Systemic corticosteroid use in UK Uveitis practice: results from the ocular inflammation steroid toxicity risk (OSTRICH) study.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain adherence to an international consensus target of ≤7.5 mg/day of prednisolone for maintenance systemic corticosteroid (CS) prescribing in uveitis and report the frequency of courses of high-dose systemic CS in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a national, multicentre audit of systemic CS prescribing for uveitis at 11 UK sites between November 2018 and March 2019. High-dose CS was defined as (1) maintenance >7.5 mg prednisolone for >3 consecutive months, or (2) >1 course ≥40 mg oral CS or ≥500 mg intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone in the past 12 months. Case notes of patients exceeding threshold CS doses were reviewed by an independent uveitis specialist and judged as avoidable or not, based upon a scoring matrix. RESULTS: Of 667 eligible patients, 285 (42.7%) were treated with oral or IV CS over the preceding 12 months; 96 (33.7%) of these exceeded the threshold for high-dose CS. Twenty-five percent of prescribing in patients on excess CS was judged avoidable; attributed to either prescribing long-term CS without evidence of consideration of alternative strategies, prescribing error or miscommunication. More patients received immunomodulatory therapy (IMT) in the group treated with CS above threshold than below threshold (p < 0.001) but there was no significant difference in doses of IMT. CONCLUSION: 33% of patients had been prescribed excessive corticosteroid when compared to the reference standard. An analysis of decision-making suggests there may be opportunity to reduce excess CS prescribing in 25% of these patients.

Evaluation of 0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (ILUVIEN) implant in a cohort of previously treated patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO): a 36-month follow-up clinical case series.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of single injection of a fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in previously treated patients with recurrent diabetic macular oedema (DMO) over a 36-month follow-up period. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a retrospective study conducted at a single ophthalmology department at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK. Data were collected using electronic medical records to identify all patients treated with a FAc implant for DMO between March 2014 and November 2014, followed with a 36-month clinic follow-up. Outcomes measured included mean change in best-recorded visual acuity (BRVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) over the period of 36 months, treatment burden pre-implant and post-implant, and functional and anatomical responder rates. RESULTS: Twenty-six eyes (n=22 patients) were treated with single intravitreal FAc implant followed with 36 months of follow-up. At 24 and 36 months, 86.4% and 75.0% of patients maintained or gained vision post-FAc implant in routine clinical practice. The mean BRVA increased from 41.8 to 54.6 letters at month 24 and 45.8 letters at month 36, with 50.0% and 33.3% of patients achieving a ≥15 letter improvement at months 24 and 36, respectively. The mean CMT reduced from 600.8 µm at baseline to 351.0 µm and 392.5 µm at months 24 and 36, respectively. Overall, a mean of one treatment every 13.33 months post-FAc implant (vs 3.24 months pre-FAc implant) was reported. Eleven eyes had an increased intraocular pressure of ≥10 mm Hg and 12 eyes had an increase to ≥25 mm Hg from baseline. CONCLUSION: These results further support the effectiveness and safety of FAc implant in previously treated patients with persistent or recurrent DMO in a real-world clinical practice.

Correction: Diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema pathways and management: UK Consensus Working Group.

.

Diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema pathways and management: UK Consensus Working Group.

The management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) has evolved considerably over the past decade, with the availability of new technologies (diagnostic and therapeutic). As such, the existing Royal College of Ophthalmologists DR Guidelines (2013) are outdated, and to the best of our knowledge are not under revision at present. Furthermore, there are no other UK guidelines covering all available treatments, and there seems to be significant variation around the UK in the management of diabetic macular oedema (DMO). This manuscript provides a summary of reviews the pathogenesis of DR and DMO, including role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and non-VEGF cytokines, clinical grading/classification of DMO vis a vis current terminology (of centre-involving [CI-DMO], or non-centre involving [nCI-DMO], systemic risks and their management). The excellent UK DR Screening (DRS) service has continued to evolve and remains world-leading. However, challenges remain, as there are significant variations in equipment used, and reproducible standards of DMO screening nationally. The interphase between DRS and the hospital eye service can only be strengthened with further improvements. The role of modern technology including optical coherence tomography (OCT) and wide-field imaging, and working practices including virtual clinics and their potential in increasing clinic capacity and improving patient experiences and outcomes are discussed. Similarly, potential roles of home monitoring in diabetic eyes in the future are explored. The role of pharmacological (intravitreal injections [IVT] of anti-VEGFs and steroids) and laser therapies are summarised. Generally, IVT anti-VEGF are offered as first line pharmacologic therapy. As requirements of diabetic patients in particular patient groups may vary, including pregnant women, children, and persons with learning difficulties, it is important that DR management is personalised in such particular patient groups. First choice therapy needs to be individualised in these cases and may be intravitreal steroids rather than the standard choice of anti-VEGF agents. Some of these, but not all, are discussed in this document.

Adalimumab for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the available relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. Data collected in two key randomised controlled trials (VISUAL I and VISUAL II) were used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trials' comparator arms (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adalimumab versus LCP for the base case are £92 600 and £318 075 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for active and inactive uveitis, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied from £15 579 to £120 653 and £35 642 to £800 775 per QALY for active and inactive uveitis. CONCLUSION: The estimated ICERs of adalimumab versus LCP are above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Adalimumab may be more cost-effective in patients with active uveitis at greater risk of blindness. However, there is an unmet need for additional primary data to provide more reliable estimates in several important areas, including effectiveness of adalimumab versus current practice (instead of LCP), incidence of long-term blindness, adalimumab effectiveness in avoiding blindness, and rates and time to remission while on adalimumab.

Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dexamethasone implant plus current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) compared with current practice alone, in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and benefits of dexamethasone. Systematic reviews were performed to identify available relevant evidence. Quality of life data from the key randomised-controlled trial (HURON) was used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trial's comparator arm (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis took a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant compared with LCP is estimated as £19 509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The factors with the largest impact on the results were rate of blindness and relative proportion of blindness cases avoided by dexamethasone. Using plausible alternative assumptions, dexamethasone could be cost saving or it may be associated with an ICER of £56 329 per QALY gained compared with LCP. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone is estimated to be cost-effective using generally accepted UK thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around these results due to scarcity of evidence. Future research on the following would help provide more reliable estimates: effectiveness of dexamethasone versus current practice (instead of LCP), with subgroup analyses for unilateral and bilateral uveitis, incidence of long-term blindness and effectiveness of dexamethasone in avoiding blindness.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016. REVIEW METHODS: Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; p = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; p = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness. LIMITATIONS: The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Case Series Investigating the Efficacy and Safety of Bilateral Fluocinolone Acetonide (ILUVIEN(®)) in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: 10 Eyes with 12 Months Follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: This short case series presents the results from 5 patients with bilateral chronic diabetic macular edema (DME), 12 months after they were initially treated with ILUVIEN (®) [0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc)]. METHODS: Ten eyes from five patients with pseudophakic lenses were investigated. Patients had bilateral, chronic DME and had received prior laser and anti-VEGF therapy. Visual and anatomic outcomes were investigated 12 months post-FAc implant in both eyes. RESULTS: At baseline, central retinal thickness (CRT) was 645.3 ± 176.1 microns (mean ± standard deviation), intraocular pressure (IOP) was 13.7 ± 3.6 mmHg and visual acuity (VA) was 44.5 ± 18.6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. Mean CRT improved at 6 months (341.7 ± 169.7 microns) and 12 months (287.4 ± 103.1 microns) and there were concurrent improvements in VA (ETDRS letters were 56 ± 16 and 55 ± 16 at 6 and 12 months, respectively). Mean IOP was stable throughout and ≤21 mmHg. Left and right eyes were compared in the 5 patients by plotting changes in CFT, IOP and VA at 12 months, from baseline levels. CONCLUSION: This bilateral case series demonstrates the effectiveness of a sustained, controlled low dose of FAc in the management of bilateral DME over a 12-month period. The FAc implant has shown to work well in treatment of bilateral DME, although longer follow-up of these patients is still needed. FUNDING: Publication charges were funded by Alimera Sciences Ltd.

Case Series Investigating the Efficacy and Safety of Bilateral Fluocinolone Acetonide (ILUVIEN(®)) in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with diabetic macular edema (DME), a chronic, vision-limiting condition, may be insufficiently responsive to standard-of-care anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and/or laser therapies. One approved treatment for such patients is 0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) sustained-release implant; however, data are limited for treatment strategies in patients with bilateral chronic DME insufficiently responsive to standard-of-care therapies. METHODS: Six pseudophakic patients with bilateral, chronic DME previously treated with laser and anti-VEGF therapy (and intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide in 10 eyes) were retrospectively investigated for visual and anatomical outcomes, 6 months post-0.2 µg/day FAc implant in both eyes. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was approximately 6/38 or 43 [standard deviation (SD) ±17.4] Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean central retinal thickness (CRT) was 648 µm (SD ±160). Mean change in BCVA was +10 letters (SD ±12.2 letters), with 4/12 eyes maintaining or achieving driving vision (≥70 letters) and 3/12 eyes having unchanged BCVA. CRT was reduced 6 months after 0.2 µg/day FAc implant in 11/12 eyes. The mean intraocular pressure (IOP) was 16.1 mmHg [mean change of 1.1 mmHg (SD ±3.6)]. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, 0.2 µg/day FAc implant in both eyes was a feasible, effective choice for patients with severe bilateral DME, without notable increases in IOP. FUNDING: Publication charges were funded by Alimera Sciences Ltd. Medical writing assistance for this study was provided by QXV Communications and funded by Alimera Sciences Ltd.

Blue Laser Induced Retinal Injury in a Commercial Pilot at 1300 ft.

BACKGROUND: We report what may be the first evidence-based report of a retinal laser injury to a pilot during commercial flight from a laser device on the ground. Given the significant subjective (blind spot) and objective evidence of focal retinal damage, coupled with the distance involved, we suspect the laser had a radiant power of several watts, known to be injurious to the human retina. CASE REPORT: An airline pilot presented to our department complaining of a blind spot in the upper left area of his visual field in the right eye (right supero-nasal scotoma) following exposure to a laser beam while performing a landing maneuver of a commercial aircraft. At around 1300 ft (396 m), a blue laser beam from the ground directly entered his right eye, with immediate flash blindness and pain. Spectral domain ocular coherence tomography highlighted a localized area of photoreceptor disruption corresponding to a well demarcated area of hypofluorescence on fundus autofluorescence, representing a focal outer retinal laser injury. Fundus examination a fortnight later revealed a clinically identifiable lesion in the pilot's right eye commensurate with a retinal-laser burn. DISCUSSION: The case reports highlights the growing threat to the ocular health of airline crew and, potentially, passenger safety due to the lack of regulatory oversight of high powered laser devices obtained from the internet. We strongly believe high powered handheld laser devices should not be in the possession of the general public.

Real-Life ILUVIEN (Fluocinolone Acetonide) Case Study: Rapid Drying of the Macula and Improved Vision within 2 Years after Therapy Initiation.

IMPORTANCE: A case showing sustained structural and functional responses 2 years after a single treatment with ILUVIEN (0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide, FAc) despite suboptimal responses to ranibizumab. OBSERVATIONS: A 68-year-old female patient with diabetic macular oedema (DME) from type 2 diabetes mellitus was first diagnosed in October 2010 and had a baseline visual acuity (VA) of 46 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in the left eye. Central foveal thickness (CFT) was 712 microns. The patient was treated with 11 intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (5 in combination with a small-interfering RNA agent), and by March 2014, VA and CFT were largely unchanged (55 ETDRS letters and 774 microns). The patient was treated with ILUVIEN as she had a pseudophakic lens and a clearly suboptimal response to the prior therapy with ranibizumab. An implant releasing FAc at a dosage of 0.2 µg/day was administered in March 2014, and the optical coherence tomography indicated that the macula was dry after 7 days (CFT was below 300 microns). This was sustained at 6, 12, and 24 months after the treatment. VA improved by 5 letters within 7 days and by 15 letters within 14 days, and this was maintained after 24 months. Throughout the duration of this study, the intraocular pressure was ≤22 mm Hg, and no glaucoma medication was administered. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In real-life UK practice, this DME patient showed a suboptimal response to multiple intravitreal injections of ranibizumab. When subsequently treated with a single injection of ILUVIEN, there were large and rapid improvements in VA and CFT that were maintained for the following 2 years.

Successful use of intravitreal bevacizumab and pascal laser photocoagulation in the management of adult Coats' disease.

Traditional methods of managing exudative retinal detachment secondary to Coats' disease have been associated with varying degrees of success. We describe a case of a 34 year-old male who presented with a sub-total exudative retinal detachment of the right eye that encroached upon the macula, associated with a vasoproliferative tumor secondary to Coats' disease. The patient under-went successful treatment with two intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (Avastin, Genetech Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) combined with targeted laser photocoagulation with a 532 nm Pascal laser (Topcon Corp., Tokyo, Japan). The visual acuity improved 5 days after the second intravitreal injection from 6/18 to 6/5, with no residual macular edema and complete regression of the vasoproliferative tumor. The improvement in visual acuity was maintained at 12 months post-treatment. We believe this is the first case report describing the successful use of Pascal laser photocoagulation with intravitreal bevacizumab in the treatment of Coats' disease. Our aim was to defer laser treatment until 'near total' retinal reattachment and regression of the vasoproliferative tumor was achieved. There are, however, reports of vitreous fibrosis in patients with Coats' disease treated with intravitreal bevacizumab. This suggests further long-term follow-up studies are required in patients treated with this approach.

Dome-shaped macula: a compensatory mechanism in myopic anisometropia?

The purpose of this article was to describe a patient with dome-shaped macula in the setting of mild myopic anisometropia and to speculate regarding the role of this feature as a compensatory mechanism in ocular development. The clinical records of a 49-year-old woman with this condition were reviewed. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomographic images revealed evidence of a dome-shaped macula. B-scan ultrasonography measured axial lengths of 23.8 mm in the right eye and 22.8 mm in the left eye. Spherical equivalents were -1.375 and +0.375 in the right and left eyes, respectively. Examination of the left eye was unremarkable. Dome-shaped macula has previously only been described in patients with high myopia. These findings support the hypothesis that myopic anisometropia, rather than absolute refractive status, is central to the development of dome-shaped macula and that this feature represents a protective mechanism aimed at reducing the effects of anisometropia.

A prospective randomized trial of intravitreal bevacizumab or laser therapy in the management of diabetic macular edema (BOLT study) 12-month data: report 2.

PURPOSE: To report the findings at 1 year of a study comparing repeated intravitreal bevacizumab (ivB) and modified Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) macular laser therapy (MLT) in patients with persistent clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSME). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, masked, single-center, 2-year, 2-arm clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 80 eyes of 80 patients with center-involving CSME and at least 1 prior MLT. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to either ivB (6 weekly; minimum of 3 injections and maximum of 9 injections in the first 12 months) or MLT (4 monthly; minimum of 1 treatment and maximum of 4 treatments in the first 12 months). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the difference in ETDRS best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 months between the bevacizumab and laser arms. RESULTS: The baseline mean ETDRS BCVA was 55.7+/-9.7 (range 34-69) in the bevacizumab group and 54.6+/-8.6 (range 36-68) in the laser arm. The mean ETDRS BCVA at 12 months was 61.3+/-10.4 (range 34-79) in the bevacizumab group and 50.0+/-16.6 (range 8-76) in the laser arm (P = 0.0006). Furthermore, the bevacizumab group gained a median of 8 ETDRS letters, whereas the laser group lost a median of 0.5 ETDRS letters (P = 0.0002). The odds of gaining > or =10 ETDRS letters over 12 months were 5.1 times greater in the bevacizumab group than in the laser group (adjusted odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-19.7; P = 0.019). At 12 months, central macular thickness decreased from 507+/-145 microm (range 281-900 microm) at baseline to 378+/-134 microm (range 167-699 microm) (P<0.001) in the ivB group, whereas it decreased to a lesser extent in the laser group, from 481+/-121 microm (range 279-844 microm) to 413+/-135 microm (range 170-708 microm) (P = 0.02). The median number of injections was 9 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-9) in the ivB group, and the median number of laser treatments was 3 (IQR 2-4) in the MLT group. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence to support the use of bevacizumab in patients with center-involving CSME without advanced macular ischemia.