Dataset Information

Use of the Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Noninfectious Posterior Uveitis: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial in a Predominantly Asian Population.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant 0.59 mg (Retisert(®), Bausch + Lomb, Rochester, NY, USA) provides sustained release of FA directly to the vitreous cavity over a prolonged period of time. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a 0.59- and 2.1-mg FA intravitreal implant in patients with noninfectious posterior uveitis.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, dose-controlled study was performed. Patients were randomized to the 0.59- or 2.1-mg FA implant surgically placed in the vitreous cavity through a pars plana incision and were evaluated at visits through 3 years. Patients with bilateral disease had the more severely affected eye implanted. Outcomes included uveitis recurrence rate, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), use of adjunctive therapy, and safety.

Results

A total of 239 patients, predominantly Asian, were implanted (n = 117, 0.59-mg implant; n = 122, 2.1-mg implant). Approximately 80% of patients had bilateral disease. Recurrence rates for implanted eyes decreased from 42.3% during the 1-year pre-implantation period to 25.9% during the 3-year post-implantation period (P = 0.0003) and increased for nonimplanted fellow eyes from 19.8 to 59.7% (P < 0.0001). More implanted eyes gained ≥3 lines of BCVA compared to nonimplanted fellow eyes (P ≤ 0.0046); and implanted eyes required less adjunctive systemic therapy and fewer periocular injections (P < 0.0001). Elevations of intraocular pressure (≥10 mm Hg) were frequent in implanted eyes (67.8%, 0.59-mg implant; 71.3%, 2.1-mg implant); nearly all (94.9%) phakic implanted eyes required cataract surgery.

Conclusion

The FA intravitreal implant significantly reduced uveitis recurrence rates and led to improvements in visual acuity and reductions in adjunctive therapy. Lens clarity and intraocular pressure require monitoring.

SUBMITTER: Sangwan VS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4470982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the long-term efficacy and safety of the intravitreal 0.2-μg/day fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAi) to treat noninfectious uveitis (NIU) of the posterior segment (PS).DesignThree-year, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, controlled, prospective study (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02746991).ParticipantsOverall, 153 patients in India with NIU-PS in ≥ 1 eye (with or without anterior uveitis) for ≥ 1 year who had ≥ 2 separate recurrences of uveitis requiring ocular injections or systemic therapy in the prior 12 months.MethodsPatients were randomized 2:1 for baseline FAi or sham injection and monitored for main outcome measures.Main outcome measuresIncidence and timing of uveitis recurrence, use of adjunctive therapy, best-corrected visual acuity, central foveal thickness, and monitoring of intraocular pressure (IOP)- and cataract-related events over 36 months.ResultsOverall, 153 patients (FAi, n = 101; treated sham, n = 52) were enrolled. Fluocinolone acetonide implant-treated eyes had significantly reduced uveitis recurrence rates versus treated sham (46.5% vs. 75.0%, respectively; P = 0.001) and a longer median time to recurrence (1116.0 [95% confidence interval, 847.00 to not evaluable] vs. 190.5 [95% confidence interval, 100.0-395.0] days for treated sham). Systemic adjunctive treatments were similar between groups, but fewer FAi-treated eyes required adjunctive injections (8.9% vs. 51.9% for treated sham). Visual outcomes were similar between groups, and residual macular edema was more common at 36 months in treated sham versus FAi-treated eyes (46.2% vs. 24.2%, respectively). The FAi-treated group had a lower central foveal thickness from month 12 onward. Intraocular pressure-lowering surgeries were stable in both groups, but, as expected, rates of IOP elevations were more frequent in the FAi-treated group than in the treated sham (IOP > 25 mmHg: 23.8% vs. 3.8%; IOP > 30 mmHg: 16.8% vs. 1.9%, respectively), and FAi-treated eyes had a higher incidence of cataract surgery than the treated sham (70.5% vs. 26.5%, respectively).ConclusionsIn patients with NIU-PS, the 0.2-μg/day FAi is associated with reduced-uveitis recurrence and increased time to first recurrence while controlling macular edema, maintaining stable IOP levels, and providing an expected safety profile, including a higher occurrence of cataract formation over 36 months.Financial disclosuresThe authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Project description:To evaluate the 3-year incremental cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis.Randomized, controlled, clinical trial.Patients with active or recently active intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis enrolled in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial.Data on cost and health utility during 3 years after randomization were evaluated at 6-month intervals. Analyses were stratified by disease laterality at randomization (31 unilateral vs 224 bilateral) because of the large upfront cost of the implant.The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 3 years: the ratio of the difference in cost (in United States dollars) to the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs of medications, surgeries, hospitalizations, and regular procedures (e.g., laboratory monitoring for systemic therapy) were included. We computed QALYs as a weighted average of EQ-5D scores over 3 years of follow-up.The ICER at 3 years was $297,800/QALY for bilateral disease, driven by the high cost of implant therapy (difference implant - systemic [?]: $16,900; P < 0.001) and the modest gains in QALYs (? = 0.057; P = 0.22). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.003 and 0.04, respectively. The ICER for unilateral disease was more favorable, namely, $41,200/QALY at 3 years, because of a smaller difference in cost between the 2 therapies (? = $5300; P = 0.44) and a larger benefit in QALYs with the implant (? = 0.130; P = 0.12). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.53 and 0.74, respectively.Fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy was reasonably cost-effective compared with systemic therapy for individuals with unilateral intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis but not for those with bilateral disease. These results do not apply to the use of implant therapy when systemic therapy has failed or is contraindicated. Should the duration of implant effect prove to be substantially >3 years or should large changes in therapy pricing occur, the cost-effectiveness of implant versus systemic therapy would need to be reevaluated.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate longitudinal vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) in patients with noninfectious uveitis.DesignCohort study using randomized controlled trial data.ParticipantsPatients with active or recently active intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis enrolled in the Multicenter Steroid Treatment Trial and Follow-up Study.MethodsData from the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) for the first 3 years after randomization were evaluated semiannually. Analyses were stratified by assigned treatment (129 implants vs. 126 systemic therapies) because of substantial differences in the trajectories of VRQoL. The impact of baseline measurements of visual function (visual acuity and visual field), demographics, and disease characteristics was assessed using generalized estimating equations.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the NEI-VFQ-25 composite score over 3 years after randomization.ResultsIndividuals in both treatment groups showed similar improvement in NEI-VFQ-25 scores after 3 years of follow-up (implant: 11.9 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.6-15.2; P < 0.001; systemic: 9.0 points; 95% CI, 5.6-12.3; P < 0.001; P = 0.21 for interaction). Individuals in the implant group showed a substantial improvement during the first 6 months followed by stable scores, whereas individuals in the systemic group showed a steady improvement over the course of follow-up. Worse initial visual acuity and visual fields were associated with lower initial NEI-VFQ-25 scores for both treatment groups. In the systemic group, these differences were maintained throughout follow-up. In the implant group, individuals with initial visual acuity worse than 20/40 showed additional improvement in NEI-VFQ-25 score to come within -7 points (95% CI, -15.0 to 0.9) of those with visual acuity 20/40 or better initially, a clinically meaningful but not statistically significant difference (P = 0.081). Results based on sensitivity analyses showed similar patterns.ConclusionsBoth treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements in NEI-VFQ-25 scores; however, the improvement was immediate for the implant group as opposed to gradual for the systemic group. Poorer visual function was associated significantly with initial differences in NEI-VFQ-25 scores. However, only individuals in the implant group with poor visual acuity were able to overcome their initial deficits by the end of 3 years.

Project description:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Alimera Sciences, the company manufacturing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) 0.19 mg (tradename ILUVIEN®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of FAc for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre?+?, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper contains a summary of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company, the ERG's critique on the submitted evidence, and the guidance issued by the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company submission (CS) was mainly informed by the PSV-FAI-001 trial in which FAc was compared with (limited) current practice [(L)CP], which was not considered to be representative of UK clinical practice by the ERG. There was no comparison of FAc to any treatment listed in the final scope, and especially to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (dexamethasone), which was considered to be a relevant comparator by the AC. The primary outcome of the PSV-FAI-001 was recurrence of uveitis in the treated eye. Most of the events for the primary outcome were imputed during the PSV-FAI-001 trial, which probably led to an overestimation of the number of recurrences of disease, and a biased estimate of the relative effectiveness of FAc versus (L)CP. Finally, the place of FAc in the treatment pathway was not clearly defined by the company. Substantial uncertainty surrounded the cost-effectiveness results due to the shortcomings of the clinical evidence. Additionally, the quality of life of patients was not measured during the PSV-FAI-001 trial and long-term effectiveness data of FAc were lacking. The ERG adjusted several issues identified in the CS and added dexamethasone as a comparator in the decision analytic model. The ERG presented multiple analyses as base-cases because several elements of the assessment remained uncertain. The fully incremental ERG results ranged from dexamethasone (extendedly) dominating FAc (when assuming a hazard ratio of 1 or 0.7 for dexamethasone versus FAc) to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30,153 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for FAc versus (L)CP [when assuming a hazard ratio of 0.456 for dexamethasone versus (L)CP]. The ICER of FAc versus (L)CP ranged from £12,325 to £30,153 per QALY gained. After a second AC meeting where alternative company scenarios comparing FAc with dexamethasone were considered by the AC, the AC concluded that "the results of the company's analyses ranged from the fluocinolone acetonide implant being dominant (that is, it was more effective and costs less), to an ICER of £29,461 per QALY gained, and most of the ICERs were below £20,000 per QALY gained". Therefore, the AC recommended FAc as a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye in the final TA590 guidance (published July 2019).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the relative effectiveness of systemic corticosteroids plus immunosuppression when indicated (systemic therapy) versus fluocinolone acetonide implant (implant therapy) for noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis (uveitis).DesignRandomized controlled parallel superiority trial.ParticipantsPatients with active or recently active uveitis.MethodsParticipants were randomized (allocation ratio 1:1) to systemic or implant therapy at 23 centers (3 countries). Implant-assigned participants with bilateral uveitis were assigned to have each eye that warranted study treatment implanted. Treatment-outcome associations were analyzed by assigned treatment for all eyes with uveitis.Main outcome measuresMasked examiners measured the primary outcome: change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported quality of life, ophthalmologist-graded uveitis activity, and local and systemic complications of uveitis or therapy. Reading Center graders and glaucoma specialists assessing ocular complications were masked. Participants, ophthalmologists, and coordinators were unmasked.ResultsOn evaluation of changes from baseline to 24 months among 255 patients randomized to implant and systemic therapy (479 eyes with uveitis), the implant and systemic therapy groups had an improvement in visual acuity of +6.0 and +3.2 letters (P = 0.16, 95% confidence interval on difference in improvement between groups, -1.2 to +6.7 letters, positive values favoring implant), an improvement in vision-related quality of life of +11.4 and +6.8 units (P = 0.043), a change in EuroQol-EQ5D health utility of +0.02 and -0.02 (P = 0.060), and residual active uveitis in 12% and 29% (P=0.001), respectively. Over the 24 month period, implant-assigned eyes had a higher risk of cataract surgery (80%, hazard ratio [HR] = 3.3, P < 0.0001), treatment for elevated intraocular pressure (61%, HR=4.2, P < 0.0001), and glaucoma (17%, HR=4.2, P = 0.0008). Patients assigned to systemic therapy had more prescription-requiring infections than patients assigned to implant therapy (0.60 vs 0.36/person-year, P=0.034), without notable long-term consequences; systemic adverse outcomes otherwise were unusual in both groups, with minimal differences between groups.ConclusionsIn each treatment group, mean visual acuity improved over 24 months, with neither approach superior to a degree detectable with the study's power. Therefore, the specific advantages and disadvantages identified should dictate selection between the alternative treatments in consideration of individual patients' particular circumstances. Systemic therapy with aggressive use of corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppression was well tolerated, suggesting that this approach is reasonably safe for local and systemic inflammatory disorders.Financial disclosure(s)Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.