) and $38,145 (¥257,094), the FAI implant had 67.70% and 99.50% probability of being cost-effective, respectively. As demonstrated in the scenario analysis, if the FAI implant aligns its price reduction with the average rate from the 2023 negotiation of the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), it would result in lower costs and represent an absolute advantage. CONCLUSIONS: The FAI implant, which can effectively reduce the recurrence rate and maintain the incremental costs within the WTP limit, is likely to be cost-effective in treating chronic NIU-PS in China.

In Response to Oyeniran E, Katz D, Kodati S's Isolated Optic Disc Granuloma as a Presenting Sign of Sarcoidosis.

We read with great interest the article by Oyeniran E et al. on "Isolated optic disc granuloma as a presenting sign of sarcoidosis." We would like to share our experience with a similar optic nerve head granuloma secondary to sarcoidosis in the absence of any systemic symptoms and no evidence of signs of periocular/intraocular inflammation. However, our case was refractory to oral steroids and methotrexate and required intravitreal dexamethasone implants and mycophenolate mofetil.

The 0.19-mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema: Intraocular Pressure-Related Effects over 36 Months.

PURPOSE: To evaluate effects of the 0.19-mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN) on intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a 36-month, phase IV, nonrandomized, open-label, observational study. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 202 eyes from 159 patients who received the 0.19-mg FAc implant after a successful prior steroid challenge per the United States label indication. METHODS: Study eyes were assessed for IOP values, incidence of IOP elevations, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) for up to 36 months post-FAc implant. RESULTS: Mean IOP was stable over 36 months post-FAc; IOP change from baseline peaked at 2.12 mmHg at 9 months, then declined to baseline levels. At 36 months, eyes had a 32.5% cumulative probability of an IOP event > 25 mmHg and a 15.6% probability of an IOP event > 30 mmHg (Kaplan-Meier). The probability of requiring IOP-lowering medication at any time by month 36 was 38.3%. A total of 78% of eyes did not have IOP elevations > 25 mmHg if similar values were seen with the previous steroid challenge. Although 7.4% of eyes had an IOP > 30 mmHg during a scheduled study visit, most exceeded this threshold only once (60%). Regardless of IOP status, mean BCVA remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Over 36 months, the 0.19-mg FAc implant was associated with relatively stable IOPs in patients with DME, and there was no significant impact of IOP elevations identified regarding their effects on long-term visual outcomes. The probability that a prior corticosteroid challenge will not predict an IOP elevation > 25 mmHg over 36 months post-FAc is 22%; therefore, routine IOP monitoring should be scheduled. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Effect of intralenticular dexamethasone implant: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant is indicated for the treatment of macular oedema due to diabetic retinopathy, retinal vein occlusion and uveitis. The most common complications are cataract and elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). Accidental injection of DEX implant into the lens is a rare complication and only few papers presented it. CASE PRESENTATION: A 40-year-old man was treated with DEX implant for diabetic macular oedema in both eyes. At 1 week follow-up visit, slit lamp examination showed the DEX implant was located in the crystalline lens of the right eye (RE) without any sign of inflammation, cataract or elevated IOP, so we decided to plan a normal follow-up schedule. Macular oedema relapsed 5 months after the injection in the left eye (LE), whereas the RE did not show any sing of intraretinal or subretinal fluid. Six months after DEX implantation an uneventful phacoemulsification and intraocular lens placement were performed in the RE because of IOP elevation. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic effect of DEX implant can be maintained for a longer period of time than intravitreal implant, determining complete reabsorption of macular oedema. Intralenticular implant can be maintained inside the lens until either IOP increases, cataract progresses, or other complications occur.

Adalimumab combined with Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in the treatment of refractory noninfectious uveitis macular edema / 国际眼科杂志(Guoji Yanke Zazhi)

AIM: To investigate the effect of adalimumab combined with dexamethasone intravitreal implant in the treatment of refractory non-infectious uveitis macular edema(UME).METHODS: A total of 92 cases(131 eyes)of refractory non-infectious UME patients admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to January 2022 were selected and randomly divided into control group, with 46 cases(63 eyes)treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant and observation group, with 46 cases(68 eyes)treated with adalimumab subcutaneous injection combined with dexamethasone intravitreal implant. The best corrected visual acuity(BCVA), central retinal thickness(CRT), vitreous opacity and Th17/Treg cytokines were measured before and after treatment, and the occurrence of adverse reactions was recorded.RESULTS: Totally 3 cases(4 eyes)were lost to follow-up. After treatment for 1, 3, 6 and 12 mo, BCVA was improved in both groups compared with that before treatment, and CRT, vitreous opacity score, serum interleukin(IL)-17 and IL-22 levels were decreased compared with those before treatment, and serum transforming growth factor-β(TGF-β)and IL-10 levels were increased compared with those before treatment. BCVA in the observation group was better than that in the control group, and CRT, vitreous opacity score, serum IL-17 and IL-22 levels were lower than those in the control group, and serum TGF-β and IL-10 levels were higher than those in the control group(all P&#x0026;#x003C;0.05). During treatment and follow-up, no serious adverse reactions occurred in both groups.CONCLUSION: Adalimumab combined with dexamethasone intravitreal implants in the treatment of refractory non-infectious UME can significantly subside the macular edema, reduce vitreous opacity and improve visual acuity.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Given Either First-Line or Second-Line in Diabetic Macular Edema.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the leading cause of severe visual impairment among the working-age population. Several therapeutic options are available for the management of DME, including intravitreal corticosteroids. They have been traditionally used as second-line treatment, due to the risk of intraocular pressure increase and cataract-related adverse events. However, attention has recently been focused on the primary or early use of intravitreal corticosteroids, due to growing evidence of the crucial role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME. Furthermore, intravitreal steroid implants offer the additional advantage of a longer duration of action compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGF). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, with a specific focus on clinical scenarios in which it might be considered or even preferred as first-line treatment option by adequate selection of patients, considering both advantages and possible adverse events. Patients with contraindications to anti-VEGF, DME with high inflammatory OCT biomarkers, pseudophakic patients and phakic patients' candidates to cataract surgery as well as vitrectomized eyes may all benefit from first-line DEX implant. Additionally, DME not responders to anti-VEGF should be considered for a switch to DEX implant and a combination therapy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF could be a valid option in severe and persistent DME.

Anterior migration of Ozurdex implant: a review on risk factors, complications, and management.

PURPOSE: To describe the common risk factors, complications, and management options for anterior migration of Ozurdex implant. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed. RESULTS: Amongst the most common risk factors predisposing to implant anterior migration we found a history of pseudophakia or aphakia or previous vitrectomy. The most common complication is that of corneal edema. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of management options to treat migration of the dexamethasone implant are utilized by different specialists around the world. These depend on the doctor's preference, presence of corneal damage and history of previous migrations after repositioning the implant. The most common approaches are operative or non-operative implant repositioning and surgical implant removal.

Long-Term Control of Retinal Thickness Variability and Vision Following the 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant.

Purpose: To assess the impact of retinal thickness variability (RTV) control on visual and treatment burden outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) who received the 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (Iluvien, Alimera Sciences). Methods: This post hoc analysis examined the outcomes of a 3-year, phase 4, nonrandomized, open-label observational study. Retinal thickness was measured as central subfield thickness (CST). RTV was quantified by CST area under the curve (CST-AUC), retinal thickness amplitude (RTA), and retinal thickness standard deviation (RTSD). Visual outcomes were measured as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and treatment burden was measured as the number of yearly supplemental DME treatments. Results: The percentage of eyes with a CST ≤300 µm fluctuated throughout the study but was significantly increased relative to baseline at 36 months (baseline: 32.9% vs 36 months: 46.8%; P < .05). FAc significantly reduced RTV in all measures more than 36 months (P < .0001). When divided into quartiles, eyes with the best RTV control post FAc had the greatest BCVA gains and improved disease control (ie, reduced need for supplemental therapy). The last-observed BCVA letter score exhibited linear correlations with CST-AUC (R2 = -0.100), RTA (R2 = -0.125), and RTSD (R2 = -0.162). A multivariate linear regression with baseline BCVA as a covariate displayed improved correlations with the last-observed BCVA, CST-AUC (R2 = -0.448), RTA (R2 = -0.432), and RTSD (R2 = -0.436). Conclusions: The sustained corticosteroid release of the 0.19 mg FAc implant reduced RTV in patients with DME, which directly correlated with significantly improved vision and a reduced supplemental treatment burden.

ILUVIEN® in diabetic macular edema that persists or recurs despite treatment: Results from the Retina.pt® RIVER audit.

PURPOSE: Persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) remains a problem in clinical practice, with many patients having a suboptimal response to the standard of care (SOC). Evidence supports the long-term efficacy of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients that have responded sub-optimally, although there is still scarce data from real-world Portuguese practices. We aimed to monitor the current SOC in selected Portuguese practices prior to FAc implantation and then assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of the FAc implant. SETTINGS: The study included patient data from five Portuguese public hospitals. DESIGN: This was a non-interventional, multicenter audit of data collected from Retina.pt registry from patients with persistent or recurrent DME despite treatment. METHODS: Outcome measures included changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). Results were compared at regular times over 36 months. RESULTS: This study included 222 eyes from 152 patients. A significant decrease in BCVA (P < 0.001) and a significant increase in CMT (P = 0.013) were observed prior to FAc. A significant increase in BCVA was registered at 6 months after FAc implant administration (P < 0.001), which was maintained during follow-up. No relevant changes in IOP were observed. Treatment burden was reduced as a result of treatment with FAc (P < 0.001 for anti-VEGF, corticosteroids, or both treatments) in the full population. CONCLUSIONS: In Portuguese practice, data showed that pre-FAc implantation, some patients did not respond to SOC treatment and/or they were undertreated. Following FAc implant administration, there were rapid, sustained, long-term visual and anatomical improvements, and a marked reduction in treatment burden.

Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema or Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusion Based on Repeated Injection of the Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis.

Purpose: To assess the "real world" utility of repeated injection with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in routine practice. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive patients with diabetic macular edema, or macular edema following retinal vein occlusion, treated with DEX. None had received prior intravitreal steroid treatment. DEX was implanted as per the manufacturer's instructions. Results: Seventy-eight individuals (95 eyes) were included (50.0% female; mean age: 68.1 ± 12.4 years; mean duration of macular edema: 13.2 ± 12.9 months). Thirty-three eyes (34.7%) had received previous treatment with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and/or laser. Thirty eyes (31.6%) underwent one round of DEX implantation; the remainder received 2-5 cycles (total: 225 cycles). Initial DEX treatment led to significant increases in visual acuity (VA) at 6 weeks (mean change: 4.6 letters; P=0.004). Greater VA improvements during the first treatment cycle were associated with inferior baseline VA (P=0.02), borderline associated with baseline central macular thickness (CMT; P=0.06), and independent of prior anti-VEGF treatment (P=0.39). In an analysis of all DEX injections, VA improvements were robust across cycles 1 and 2 but reduced in cycle 3 (P=0.03). CMT improvements did not differ based on injection number (P=0.20). Increases in intraocular pressure (IOP) were largest over the first 6 weeks (but rebounded towards baseline more rapidly) in cycle 1 versus cycles 2 and 3 (P<0.001). IOP rises were typically manageable with topical medications. Conclusion: This analysis confirms the broad utility of DEX and may inform decision-making in routine practice.

Effectiveness and safety of fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in diabetic macular edema patients considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies (REACT): a prospective, non-randomized, and multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of the intravitreal fluocinolone-acetonide implant (FAc-i) in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema who did not sufficiently respond to other available therapies. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, non-randomized, and phase-IV observational study conducted on patients with recurrent-DME who were insufficient responders to currently available therapies (REACT-Study). The primary end-point was the mean change in best-corrected-visual-acuity from baseline to month-24 values. RESULTS: Thirty-one eyes from 31 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 68.0 ± 7.7 years, and 10 (32.3%) were women. Study patients had received 5.3 ± 7.3 previous DME treatments before starting the study. In the overall study sample, BCVA improved from 56.1 ± 12.3 letters at baseline to 62.4 ± 17.0 letters at month-24 (p = 0.0510). The eyes with a baseline BCVA < 70 ETDRS letters had a significant improvement in BCVA from 53.2 ± 10.2 letters at baseline to 61.5 ± 17.9 letters at month-24 (p = 0.0165). In the overall study population, central-subfoveal-thickness (CST) was significantly reduced from 474.0 ± 135.1 µm at baseline to 333.4 ± 135.6 at month-24 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, macular-volume (MV) was significantly reduced from 10.7 ± 2.7 mm3 at baseline to 9.6 ± 2.9 mm3 (p = 0.0027) at month-24. Among the 31 study eyes, 19 (61.3%) required an additional treatment for DME. Throughout the study, 9 (29.0%) eyes required ocular hypotensive medication for controlling their intraocular-pressure and 5 (16.1%) eyes underwent cataract surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In DME eyes who did not sufficiently respond to previous therapies, the FAc-i was associated with an improvement in visual and anatomic outcomes. There were no unexpected adverse-events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT identifier: 2016-001680-37.

[Late steroid-induced ocular hypertension after intravitreal dexamethasone implants: A series of 20 cases]. / Hypertonie cortisonique tardive sous implants de dexaméthasone : à propos de 20 cas.

INTRODUCTION: Steroid-induced ocular hypertension (OHT) occurs in approximately one third of cases after dexamethasone implant (DEXi) injection. Among these, more than one fifth occur after the third DEXi intravitreal injection (IVI). Our goal was to analyze the clinical profiles of these late responders. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A real-life, retrospective, observational study was conducted to assess demographic characteristics and intraocular pressure (IOP) responses in late responders (IOP ≥ 21mmHg, n DEXi ≥ 4). The following parameters were analyzed: IOP 2 months after IVI and number of glaucoma medications needed. The IOP response compared to baseline was defined as low (< +6mmHg), moderate (≤ +15mmHg) or high (> 15mmHg). RESULTS: Late steroid-induced OHT occurred in 20.8% of cases. Twenty eyes (18 patients) were included. The mean duration of follow-up was 3.8±1.9 years. They received a mean number of 9.5±4.2 IVI. The first OHT peak, measured at 25.3±3.2mmHg (21-31), occurred after 6.8±2.3 IVI. Approximately 65% of OHT spikes occurred between the fourth and sixth IVI; 35% occurred later. At maximum, 1.7±1.0 glaucoma medications and 0.75±0.79 SLT procedures were required to control the OHT, with no filtering surgery required. The ratio of "low," "moderate," and "high" responders was 5%, 85% and 10% respectively. CONCLUSION: Late steroid-induced OHT occurs after at least 3 DEXi in one fifth of multi-injected patients, requiring long-term IOP monitoring. This case series identifies mostly moderate responder profiles, whose IOP rise often remains well-controlled with medical management or laser treatment (SLT).

Efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant used as monotherapy for the treatment of macular edema in non-infectious uveitis: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Uveitic macular edema is a complication of acute or chronic uveitis. Current treatment regiments frequently have numerous side effects, often requiring supplemental treatment. This study investigates the efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants as monotherapy for treatment of macular edema in non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective chart review of thirty patients with intermediate, posterior and panuveitis treated with DEX. Outcomes measured were central retinal thickness (CRT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Baseline measurements of CRT and BCVA were measured within 1 month prior to intravitreal DEX implant and follow up measurements were collected until 1 year post implant. 48 implants on 39 eyes of 30 patients were included in this study; 64.1% of patients had an improvement in BCVA and 65.4% had a reduction in CRT. BCVA improved from 0.285 logMAR (SD: 0.312) at baseline to 0.175 logMAR (SD: 0.194) at 1 month and was sustained thereafter. Preliminary CRT data showed a decrease from 392 [Formula: see text] (SD: [Formula: see text]) at baseline to 303 [Formula: see text] (SD: [Formula: see text] at 1 month and 313 [Formula: see text] (SD: [Formula: see text] at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The DEX implant as monotherapy for macular edema in non-infectious uveitis was associated with a reduction in CRT and improvement in BCVA. The DEX implant, used as a monotherapy in eyes with intermediate, posterior and panuveitis, has the potential to treat uveitis without oral corticosteroid or other immunomodulatory therapy.

Case report: A rare appearance of preretinal deposits in a patient with uveitis: multimodal imaging observation.

Background: Uveitis is a disease presenting with varied clinical symptoms and potentially devastates visual function. Here, we report a patient with uveitis exhibiting a rare appearance of preretinal deposits (PDs). Case presentation: A 49-year-old female showed vitreous opacity and perivascular white PDs involving veins and arteries. The interferon-gamma release assay was strongly positive and chest computed tomography showed signs of calcified nodules; other tests were unremarkable. The patient was diagnosed with uveitis and tubercular infection. The patient was given systemic anti-tubercular therapy and steroids, which were subsequently combined with immunosuppressants. The shrinkage of HRD was more sensitively observed with OCT than on photographs during follow-up visits. The right eye was relieved subsequently, but the left eye showed vitreous opacity and responded poorly to the treatment. Three months after the dexamethasone intravitreal implant, the perivascular deposits in the left eye disappeared and the vitreous opacity was relieved. Conclusion: PDs can appear as spotted deposits in the posterior pole and segmental deposits in the periphery in patients with uveitis, which mainly involves the vitreous cavity and is easily confused with retinal vasculitis. OCT can more sensitively observe the response than other examinations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Naïve and Previously Treated Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: To compare the direct costs associated with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX-i) in treatment-naïve and previously treated eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a real clinical setting. METHODS: Retrospective and single-center study conducted in a real clinical scenario. Consecutive DME patients, either naïve or previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF), who received treatment with one or more DEX-i between May 2015 and December 2020, and who were followed-up for a minimum of 12 months, were included in the study. The cost analysis was performed from the perspective of the Andalusian Regional Healthcare Service. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the probability of achieving an improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≥ 15 ETDRS letters after 1 year of treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different improvements in BCVA was calculated. RESULTS: Forty-nine eyes, twenty-eight (57.1%) eyes from the treatment-naïve group and twenty-one (42.9%) from the previously treated group, were included in the analysis. The total cost of one year of treatment was significantly lower in the treatment-naïve eyes than in the previously treated eyes [Hodges-Lehmann median difference: EUR 819.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): EUR 786.9 to EUR 1572.8; p < 0.0001]. The probability of achieving a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters at month 12 was significantly greater in the treatment-naïve group than in the previously treated group (rate difference: 0.321; 95% CI: 0.066 to 0.709; p = 0.0272). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio of achieving a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters at month 12 was 3.55 (95% CI: 1.09 to 11.58; p = 0.0309). In terms of ICER, the treatment-naïve group showed cost savings of EUR 7704.2 and EUR 5994.2 for achieving an improvement in BCVA ≥ 15 letters at month 12 and at any of the measured time points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DEX-i was found to be more cost-effective in treatment-naïve eyes than in those previously treated with anti-VEGF. Further studies are needed to determine the most cost-effective treatment based on patient profile.