Real-life clinical data for dexamethasone and ranibizumab in the treatment of branch or central retinal vein occlusion over a period of six months.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the therapeutic outcome for dexamethasone implant (DEX) or intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections over 6 months in patients with macular edema due to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO, CRVO), in a real-life setting. METHODS: A total of 107 patients with BRVO or CRVO were included into this retrospective single-center observational study. Patients were treated with monotherapy consisting of DEX or three monthly IVR injections following a pro re nata regimen (PRN). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were compared between the two therapy groups after 1, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: BRVO patients treated with DEX achieved a statistically significant gain in BCVA measured in logMAR after 1 month (mean gain, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.08-0.34, p = 0.001), 3 months (0.16, 0.03-0.28, p = 0.012) and 6 months (0.19, 0.07-0.32, p = 0.002), whereas patients treated with IVR showed a statistically significant BCVA gain in month 3 (mean improvement, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.01-0.26, p = 0.039) and month 6 (0.16, 0.03-0.29, p = 0.018). BCVA in CRVO patients with DEX worsened slightly at month 6 (mean worsening, 95% CI: -0.08, -0.24 to 0.08, p = 0.305), while IVR treated-patients achieved a statistically significant BCVA gain at 3 months (mean improvement, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.02-0.25, p = 0.021). Both therapies were accompanied by statistically significant CRT reductions of 150 to 200 µm (median). Adverse events reported were predictable and limited. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical setting, comparable improvement in BCVA and CRT were observed after DEX and IVR injections for treatment of BRVO. CRVO patients showed greater benefit with IVR.

Retrospective, controlled observational case study of patients with central retinal vein occlusion and initially low visual acuity treated with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant.

BACKGROUND: Patients with initially low visual acuity were excluded from the therapy approval studies for retinal vein occlusion. But up to 28 % of patients presenting with central retinal vein occlusion have a baseline BCVA of less than 34 ETDRS letters (0.1). The purpose of our study was to assess visual acuity and central retinal thickness in patients suffering from central retinal vein occlusion and low visual acuity (<0.1) in comparison to patients with visual acuity (≥0.1) treated with Dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg for macular edema. METHODS: Retrospective, controlled observational case study of 30 eyes with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion, which were treated with a dexamethasone implantation. Visual acuity, central retinal thickness and intraocular pressure were measured monthly. Analyses were performed separately for eyes with visual acuity <0.1 and ≥0.1. RESULTS: Two months post intervention, visual acuity improved only marginally from 0.05 to 0.07 (1 month; p = 0,065) and to 0.08 (2 months; p = 0,2) in patients with low visual acuity as compared to patients with visual acuity ≥0.1 with an improvement from 0.33 to 0.47 (1 month; p = 0,005) and to 0.49 (2 months; p = 0,003). The central retinal thickness, however, was reduced in both groups, falling from 694 to 344 µm (1 month; p = 0.003,) to 361 µm (2 months; p = 0,002) and to 415 µm (3 months; p = 0,004) in the low visual acuity group and from 634 to 315 µm (1 month; p < 0,001) and to 343 µm (2 months; p = 0,001) in the visual acuity group ≥0.1. Absence of visual acuity improvement was related to macular ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with central retinal vein occlusion and initially low visual acuity, a dexamethasone implantation can lead to an important reduction of central retinal thickness but may be of limited use to increase visual acuity.