Comparison Between 24-2 ZEST and 24-2 ZEST FAST Strategies in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Using a Fundus Perimeter.

PRCIS: Using a Compass (CMP) (CMP, Centervue, Padova, Italy) fundus perimeter, Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST) FAST strategy showed a significant reduction in examination time compared with ZEST, with good agreement in the quantification of perimetric damage. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the test duration of ZEST strategy with ZEST FAST and to evaluate the test-retest variability of ZEST FAST strategy on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study. We analyzed 1 eye of 60 subjects: 30 glaucoma patients and 30 patients with ocular hypertension. For each eye we analyzed, 3 visual field examinations were performed with Compass 24-2 grid: 1 test performed with ZEST strategy and 2 tests performed with ZEST FAST. Mean examination time and mean sensitivity between the 2 strategies were computed. ZEST FAST test-retest variability was examined. RESULTS: In the ocular hypertension cohort, test time was 223±29 seconds with ZEST FAST and 362±48 seconds with ZEST (38% reduction, P <0.001). In glaucoma patients, it was respectively 265±62 and 386±78 seconds (31% reduction using ZEST FAST, P <0.001). The difference in mean sensitivity between the 2 strategies was -0.24±1.30 dB for ocular hypertension and -0.14±1.08 dB for glaucoma. The mean difference in mean sensitivity between the first and the second test with ZEST FAST strategy was 0.2±0.8 dB for patients with ocular hypertension and 0.24±0.96 dB for glaucoma patients. CONCLUSIONS: ZEST FAST thresholding provides similar results to ZEST with a significantly reduced examination time.

DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT VERSUS TOPICAL CARBONIC ANHYDRASE INHIBITORS IN PATIENTS WITH BILATERAL RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA-RELATED CYSTOID MACULAR EDEMA: A Prospective, Paired-Eye Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To compare within-subject efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors in the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa-related cystoid macular edema. METHODS: Patients with bilateral retinitis pigmentosa-related cystoid macular edema were treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant in one eye and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors in the contralateral eye. The primary endpoint was a change in central macular thickness. Secondary endpoints were changes in best-corrected visual acuity and microperimetric central retinal sensitivity. Intraocular pressure and other ocular complications were evaluated for safety assessment. RESULTS: Nine patients were recruited for this 12-month follow-up study. Central macular thickness was significantly lower in intravitreal dexamethasone implant-treated eyes than in topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors-treated eyes at Months 1 and 7, whereas mean best-corrected visual acuity was better in eyes treated with topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors at Month 12 (borderline significant P = 0.0510). There was no difference in microperimetric sensitivity between the two treatments. Three patients developed ocular hypertension after intravitreal dexamethasone implant. Intravitreal dexamethasone implant showed an effect on the contralateral eye in five of nine patients. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was more effective than topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors in reducing retinitis pigmentosa-related cystoid macular edema 1 month after treatment. Corticosteroids can play a key role in the management of retinitis pigmentosa-related cystoid macular edema; however, their routes, timing, and modes of administration should be further explored.

The efficacy of dexamethasone implants following anti-VEGF failure for macular oedema in retinal vein occlusion.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) after anti-VEGF failure in retinal vein occlusion macular oedema. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of DEX implant (0.7 mg) given after anti-VEGF 'failure'. Switch to DEX occurred if a ⩽ +5 ETDRS letter gain and ⩽20% reduction in central subfield thickness was present following ⩾6 consecutive anti-VEGF injections. The primary endpoint was VA change 30 days after DEX. Secondary outcomes were peak VA change, VA change at monthly timepoints, percentage achieving 15-letter gain, central subfield thickness (CST) and intraocular pressure (IOP). RESULTS: Sixty-two injections in 62 patients associated with 26% central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and 74% branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) were eligible. There was a modest, significant improvement in mean VA change at 30 days compared to baseline (+6 letters, 95% CI +2.2 to +9.1 letters, p < 0.01). DEX implant significantly improved mean peak VA change compared to preceding anti-VEGF by +18.1 letters in CRVO (p = 0.002) and +13.2 letters in BRVO (p < 0.0001). IOP peaked between 30 and 60 days following injection, with 31% of CRVO and 11% of BRVO patients experiencing an IOP ⩾ 25 mmHg. CONCLUSION: DEX implant provides useful rescue therapy in cases of anti-VEGF 'failure' for macular oedema following retinal vein occlusion, resulting in improved functional outcomes at 30 days.