Real-world assessment of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) in patients with macular edema: the CHROME study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world use, efficacy, and safety of one or more dexamethasone intravitreal implant(s) 0.7 mg (DEX implant) in patients with macular edema (ME). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with ME secondary to retinal disease treated at ten Canadian retina practices, including one uveitis center. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), intraocular pressure (IOP), glaucoma and cataract surgery, and safety data were collected from the medical charts of patients with ≥3 months of follow-up after the initial DEX implant. RESULTS: One hundred and one patient charts yielded data on 120 study eyes, including diagnoses of diabetic ME (DME) (n=34), retinal vein occlusion (RVO, n=30; branch in 19 and central in 11), and uveitis (n=23). Patients had a mean age of 60.9 years, and 73.3% of the study eyes had ME for a duration of ≥12 months prior to DEX implant injection(s). Baseline mean (± standard error) BCVA was 0.63±0.03 logMAR (20/86 Snellen equivalents) and mean CRT was 474.4±18.2 µm. The mean number of DEX implant injections was 1.7±0.1 in all study eyes; 44.2% of eyes had repeat DEX implant injections (reinjection interval 2.3-4.9 months). The greatest mean peak changes in BCVA lines of vision occurred in study eyes with uveitis (3.3±0.6, P<0.0001), followed by RVO (1.3±0.5, P<0.01) and DME (0.7±0.5, P>0.05). Significant decreases in CRT were observed: -255.6±43.6 µm for uveitis, -190.9±23.5 µm for DME, and -160.7±39.6 µm for RVO (P<0.0001 for all cohorts). IOP increases of ≥10 mmHg occurred in 20.6%, 24.1%, and 22.7% of DME, RVO, and uveitis study eyes, respectively. IOP-lowering medication was initiated in 29.4%, 16.7%, and 8.7% of DME, RVO, and uveitis study eyes, respectively. Glaucoma surgery was performed in 1.7% of all study eyes and cataract surgery in 29.8% of all phakic study eyes receiving DEX implant(s). CONCLUSION: DEX implant(s) alone or combined with other treatments and/or procedures resulted in functional and anatomic improvements in long-standing ME associated with retinal disease.

Treatment of refractory uveitic macular edema with dexamethasone intravitreal implants in a pediatric patient with bilateral granulomatous idiopathic panuveitis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Macular edema is a common complication of uveitis and represents a therapeutic challenge, especially in children. Recently, intravitreal dexamethasone implants have been shown to decrease intraocular inflammation and to control uveitic macular edema in patients with non-infectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. FINDINGS: An 11-year-old boy with bilateral granulomatous idiopathic panuveitis and orbital inflammation experienced macular edema refractory to topical steroids and subcutaneous methotrexate. He was treated with off-label bilateral injections of dexamethasone intravitreal implant. Three months later, his vision had improved from 20/200 in both eyes to 20/30 in the right eye and 20/40 in the left eye. Optical coherence tomography showed complete resolution of the cystoid macular edema and subretinal fluid in both eyes. CONCLUSIONS: This is a rare report of the use of bilateral dexamethasone intravitreal implant in a pediatric patient. The implants achieved complete resolution of the uveitic macular edema with no adverse events 3 months post-implantation.

Computer-based image analysis for plus disease diagnosis in retinopathy of prematurity.

Presence of plus disease in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is an important criterion for identifying ROP requiring treatment. Plus disease is defined by a standard published photograph selected more than 20 years ago by expert consensus. However, diagnosis of plus disease has been shown to be subjective and qualitative. Computer-based image analysis using quantitative methods has potential to improve the objectivity of plus disease diagnosis. The objective was to review the published literature involving computer-based image analysis for ROP diagnosis. The PubMed and Cochrane library databases were searched for the keywords "retinopathy of prematurity" AND "image analysis" AND/OR "plus disease." Reference lists of retrieved articles were searched to identify additional relevant studies. All relevant English-language studies were reviewed. There are four main computer-based systems-ROPtool (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], plus tortuosity 0.95, plus dilation 0.87), RISA (AUROC, arteriolar TI 0.71, venular diameter 0.82), Vessel Map (AUROC, arteriolar dilation 0.75, venular dilation 0.96), and CAIAR (AUROC, arteriole tortuosity 0.92, venular dilation 0.91)-attempting to objectively analyze vessel tortuosity and dilation in plus disease in ROP. Some show promise for identification of plus disease using quantitative methods. This has potential to improve the diagnosis of plus disease and may contribute to the management of ROP using both traditional binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy and image-based telemedicine approaches.

Contribution of vitreous cytology to final clinical diagnosis fifteen-year review of vitreous cytology specimens from one institution.

PURPOSE: To assess the contribution of vitreous cytologic evaluation to the diagnosis of clinically undiagnosed vitritis. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and database study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 255 patients who had diagnostic vitrectomies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had vitreous cytology specimens between October 1990 and October 2005 at Vancouver General Hospital. We reviewed the patient charts to obtain the results of microbial and other laboratory testing and to determine the follow-up course. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Categories of vitreous cytology specimen results and final clinical diagnosis in patients who had diagnostic vitrectomy specimens. RESULTS: We reviewed vitreous cytology results from diagnostic vitrectomies in 278 eyes of 255 patients. One patient had 3 diagnostic vitrectomies, 21 patients had 2 procedures, and 233 patients had a single procedure. We categorized the results of vitreous cytologic examination into 6 major categories: acute inflammation consistent with endophthalmitis (n = 33), primary intraocular lymphoma (PIOL; n = 14), granulomatous inflammation (n = 41), mixed chronic nonspecific inflammation (n = 76), hypocellular specimens (n = 50), and miscellaneous specimens (n = 64). We determined that cytologic diagnosis aided or confirmed a clinical diagnosis, or ruled out PIOL, in 126/228 (55.3%) specimens where patients were not lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Cytologic analysis of vitreous specimens in clinically undiagnosed vitritis is a useful procedure, particularly in the diagnosis of endophthalmitis and PIOL. It is also helpful in confirming granulomatous, nonspecific, and miscellaneous clinical diagnoses and in ruling out PIOL. In this series, it helped to suggest or confirm a diagnosis in the majority of our specimens.