Dataset Information

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Macular edema is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Objectives

This review evaluated the effectiveness and safety of intraocular steroids in treating diabetic macular edema (DME).

Search strategy

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE in June 2007, reference lists, Science Citation Index and conference proceedings.

Selection criteria

We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating any form of intravitreal steroids for treating DME.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently assessed eligibility, methodological quality and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses when appropriate.

Main results

Seven studies, involving 632 DME eyes were included. Four examined the effectiveness of intravitreal triamcinolone acetate injection (IVTA), three examined intravitreal steroids implantation (fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAI) or dexamethasone drug delivery system (DDS)). Two trials were at low risk of bias, one was at median risk of bias, two were at high risk of bias and the remaining two were at unclear risk of bias. The preponderance of data suggest a beneficial effect from IVTA. Comparing IVTA with controls, the mean difference in visual acuity was -0.15 LogMAR (95% CI -0.21 to -0.09) at 3 months (based on three trials), -0.23 LogMAR (95% CI -0.33 to -0.13) at 6 months (two trials), -0.29 LogMAR (95% CI -0.47 to -0.11) at 9 months (one trial), and -0.11 LogMAR (95% CI -0.20 to -0.03) at 24 months (one trial), all in favor of IVTA. The relative risk (RR) for one or more lines improvement in visual acuity was 2.85 (95% CI 1.59 to 5.10) at 3 months (two trials), 1.25 (95% CI 0.66 to 2.38) at 6 months (one trial), and 2.17 (95% CI 1.15 to 4.11) at 24 months (one trial), all in favor of IVTA. We did not find evidence for three or more lines improvement in visual acuity. The mean difference in retinal thickness was -131.97 um (95% CI -169.08 to -94.86) at 3 months (two trials), -135.00 um (95% CI -194.50 to -75.50) at 6 months (one trial), -133.00 um (95% CI -199.86 to -66.14) at 9 months (one trial), and -59.00 um (95% CI -103.50 to -14.50) at 24 months (one trial), all in favor of IVTA. The RR for at least one grade macular edema resolution was 5.15 (95% CI 2.23 to 11.88) at 3 months in favor of IVTA (one trial). Two trials reported improved clinical outcome when FAI was compared to standard of care. Beneficial effect was also observed in one dexamethasone DDS trial. Increased intraocular pressure and cataract formation were side effects requiring monitoring and management.

Authors' conclusions

RCTs included in this review suggest that steroids placed inside the eye by either intravitreal injection or surgical implantation may improve visual outcomes in eyes with persistent or refractory DME. Since the studies in our report focused on chronic or refractory DME, the question arises whether intravitreal steroids therapy could be of value in other stages of DME, especially the earlier stages either as standalone therapy or in combination with other therapies, such as laser photocoagulation.

SUBMITTER: Grover D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3804331 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of 3 regional corticosteroid injections for uveitic macular edema (ME): periocular triamcinolone acetonide (PTA), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (ITA), and the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). DESIGN:Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS:Patients with uveitic ME. METHODS:Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 of the 3 therapies. Patients with bilateral ME were assigned the same treatment for both eyes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was the proportion of baseline (PropBL) central subfield thickness (CST) at 8 weeks (CST at 8 weeks/CST at baseline) assessed with OCT by masked readers. Secondary outcomes included ?20% improvement and resolution of ME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) events over 24 weeks. RESULTS:All treatment groups demonstrated improved CST during follow-up. At 8 weeks, each group had clinically meaningful reductions in CST relative to baseline (PropBL: 0.77, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively, which translates to reductions of 23%, 39%, and 46% for PTA, ITA, and IDI, respectively). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (PropBL ITA/PropBL PTA, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 99.87% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.96) and IDI (PropBL IDI/PropBL PTA, HR, 0.69; 99.87% CI, 0.56-0.86) had larger reductions in CST than PTA (P < 0.0001). Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was noninferior to ITA at 8 weeks (PropBL IDI/PropBL ITA, HR, 0.88; 99.87% CI, 0.71-1.08). Both ITA and IDI treatments also were superior to PTA treatment in improving and resolving uveitic ME. All treatment groups demonstrated BCVA improvement throughout follow-up. Both ITA and IDI groups had improvements in BCVA that was 5 letters greater than in the PTA group at 8 weeks (P < 0.004). The risk of having IOP ?24 mmHg was higher in the intravitreal treatment groups compared with the periocular group (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91-3.65 and HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29-4.91 for ITA and IDI, respectively); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 intravitreal treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS:Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and the IDI were superior to PTA for treating uveitic ME with modest increases in the risk of IOP elevation. This risk did not differ significantly between intravitreal treatments.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative safety and efficacy of different doses of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is unclear.ObjectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of different doses of IVTA in this setting.MethodsA systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted on Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to May 2022. Studies that reported on patients with DME or ME secondary to RVO that received treatment with different doses of IVTA were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool 2 was used to assess the risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsFive RCTs reporting on 1,041 eyes at baseline were included in this meta-analysis. In eyes with ME secondary to RVO, high-dose (4 mg) IVTA achieved a significantly better change in best-corrected visual acuity (WMD = -4.75 ETDRS letters, 95% CI = [-7.73, -1.78], p = 0.002) and reduction in retinal thickness (WMD = -93.02 μm, 95% CI = [-153.23, -32.82], p = 0.002) at months 4-6 compared to low-dose (1-2 mg) IVTA. However, high-dose IVTA had a higher risk of intraocular pressure-related adverse events (RR = 2.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 8.50], p = 0.04) and cataract surgery (RR = 5.67, 95% CI = [3.09, 10.41], p < 0.00001) than low-dose IVTA in eyes with ME secondary to RVO. These efficacy and safety differences in high-dose and low-dose IVTA were not observed in DME eyes.ConclusionsThe RCT evidence in this setting is limited. High-dose IVTA achieved greater improvements in visual acuity and reductions in retinal thickness than low-dose IVTA at months 4-6. However, high-dose IVTA had a less favorable safety profile than low-dose IVTA. The significance of these outcomes was based on patients with ME secondary to RVO, but not DME.

Project description:Diabetic macular edema (DME) resembles a chronic, low-grade inflammatory reaction, and is characterized by blood-retinal barrier (BRB) breakdown and retinal capillary leakage. Corticosteroids are of therapeutic benefit because of their anti-inflammatory, antiangiogenic, and BRB-stabilizing properties. Delivery modes include periocular and intravitreal (via pars plana) injection. To offset the short intravitreal half-life of corticosteroid solutions (~3 hours) and the need for frequent intravitreal injections, sustained-release intravitreal corticosteroid implants have been developed. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant provides retinal drug delivery for ?6 months and recently has been approved for use in the treatment of DME. Pooled findings (n=1,048) from two large-scale, randomized Phase III trials indicated that dexamethasone intravitreal implant (0.35 mg and 0.7 mg) administered at ?6-month intervals produced sustained improvements in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and macular edema. Significantly more patients showed a ?15-letter gain in BCVA at 3 years with dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.35 mg and 0.7 mg than with sham injection (18.4% and 22.2% vs 12.0%). Anatomical assessments showed rapid and sustained reductions in macular edema and slowing of retinopathy progression. Phase II study findings suggest that dexamethasone intravitreal implant is effective in focal, cystoid, and diffuse DME, in vitrectomized eyes, and in combination with laser therapy. Ocular complications of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in Phase III trials included cataract-related events (66.0% in phakic patients), intraocular pressure elevation ?25 mmHg (29.7%), conjunctival hemorrhage (23.5%), vitreous hemorrhage (10.0%), macular fibrosis (8.3%), conjunctival hyperemia (7.2%), eye pain (6.1%), vitreous detachment (5.8%), and dry eye (5.8%); injection-related complications (eg, retinal tear/detachment, vitreous loss, endophthalmitis) were infrequent (<2%). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant offers a viable treatment option for DME, especially in cases that are persistent or treatment (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor/laser) refractory.